Bonds and Tax Accounts Are Rituals 

Most likely, when you discuss federal spending with the general public, people will tell you that the federal government must tax or borrow before it can spend. If you choose to see federal spending from the premise that the federal government is dependent on the private sector, then you unwittingly empower certain entities within the private sector who are both undeserving of and unauthorised to have that power. Ironically, it is not big business, or people such as the Koch’s or the Walton family that are directly responsible for the public’s misconception of who is in charge. Through its behaviour, it is the federal government itself that is most directly responsible for disseminating private sector supremacy nonsense.

The US Dollar Must Be Infinite, Because Real Resources Are Finite

I hate the term “money”. It is vague. I prefer taking the time to say or type “US dollars”, “British pounds”, etc. After all, when people in the US ask, “Hey, you got any money?”, they are asking, “Hey, you got any US dollars?” Bread, green, brass, bob, quid, dough, bucks – it’s all US dollars, British pounds, etc., to which people are referring. The reason for this is because the US dollar is the most widely accepted monetary instrument in the US. 

Brief Notes for Wednesday Morning, 20.07.2016

Vacation is still ongoing, ending on Friday. Therefore, this explains the family pictures and political jabs on Facebook and the lack of economics content. Today, in brief, I'll explain what QE is and the "purpose" behind it.

The term QE, or “Quantitative Easing” was coined by Richard Werner, with whom I’ve had the great misfortune to debate on several occasions; an activity which I do not recommend, unless you fancy having your carefully crafted, well-reasoned arguments dismissed with the childish phrase, “That’s Fed PR!”, or something along the lines of, “The New York Fed controls the Federal Reserve”. In short, if extreme annoyance and high blood pressure is your thing, you’ll do well to accept an invitation to debate Werner. 

Anyway…

Brief Notes for Tuesday Morning, 19.07.2016

First, on my list is this persistent “wasted vote” nonsense spewing from Hillary supporters. 

“A vote for Jill Stein is a vote for Trump!” 

Irretrievable nonsense. Neoliberals within the Un-Democratic Party will say anything, childishly “bullying” progressives into supporting that vile, neoliberal, economic illiterate Hillary Clinton. 

So, let’s be clear:

1. a vote for Jill Stein is a vote for Jill Stein
2. a vote for Trump is a vote for Trump, and
3. a vote for Hillary is a vote for Hillary 

Nothing more elegant than that. Applying any alternative meaning is nothing less than an attempt to bully people into foregoing their right to choose. If I vote for Jill Stein and Trump wins, my candidate lost, but I did not vote for Trump. Not my fault. Blame Trump voters. If I vote for Trump and Hillary wins, my candidate lost, but I did not vote for Hillary. Not my fault. Blame Clinton voters. If I vote for Jill Stein and she does win, feel free to blame me for your neoliberal candidate’s loss. 

Macroeconomics: It's about efficiency. 

We ask what real resources a nation has and then ask how that nation can best utilize those real resources in the most sustainable manner possible, enabling all to derive good benefit from the economy. On this correct view, it is quite clear that the specious neo-liberal concept of efficiency, defined as "sacrifice"; manifesting as deliberate deficit reduction and the shifting of fiscal policy away from the public purpose (austerity), results in high levels of unemployment, crumbling infrastructure and social decay. In a word: inefficiency.

Towards a progressive concept of efficiency – Part 1

Illustrating Macroeconomic Inefficiency

We can easily illustrate macroeconomic inefficiency by examining the US food supply. We ask: the purpose of farmland is to do what with it? Produce food. Next, we ask, does the US have immense agricultural resources available? Yes. So then, what do we do today?

First, we pay farmers not to grow X or Y. Then, we utilize farmland to grow crops, not to feed humans, but to feed cattle that would prefer grass and to create unnecessary biofuels. Let us also ship off some of the food that we do produce for humans to other nations that they may benefit from our production. The result? A reduced supply of food and inefficiency. Who benefits? Not the public.

"Gasoline prices lowest in a decade"

Just waiting now for the Fed to claim that the sluggish economy will improve in the fall when consumers begin spending the dollars that they saved from low summer gasoline prices.