I’m interrupting my series on US Government Real Fiscal Responsibility since the Carter Administration to write about something Chris Hayes said relating to Real Fiscal Responsibility. Back in February of 2014, he tweeted:
Recently, that tweet along with an image has been making the rounds on Facebook as an Alternet photo. The sound bite in the tweet looks great, after the manner of a logical truism.
But, logically, it doesn’t follow, because one can easily say that as long as the Government implicit in the statement isn’t a currency issuer, but a currency user who must acquire its funds by taxing or borrowing alone, that Government can involuntarily run out of funds. And it is conceivable that funds might be raised to fund a war, while that same Government might not have the funds available to take care of the people who fought for the nation, without defaulting on its obligations. Continue reading
By William K. Black
I just wrote a column noting that the business interests trying to panic the Scots against voting to restore their independence were so clueless that they were citing RBS – the bank that epitomized the fraud epidemics that drove the UK economic collapse. As I have explained in prior columns, the City of London “won” the race to the bottom with Wall Street and became the most shameful and destructive fraud vector in the world.
In the day since I wrote my column three developments reflect the increasing desperation. First, a poll showed (for the first time) the “yes” campaign with a small lead. Second, the UK began to try to entice, rather than threaten, Scotland with vague promises of increased autonomy should the Scots vote against independence. Third, the “no” campaign has wheeled out Gordon Brown to write a column in the New York Times opposing independence.
By William K. Black
I do not know whether the Scots should vote for independence. I assume that the odds are they will vote against it. I do know that the reasons advanced for voting against independence by business interest are false. Indeed, the opposite of what they claim is far more likely to be true. What I find a joy to behold, however, is the suggestion by the banksters that the Scots should get their economic advice about independence from a group of failed and often fraudulent parasites and that they should avoid any action that creates “uncertainty” or would cause them to act as a Nation rather than a U.K. province. There is a serious effort to make independence from the Brits sound like the path of economic madness.
By William K. Black
I was peacefully reading a BBC article on Ecuador’s plans to introduce a digital currency to bring banking services to the rural poor, when in the midst of the article the anonymous author decided to attack President Rafael Correa because Ecuador borrows money from China.
“Ecuador introduced the US dollar as its currency after a crippling bank crisis in 2000. Since then, the government has tripled social spending and the state is currently billions in debt, mostly to China which buys most of Ecuador’s oil.”
The reader is meant to understand that Correa is recklessly increasing “social spending” through massive public borrowing from China. How did a story purportedly about an innovative program to marry new mobile telephony technology and a new digital currency to bring banking services to the rural poor suddenly include this gratuitous attack on Correa? Because any excuse will do if you piss off the Brits by giving sanctuary to Mr. Assange.
By Joe Firestone
This, the fifth post in a series evaluating the fiscal responsibility/irresponsibility of the Governments of the United States (mostly the Congress, the Executive Branch, and the Federal Reserve) by Administration periods, beginning in 1977 to 1981 with the Jimmy Carter period, will cover the performance of the Government on the environment and climate change aspect of “public purpose.” Posts 1, 2, 3, and 4, discussed some basic definitions and assumptions of the series and evaluated Government performance relating to economic stagnation, living wage full employment, price stability/inflation, implementing universal health care, and educational reform.
I’ve explained why fiscal responsibility is closely connected to the idea of public purpose, in this post prior to beginning the series. You’ll want to read it, if you want to know what I mean by “public purpose,” and see what else that pregnant term includes, apart from enhancing the environment.
Posted in Joe Firestone
Tagged Austerians, austerity, Carter Administration, debt and deficits, Energy, environmental degradation, EPA, expanded policy space, Interior, MMT, modern money theory, pollution, public purpose, REAL fiscal responsibility
A Modern Money Network contributor – Jason Kessler put together this beautiful graphic based on Randy Wray’s Meme for Money series that appeared here on NEP.
By J.D. Alt
Why do so many people—including the authors of most economics textbooks—believe the U.S. banking system creates the U.S. dollars we earn and spend and pay our taxes with? It’s because the U.S. banking system does, in fact, “issue” the great majority of the dollars we use—by making loans to businesses and citizens which are not backed by “real” dollars the banks have on deposit. What everyone overlooks, however (for reasons not entirely clear) is the fact that these new loan dollars are “made real” by the U.S. government’s solemn promise to convert them at any time, on demand, into actual, “real”, sovereign U.S. dollars. The U.S. government is able to make this promise because, by law, it can issue the necessary actual dollars by fiat (by simply “declaring” the dollars into existence.) A lot of people (again for reasons not entirely clear) don’t like to hear that last part. But it’s simply a fact of life: the cash dollar bills you get from an ATM machine are not printed up (created) by the banks—they are printed (or created electronically as needed) ONLY by the U.S. sovereign government.
By William K. Black
I have just written a column about the New York Times’ financial journalist, Floyd Norris’ August 20, 2014 column decrying attacks on those who detect and seek to sanction elite frauds. Norris’ focus was on the Chinese government attacks on whistleblowers who “detect” elite frauds. Norris bemoaned that those who detect elite fraud suffer far more than those that commit it.
My column pointed out that the practice of elite frauds, in league with their protectors in government and the media, attack those that detect and seek to sanction elite frauds in every country. Indeed, I showed that Norris had aided and abetted the SEC’s leadership’s smears of Gary Aguirre, the SEC whistleblower who detected evidence of what he (and his superiors) considered likely fraud by elites. His SEC superiors, however, blocked the investigation when they discovered it would lead to John Mack, the soon-to-be CEO of Morgan Stanley, one of the world’s largest investment banks.
By Michael Hoexter
The psychiatrist and social commentator, Robert Jay Lifton had a far reaching and oddly hopeful op-ed in the New York Times, in which he comments upon a “climate swerve” in public opinion. While the United States still leads the world in climate denial and Republicans are seemingly still united around denying the human contribution to climate destabilization, Lifton points out that recent polls have shown that:
“Americans’ certainty that the earth is warming has increased over the past three years”
“those who think global warming is not happening have become substantially less sure of their position”
Lifton outlines the social psychology of the moment:
“Falsification and denial, while still all too extensive, have come to require more defensive psychic energy and political chicanery”
If you’re reading this you’ve landed near but not at the beginning of my very lengthy series evaluating the fiscal responsibility/irresponsibility of the Governments of the United States (mostly the Congress, the Executive Branch, and the Federal Reserve) by Administration periods, beginning in 1977 – 1981 with the Jimmy Carter period. My first post explained why I chose to start my evaluation with the Carter period, and also laid out my related definitions of fiscal sustainability, and fiscal responsibility.
It explained why fiscal responsibility is closely connected to the idea of public purpose, which I laid out in this post prior to beginning the series. You may want to consult that post, if you want to know what I mean by “public purpose.” I also claimed that the Government of the United States has been fiscally irresponsible in every Administration period since 1977.
Posted in Joe Firestone
Tagged Austerians, austerity, Carter Administration, debt and deficits, Department of Education, Education Reform, expanded policy space, MMT, modern money theory, public purpose, REAL fiscal responsibility