PLEASE vote #44 Frederick Soddy, “The Role Of Money” A Vote to Change Direction-Trickle UP not Down https://rwer.wordpress.com/2016/05/25/poll-now-open-for-you-to-vote-for-the-top-10-economics-books-of-the-last-100-years/ …
Poll now open for you to vote for the “Top 10 Economics Books of the Last 100 Years”
May 25, 2016 Editor
From your nominations over the past month, a short list of 50 books has been complied. The poll will remain open for two weeks. You may vote for ten books. The books are listed in alphabetical order by author on your ballot below.
What are the top 10 economics books of the last 100 years
44 Frederick Soddy, The Role Of Money, (1934)
CLICK ON SITE
Check NUMBER 44
Poll now open for you to vote for the “Top 10 Economics Books of the Last 100 Years”
Vote
Vote and ,please share,
Thanks,
Justaluckyfool.
justaluckyfool@aol.com
Presidential Candidates; Debt Solution, Minimum Wage Solution,S.S. and Medicare.
All are dependent upon one thing-“Where will you get the money ?”
So, How do you lower Federal Personal Income Taxes, increase Social Security,
free Zero Deductible Medicare for vets, while at the same time lower the national debt?
Fractalerts
Counting Down Debt
How the Presidential candidates will address the increasing US national debt…
https://www.fractalerts.com/blog/3788-counting-down-debt
Let’s get this disclaimer out here now; we do not endorse any political party. We have written this piece as a way of introducing how the front runners in this year’s US Presidential race will aim to eradicate the government debt, if elected. We have attempted to be balanced and fair, allowing you to make up your own mind from the facts given. If there is something you feel we’ve omitted or failed to omit, get in touch, we’d love to hear from you.
Now onto the blog…..
You Call That A Debt…
The US currently has $19trillion worth of national debt. Okay, admittedly that figure is a little old, but the 1st February 2016 was when the figure clicked over to the $19trillion mark. Sticklers among you should head to the Debt Clock, where you can see the debt rise in real- time [editor: at the time of writing it was around $19,262,145,950,641].
For the purposed of this article we are going to round that number down to a $19trillion even. But that still means that there is around $58,000 worth of debt for each American citizen (including the kids).
And how has the US got to this point? Well, ultimately it’s the way that everyone gets into debt… outgoings are more that incomes. But in this instance there is also the joy of compound interest…
But, some analysts believe that if nothing is done about it, the national debt will be around $30trillion in a decade. And that’s a best case scenario, based on government spending and policy as it currently stands. Arguably, with a figure like that, Presidential nominees are considering how they’ll have to tackle it if they get into the Oval Office.
Trump’s Targets
Donald Trump, arguably one of America’s best known business men and almost certainly the Republican representative for the Presidency, has been outspoken about the ways in which he would tackle the national debt. Firstly, Trump went on the record to say that, given the right tools, he would be able to eradicate the debt in eight years. Citing his business acumen and his experience, he deemed that it was a reasonable expectation.
In response, there was a furor from the left who said that it wasn’t possible. There was a furor from the right, who agreed (most notable Ted Cruz who claimed Trump’s calculator ‘is missing a few keys’). Eventually the noise was such that Trump had to reconsider his position. He suggested that instead of removing the national debt in a period of eight years, he would in fact be able to pay off a “percentage of it” in ten.
Most recently, however, Trump caused more questioning of his policy towards government debt and rocking the bonds market in the process. Last week Trump initially said, “I would borrow, knowing that if the economy crashed, you could make a deal” to pay bondholders less than full value on the debt owed to them. After the bonds markets went up in arms (and down in price), Trump again clarified his position, and stated that “bonds [are] sacred” and he won’t be using them to move the mountain of government debt.
***********TRUMP PROPOSALS….Maybe, perhaps a better deal..
justaluckyfool, on May 14, 2016 at 9:37 am said:
The Fed has already proven that it can do this at a profit to the US Treasury (“we the people”) and with no increase in the debt (it is an asset purchase).
Make America Great Again !
**Why not Trump ? (RAP) Renaissance for the American People.
Donald J Trump,
Gandhi’s famous quote: ““First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, and then you win.”
You will win with your response to your valid reasoning of ” A Monetary Sovereignty can not default because they are the issuer of the currency…
” if the debt is in their currency”. Period.
OMG, OMG, OMG, Historic opportunity!
Washington,Jefferson,Lincoln and TRUMP??
On the same page.
“Print the Money”: Trump’s “Reckless” Proposal Echoes Franklin and Lincoln
Posted on May 14, 2016 by Ellen Brown
“Print the money” has been called crazy talk, but it may be the only sane solution to a $19 trillion federal debt that has doubled in the last 10 years. The solution of Abraham Lincoln and the American colonists can still work today.
“Reckless,” “alarming,” “disastrous,” “swashbuckling,” “playing with fire,” “crazy talk,” “lost in a forest of nonsense”: these are a few of the labels applied by media commentators to Donald Trump’s latest proposal for dealing with the federal debt. On Monday, May 9th, the presumptive Republican presidential candidate said on CNN, “You print the money.”
The remark was in response to a firestorm created the previous week, when Trump was asked if the US should pay its debt in full or possibly negotiate partial repayment. He replied, “I would borrow, knowing that if the economy crashed, you could make a deal.” Commentators took this to mean a default. On May 9, Trump countered that he was misquoted:
People said I want to go and buy debt and default on debt – these people are crazy. This is the United States government. First of all, you never have to default because you print the money, I hate to tell you, okay? So there’s never a default.
That remark wasn’t exactly crazy. It echoed one by former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, who said in 2011:
The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that. So there is zero probability of default.
Paying the government’s debts by just issuing the money is as American as apple pie – if you go back far enough. Benjamin Franklin attributed the remarkable growth of the American colonies to this innovative funding solution. Abraham Lincoln revived the colonial system of government-issued money when he endorsed the printing of $450 million in US Notes or “greenbacks” during the Civil War. The greenbacks not only helped the Union win the war but triggered a period of robust national growth and saved the taxpayers about $14 billion in interest payments.
But back to Trump. He went on to explain:
I said if we can buy back government debt at a discount – in other words, if interest rates go up and we can buy bonds back at a discount – if we are liquid enough as a country we should do that.
Apparently he was referring to the fact that when interest rates go up, long-term bonds at the lower rate become available on the secondary market at a discount. Anyone who holds the bonds to maturity still gets full value, but many investors want to cash out early and are willing to take less. As explained on MorningStar.com:
If a bond with a 5% coupon and a ten-year maturity is sold on the secondary market today while newly issued ten-year bonds have a 6% coupon, then the 5% bond will sell for $92.56 (par value $100).
But critics still were not satisfied. In an article titled “Why Donald Trump’s Debt Proposal Is Reckless,” CNNMoney said:
[T]he federal government doesn’t have any money to buy debt back with. The U.S. already has $19 trillion in debt. Trump’s plan would require the U.S. Treasury to issue new debt to buy old debt.
Trump, however, was not talking about borrowing the money. He was talking about printing the money. CNNMoney’s response was:
That can cause inflation (or even hyperinflation), and send prices of everything from food to rent skyrocketing.
The Hyperinflation that Wasn’t
CNN was not alone in calling the notion of printing our way out of debt recklessly inflationary. But would it be? The Federal Reserve has already bought $4.5 trillion in assets, $2.7 trillion of which were federal securities, simply by “printing the money.”
When the Fed’s QE program was initiated, critics called it recklessly hyperinflationary. But it did not even create the modest 2% inflation the Fed was aiming for. QE was combined with ZIRP – zero interest rates for banks – encouraging borrowing for speculation, driving up the stock market and real estate. But the Consumer Price Index, productivity and jobs barely budged.
While the Fed has stopped its QE program for the time being, the European Central Bank and the Bank of Japan have jumped in, buying back massive amounts of their own governments’ debts by simply issuing the money. There too, the inflation needle has barely budged. As noted on CNBC in February:
Central banks have been pumping money into the global economy without a whole lot to show for it other than sharply higher stock prices, and even that has been on the downturn for the past year.
Growth remains anemic, and worries are escalating that the U.S. and the rest of the world are on the brink of a recession, despite bargain-basement interest rates and trillions in liquidity.
Helicopter Money Goes Mainstream
European economists and central bankers are wringing their hands over what to do about a flagging economy despite radical austerity measures and increasingly unrepayable debt. One suggestion gaining traction is “helicopter money” – just issue money and drop it directly into the economy in some way. In QE as done today, the newly issued money makes it no further than the balance sheets of banks. It does not get into the producing economy or the pockets of consumers, where it would need to go in order to create the demand necessary to stimulate productivity. Helicopter money would create that demand. Proposed alternatives include a universal national dividend; zero or low interest loans to local governments; and “people’s QE” for infrastructure, job creation, student debt relief, etc.
Simply buying back federal securities with money issued by the central bank (or the U.S. Treasury) would also get money into the real economy, if Congress were allowed to increase its budget in tandem. As observed in The Economist on May 1, 2016:
Advocates of helicopter money do not really intend to throw money out of aircraft. Broadly speaking, they argue for fiscal stimulus—in the form of government spending, tax cuts or direct payments to citizens—financed with newly printed money rather than through borrowing or taxation. Quantitative easing (QE) qualifies, so long as the central bank buying the government bonds promises to hold them to maturity, with interest payments and principal remitted back to the government like most central-bank profits.
As Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, wrote in response to the debt ceiling crisis in November 2010:
There is no reason that the Fed can’t just buy this debt (as it is largely doing) and hold it indefinitely. If the Fed holds the debt, there is no interest burden for future taxpayers. The Fed refunds its interest earnings to the Treasury every year. Last year the Fed refunded almost $80 billion in interest to the Treasury, nearly 40 percent of the country’s net interest burden. And the Fed has other tools to ensure that the expansion of the monetary base required to purchase the debt does not lead to inflation.
An even cleaner solution would be to simply void out the debt held by the Fed. That was the 2011 proposal of then-presidential candidate Ron Paul for dealing with the debt ceiling crisis. As his proposal was explained in Time Magazine, today the Treasury pays interest on its securities to the Fed, which returns 90% of these payments to the Treasury. Despite this shell game of payments, the $1.7 trillion in US bonds owned by the Fed is still counted toward the debt ceiling. Paul’s plan:
Get the Fed and the Treasury to rip up that debt. It’s fake debt anyway. And the Fed is legally allowed to return the debt to the Treasury to be destroyed.
Congressman Alan Grayson, a Democrat, also endorsed this proposal.
Financial author Richard Duncan makes a strong case for going further than just monetizing existing debt. He argues that under current market conditions, the US could actually rebuild its collapsing infrastructure by just printing the money, without causing price inflation. Prices go up when demand (money) exceeds supply (goods and services); and with automation and the availability of cheap labor in vast global markets today, supply can keep up with demand for decades to come. Duncan observes:
The combination of fiat money and Globalization creates a unique moment in history where the governments of the developed economies can print money on an aggressive scale without causing inflation. They should take advantage of this once-in-history opportunity . . . .
Returning the Power to Create Money to the People
The right of government to issue its own money was one of the principles for which the American Revolution was fought. Americans are increasingly waking up to the fact that the vast majority of the money supply is no longer issued by the government but is created by private banks when they make loans; and that with that power goes enormous power over the economy itself.
The issue that should be debated is one that dominated political discussion in the 19th century but that few candidates are even aware of today: should creation and control of the money supply be public or private? Donald Trump’s willingness to transgress the conservative taboo against public money creation is a welcome step in opening that debate.
________________
Ellen Brown is an attorney, Founder of the Public Banking Institute, and author of twelve books, including the best-selling Web of Debt. Her latest book, The Public Bank Solution, explores successful public banking models historically and globally. Her 300+ blog articles are at EllenBrown.com. She can be heard biweekly on “It’s Our Money with Ellen Brown” on PRN.FM.
WHY not STATE PUBLIC OWNED BANKS (SPOB) with an Honest Central Bank to reverse..”Where We Went Wrong and Fix It.”
Thank you, Ellen Brown for your due examination…
The National Debt: A THING OF BEAUTY.
April 4, 2016
The National Debt: A THING OF BEAUTY.
When a Monetary Sovereignty spends more money than that which it has taken out of its own currency circulation: it must “borrow” (as per US Constitution). This creates the debt of the entire sovereignty,that debt being in that currency.When a Monetary Sovereignty has a debt in its own currency that debt is a deposit in its Central Bank. The owner of the “Debt Deposit” may withdraw upon demand; however the owner then loses the protections and safety of the credit of the sovereignty. Stop paying interest on bank reserves, and stop issuing Treasury bills and bonds with interest payments attached.
Issue USTBB, allow the holders the safety of the American Dollar being held for them until they seek redemption.
Then proceed to pay off the entire Federal Debt?
AN ASSET SWAP:
***The ease with which the government’s debt could be paid in this way was demonstrated in January 2004****
As the chairman of the Coinage Subcommittee observed in the 1980s, the entire federal debt could actually be paid in this way. The Federal Reserve has already established that it can issue $4.5 trillion in accounting-entry QE without triggering hyperinflation. In fact, it has not succeeded in triggering the modest inflation the exercise was designed for. As with QE, paying the federal debt in this way would just be an asset swap, replacing an interest-bearing obligation with a non-interest-bearing one.(” A better aset swap would be “US TREASURY BEARER BONDS” (USTBB)!!!!! The market for goods and services would not be flooded with “new” money that would inflate the prices of consumer goods, because the bond holders would not consider themselves any richer than before. They presumably had their money in bonds in the first place because they wanted to save it rather than spend it. They would no doubt continue to save it,…(surely they would realize safety versus risk concerns.)
The ease with which the government’s debt could be paid in this way was demonstrated in January 2004, when the US Treasury called a 30-year bond issue before its due date. The bonds were redeemed “at par” to avoid a 9-1/8% interest rate, which was then well above market rates. The Treasury’s January 15, 2004 announcement said that payment would be made “in book entry form,” meaning numbers were simply entered into the Treasury’s online money market fund (Treasury Direct). In effect, the money just moved from an online savings account to an online depository account, converting interest-bearing bonds into non-interest-bearing cash.
Where did the Treasury get the money to refinance this $3 billion bond issue at a lower interest rate? Whether it came from the private banking system or from the Federal Reserve, it was no doubt created out of thin air. As Federal Reserve Board Chairman Marriner Eccles testified before the House Banking and Currency Committee in 1935:
When the banks buy a billion dollars of Government bonds as they are offered . . .
they actually create, by a bookkeeping entry, a billion dollars.
The US government can just as easily create this money by a bookkeeping entry
itself. It can and it should, to avoid the interest charges that compound
the national debt and make it unrepayable.
BUT,YOU NEED NOT STOP THERE- CREATE US TREASURY BEARER BONDS:
YOU MAY NEVER, yes, NEVER HAVE TO PRINT ALL THE MONEY !!!!
Quote Thomas Edison, “…Whereas the currency, the honest sort provided by the Constitution pays nobody…”
But the owners of the debt are now just deposits.
Berning Money…?
Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders, (who looks like he isn’t going to be the Democratic nominee but certainly isn’t going down without a fight) has a very different approach to the national debt. His proposals are some of the most ambitious and sweeping of all the presidential candidates, but they are also some of the most expensive.
When you crunch the numbers, the senator from Vermont could end up adding $18trillion to the national debt, with a further $3trillion being tacked on as interest costs.
But unlike Trump, Sander’s isn’t backing up. He knows that it is expensive, but still plans to unleash a single-payer health care system, bump up Social Security, and also introduce paid maternity leave in his “revolution”. Sure these things would be beneficial to some sectors of the population, but they are also going to increase national debt significantly which you simply can’t ignore.
This was Bernies ‘Waterloo, Little Big Horn.
Even with the help of MMTers Bernie did not declare that
the debt ‘need not be paid off. When asked ‘How he was to pay for his proposed increased entitlements, Bernie then created his fatal would: He advocated a tax increase.
Clinton’s Two Cents…
The former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, sees a rising debt liability as a national security issue, limiting the capabilities of the US and causing it to appear weak internationally. But, unfortunately, that’s about all she’s said on the subject. The likely Democratic candidate hasn’t offered much in the way of solutions to getting down the debt, in fact she is fairly tight lipped on the matter. However, despite this, analysts have suggested that her policies, if implemented, would add another $1.9trillion to the already escalating national figure.
Although many think her policies are sound, critics have been quick to point out that Clinton’s ideas make her an “old-fashioned tax-and-spend Democrat”, that is to say that most of her proposals are going to be financed by higher taxes, with other policy proposals like enacting immigration reform making up most of the remaining difference.
YES, the Clinton,s two cents;
that’s all it is worth. The Clinton platform calls for a ‘status quo’ of debt and servitude.
But Why Are People Even Bothering?
Maybe Trump’s plan to eradicate the $19trillion through renegotiating debt is going to win out; perhaps Sanders will go from being the under-dog to the top-dog, wracking up an additional $21trillion in the process; or maybe President Clinton mark II is going to add a little to the escalating debt as she takes office. Either way, why bother?
The IMF suggested last year that the best course of action for some countries – the US included – is to do nothing about their debt burdens. Not one thing. Nothing. Nada.
Their bottom line: the wisest course for some countries would be to stop distorting economies to deliberately pay down national debt, as this only adds to the burden of the debt, rather than reducing it.
So maybe, whoever wins out, it doesn’t matter what they do with the government debt, just so long as the clock keeps ticking.
CONCLUSION.
***** “Believe nothing merely because you have been told it…But whatsoever,
after due examination and analysis,you find to be kind, conducive to the good,
the benefit,the welfare of all beings – that doctrine believe and cling to,and
take it as your guide.”- Buddha[Gautama Siddharta] (563 – 483 BC),
Share and then share again, why would you not want prosperity?
OMG, OMG, OMG, Historic opportunity!
Washington,Jefferson,Lincoln and TRUMP??
On the same page.
“Print the Money”: Trump’s “Reckless” Proposal Echoes Franklin and Lincoln
Posted on May 14, 2016 by Ellen Brown
“Print the money” has been called crazy talk, but it may be the only sane solution to a $19 trillion federal debt that has doubled in the last 10 years. The solution of Abraham Lincoln and the American colonists can still work today.
“Reckless,” “alarming,” “disastrous,” “swashbuckling,” “playing with fire,” “crazy talk,” “lost in a forest of nonsense”: these are a few of the labels applied by media commentators to Donald Trump’s latest proposal for dealing with the federal debt. On Monday, May 9th, the presumptive Republican presidential candidate said on CNN, “You print the money.”
The remark was in response to a firestorm created the previous week, when Trump was asked if the US should pay its debt in full or possibly negotiate partial repayment. He replied, “I would borrow, knowing that if the economy crashed, you could make a deal.” Commentators took this to mean a default. On May 9, Trump countered that he was misquoted:
People said I want to go and buy debt and default on debt – these people are crazy. This is the United States government. First of all, you never have to default because you print the money, I hate to tell you, okay? So there’s never a default.
That remark wasn’t exactly crazy. It echoed one by former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, who said in 2011:
The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that. So there is zero probability of default.
Paying the government’s debts by just issuing the money is as American as apple pie – if you go back far enough. Benjamin Franklin attributed the remarkable growth of the American colonies to this innovative funding solution. Abraham Lincoln revived the colonial system of government-issued money when he endorsed the printing of $450 million in US Notes or “greenbacks” during the Civil War. The greenbacks not only helped the Union win the war but triggered a period of robust national growth and saved the taxpayers about $14 billion in interest payments.
But back to Trump. He went on to explain:
I said if we can buy back government debt at a discount – in other words, if interest rates go up and we can buy bonds back at a discount – if we are liquid enough as a country we should do that.
Apparently he was referring to the fact that when interest rates go up, long-term bonds at the lower rate become available on the secondary market at a discount. Anyone who holds the bonds to maturity still gets full value, but many investors want to cash out early and are willing to take less. As explained on MorningStar.com:
If a bond with a 5% coupon and a ten-year maturity is sold on the secondary market today while newly issued ten-year bonds have a 6% coupon, then the 5% bond will sell for $92.56 (par value $100).
But critics still were not satisfied. In an article titled “Why Donald Trump’s Debt Proposal Is Reckless,” CNNMoney said:
[T]he federal government doesn’t have any money to buy debt back with. The U.S. already has $19 trillion in debt. Trump’s plan would require the U.S. Treasury to issue new debt to buy old debt.
Trump, however, was not talking about borrowing the money. He was talking about printing the money. CNNMoney’s response was:
That can cause inflation (or even hyperinflation), and send prices of everything from food to rent skyrocketing.
The Hyperinflation that Wasn’t
CNN was not alone in calling the notion of printing our way out of debt recklessly inflationary. But would it be? The Federal Reserve has already bought $4.5 trillion in assets, $2.7 trillion of which were federal securities, simply by “printing the money.”
When the Fed’s QE program was initiated, critics called it recklessly hyperinflationary. But it did not even create the modest 2% inflation the Fed was aiming for. QE was combined with ZIRP – zero interest rates for banks – encouraging borrowing for speculation, driving up the stock market and real estate. But the Consumer Price Index, productivity and jobs barely budged.
While the Fed has stopped its QE program for the time being, the European Central Bank and the Bank of Japan have jumped in, buying back massive amounts of their own governments’ debts by simply issuing the money. There too, the inflation needle has barely budged. As noted on CNBC in February:
Central banks have been pumping money into the global economy without a whole lot to show for it other than sharply higher stock prices, and even that has been on the downturn for the past year.
Growth remains anemic, and worries are escalating that the U.S. and the rest of the world are on the brink of a recession, despite bargain-basement interest rates and trillions in liquidity.
Helicopter Money Goes Mainstream
European economists and central bankers are wringing their hands over what to do about a flagging economy despite radical austerity measures and increasingly unrepayable debt. One suggestion gaining traction is “helicopter money” – just issue money and drop it directly into the economy in some way. In QE as done today, the newly issued money makes it no further than the balance sheets of banks. It does not get into the producing economy or the pockets of consumers, where it would need to go in order to create the demand necessary to stimulate productivity. Helicopter money would create that demand. Proposed alternatives include a universal national dividend; zero or low interest loans to local governments; and “people’s QE” for infrastructure, job creation, student debt relief, etc.
Simply buying back federal securities with money issued by the central bank (or the U.S. Treasury) would also get money into the real economy, if Congress were allowed to increase its budget in tandem. As observed in The Economist on May 1, 2016:
Advocates of helicopter money do not really intend to throw money out of aircraft. Broadly speaking, they argue for fiscal stimulus—in the form of government spending, tax cuts or direct payments to citizens—financed with newly printed money rather than through borrowing or taxation. Quantitative easing (QE) qualifies, so long as the central bank buying the government bonds promises to hold them to maturity, with interest payments and principal remitted back to the government like most central-bank profits.
As Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, wrote in response to the debt ceiling crisis in November 2010:
There is no reason that the Fed can’t just buy this debt (as it is largely doing) and hold it indefinitely. If the Fed holds the debt, there is no interest burden for future taxpayers. The Fed refunds its interest earnings to the Treasury every year. Last year the Fed refunded almost $80 billion in interest to the Treasury, nearly 40 percent of the country’s net interest burden. And the Fed has other tools to ensure that the expansion of the monetary base required to purchase the debt does not lead to inflation.
An even cleaner solution would be to simply void out the debt held by the Fed. That was the 2011 proposal of then-presidential candidate Ron Paul for dealing with the debt ceiling crisis. As his proposal was explained in Time Magazine, today the Treasury pays interest on its securities to the Fed, which returns 90% of these payments to the Treasury. Despite this shell game of payments, the $1.7 trillion in US bonds owned by the Fed is still counted toward the debt ceiling. Paul’s plan:
Get the Fed and the Treasury to rip up that debt. It’s fake debt anyway. And the Fed is legally allowed to return the debt to the Treasury to be destroyed.
Congressman Alan Grayson, a Democrat, also endorsed this proposal.
Financial author Richard Duncan makes a strong case for going further than just monetizing existing debt. He argues that under current market conditions, the US could actually rebuild its collapsing infrastructure by just printing the money, without causing price inflation. Prices go up when demand (money) exceeds supply (goods and services); and with automation and the availability of cheap labor in vast global markets today, supply can keep up with demand for decades to come. Duncan observes:
The combination of fiat money and Globalization creates a unique moment in history where the governments of the developed economies can print money on an aggressive scale without causing inflation. They should take advantage of this once-in-history opportunity . . . .
Returning the Power to Create Money to the People
The right of government to issue its own money was one of the principles for which the American Revolution was fought. Americans are increasingly waking up to the fact that the vast majority of the money supply is no longer issued by the government but is created by private banks when they make loans; and that with that power goes enormous power over the economy itself.
The issue that should be debated is one that dominated political discussion in the 19th century but that few candidates are even aware of today: should creation and control of the money supply be public or private? Donald Trump’s willingness to transgress the conservative taboo against public money creation is a welcome step in opening that debate.
________________
Ellen Brown is an attorney, Founder of the Public Banking Institute, and author of twelve books, including the best-selling Web of Debt. Her latest book, The Public Bank Solution, explores successful public banking models historically and globally. Her 300+ blog articles are at EllenBrown.com. She can be heard biweekly on “It’s Our Money with Ellen Brown” on PRN.FM.
Related
Trumping the Federal Debt Without Playing the Default CardIn “Ellen Brown Articles/Commentary”
The Trillion Dollar Coin: Joke or Game-changer?In “Ellen Brown Articles/Commentary”
CHENEY WAS RIGHT ABOUT ONE THING: DEFICITS DON’T MATTERIn “Ellen Brown Articles/Commentary”
Filed under: Ellen Brown Articles/Commentary Tagged: | Donald Trump, federal debt, infrastructure crisis, public banking, quantitative easing
« Bank of North Dakota Soars Despite Oil Bust: A Blueprint for California?
justaluckyfool, on May 14, 2016 at 9:37 am said:
The Fed has already proven that it can do this at a profit to the US Treasury (“we the people”)
and with no increase in the debt (it is an asset purchase).
Make America Great Again !
**Why not Trump ? (RAP) Renaissance for the American People.
Donald J Trump,
Gandhi’s famous quote: ““First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, and then you win.”
You will win with your response to your valid reasoning of ” A Monetary Sovereignty
can not default because they are the issuer of the currency…
” if the debt is in their currency”. Period.
WHY not STATE PUBLIC OWNED BANKS (SPOB) with an Honest Central Bank to reverse..”Where We Went Wrong and Fix It.”
Thank you, Ellen Brown for your due examination…
***** “Believe nothing merely because you have been told it…But whatsoever,
after due examination and analysis,you find to be kind, conducive to the good,
the benefit,the welfare of all beings – that doctrine believe and cling to,and
take it as your guide.”- Buddha[Gautama Siddharta] (563 – 483 BC),
Share and then share again, why would you not want prosperity? Why not Trump ? (RAP) Renaissance for the American People.
May 10, 2016
Donald J Trump,
RWER asks ‘Why Trump’?
..Answer:
**Why not Trump ?
The BEST chance for the American people.
QE 4 Infrastructure- Make America Great Again!
MR. President, the Sec. of the US Treasury, and
Chairman of the Federal Reserve; use the power of the U S Constitution.
Not as a bailout.
Not as a cost to all the taxpayers.
Not as an increase in deficit spending.
Rather a magic economic proven silver bullet that would reduce taxes
while at the same time increase non- deficit spending.
REVERSE: What the Central Banks are doing; rather than making the rich richer have them…
fuel the increase in wealth Equality and …” promote the general Welfare, and secure the
Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,…””
A HONEST CENTRAL BANK;
THE ONE STEP ADMINISTRATION SOLUTION..
When a honest Central Bank uses “QE” for the betterment of the community in a
capitalistic economy, it will be the greatest system ever devised by mankind.
FREE DOWNLOAD: “The Role Of Money”
”http://archive.org/…/role…/roleofmoney032861mbp_djvu.txt
Comments by Justaluckyfool ( http://bit.ly/MlQWNs )
QE !
A simple change in direction of doing something for the common bettering of all the people.
“QE- “State Infrastructure Bonds (Year of Issue).(Ex. SID 2016 $1 Trillion)
Total amount to be issued by State Public Owned Banks (SPOB) to be $1 trillion of State Infrastructure Bonds 2016 with a rate of 2% for 30 years, (divided among the 50 states plus 1 for D.C. and Territories using a relative population percentage as a guide).
The Federal Reserve is to PURCHASE this entire issue, purchase this entire asset.
It would be a purchase of an asset to produce an income “for the people, for the common bettering of all citizens,
rather than for the “private for profit banks”.
Yes increase revenue of $20 billion/year.(A revenue income of $720 BILLION with a zero cost.)
We must rebuild and replace so that it is not in vain; do it smart; as an investment for the future.
The states will be able to not only rebuild but also do it smart by creating millions of new jobs.
The Fed has already proven that it can do this at a profit to the US Treasury (“we the people”)
and with no increase in the debt (it is an asset purchase).
Make America Great Again !
**Why not Trump ? (RAP) Renaissance for the American People.
Donald J Trump,
Gandhi’s famous quote: ““First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, and then you win.”
You will win with your response to your valid reasoning of ” A Monetary Sovereignty
can not default because they are the issuer of the currency…
” if the debt is in their currency”. Period.
Donald Trump: “The U.S. Gov’t Doesn’t Default Because It Can Print More Money”
Posted on May 9, 2016
“Bonnie Kristian over at Rare writes,’Bonnie Kristian over at Rare writes, Seriously, this proposal is so economically ignorant it is difficult to know how to respond. It’s the sort of thing you’d see if any half-decent economist got a guest writing gig at The Onion. If there were no video evidence, I’d be convinced it was satire.
All that new money would not magically create new wealth. It would simply dilute the purchasing power of the money that already exists—”
Seriously, Bonnie Kristian are you ..”economically ignorant”
believing that this money spent is not in existence ? Then why even pay off debt ?
***** If the nation has ZERO plus dollars in its account as owned funds, how does it ‘spend’ even one dollar-except by stealing it or creating a copy of it “out of thin air”.What is so hard to realize that “It is impossible to create wealth “out of thin air” . What they are really doing is “making a copy of someone elses “real Wealth” and giving that copy made “out of thin air” to someone else thereby “creating two owners for the exact same thing”. If a Nation could, in fact, violate these rules of physics, why would we not be fat and prosperous, sitting on our backsides “printing wealth” for our selves and our children! *****The people receiving the USTBBs are GIVING UP THEIR RIGHTS TO REAL WEALTH THEY OWN and are willing to exchange this new ‘paper’ and have it held in safe hands until needed. (US TREASURY BEARER BONDS @ 0%).
****** BTW you should read the U.S. Constitution: When a Monetary Sovereignty spends more money than that which it has taken out of its own currency circulation: it must “borrow” (as per US Constitution). This creates the debt of the entire sovereignty,that debt being in that currency.When a Monetary Sovereignty has a debt in its own currency that debt is a deposit in its Central Bank. The owner of the Debt Deposit may withdraw upon demand; however the owner then loses the protections and safety of the credit of the sovereignty.
Why is there a problem?
SO where did we go wrong ?
“Its the INTEREST, stupid.”
A deficit that grows exponentially MUST over time destroy the quality and quantity of the currency.Period. One can not ignore this mathematical fact this fatal flaw. With no additional spending, while asleep at the wheel the present debt will go from $19trillion to $38trillion, then to $76trillion, to $142trillion…maybe then, perhaps your great-grand children will ask, “What were you thinking?” MMTers are correct that the debt NEED NOT be paid, but we must FIRST correct the fatal “exponential flaw.” READ: National Debt becomes money deposited in the Central Bank as US TREASURY BEARER BONDS at 0% Interest (USTBB) need only be paid on demand by each holder- there is no growth of debt.
To those who “buy” the debt, it is really just a very safe savings account, identical to a bank CD but totally safe because it is Constitutionally guaranteed.
EXACTLY, why China will not convert its $3.5trillion and be happy with USTBB – and we will no longer have to give them @ $200billion of new money. Nor would the 10%ers that hold this ‘debt’ wish to spend it (that would be ,perhaps, maybe a great boost of income for the 90%ers), or allow the banks to hold their lifetime saving, knowing that they will be subject to risk (they know how trustworthy they are with money.).
https://justaluckyfool.wordpress.com/…/debt-service…/
Quote Thomas Edison, “…Whereas the currency, the honest sort provided by the Constitution pays nobody…” But the owners of the debt that is now on deposit.
***”The ease with which the government’s debt could be paid in this way was demonstrated in January 2004″, As the chairman of the Coinage Subcommittee observed in the 1980s.
READ-CHALLENGE-ENDORSE:
***The ease with which the government’s debt could be paid in this way was demonstrated in January 2004****
As the chairman of the Coinage Subcommittee observed in the 1980s, the entire federal debt could actually be paid in this way. The Federal Reserve has already established that it can issue $4.5 trillion in accounting-entry QE without triggering hyperinflation. In fact, it has not succeeded in triggering the modest inflation the exercise was designed for. As with QE, paying the federal debt in this way would just be an asset swap, replacing an interest-bearing obligation with a non-interest-bearing one. The market for goods and services would not be flooded with “new” money that would inflate the prices of consumer goods, because the bond holders would not consider themselves any richer than before. They presumably had their money in bonds in the first place because they wanted to save it rather than spend it. They would no doubt continue to save it, either as cash or by investing it in some other interest-generating securities.
The ease with which the government’s debt could be paid in this way was demonstrated in January 2004, when the US Treasury called a 30-year bond issue before its due date. The bonds were redeemed “at par” to avoid a 9-1/8% interest rate, which was then well above market rates. The Treasury’s January 15, 2004 announcement said that payment would be made “in book entry form,” meaning numbers were simply entered into the Treasury’s online money market fund (Treasury Direct). In effect, the money just moved from an online savings account to an online depository account, converting interest-bearing bonds into non-interest-bearing cash.
Where did the Treasury get the money to refinance this $3 billion bond issue at a lower interest rate? Whether it came from the private banking system or from the Federal Reserve, it was no doubt created out of thin air. As Federal Reserve Board Chairman Marriner Eccles testified before the House Banking and Currency Committee in 1935:
When the banks buy a billion dollars of Government bonds as they are offered . . . they actually create, by a bookkeeping entry, a billion dollars.
The US government can just as easily create this money by a bookkeeping entry itself. It can and it should, to avoid the interest charges that compound the national debt and make it unrepayable.
Quoting Thomas Edison again:
If the Nation can issue a dollar bond it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good also. The difference between the bond and the bill is that the bond lets the money broker collect twice the amount of the bond and an additional 20%. Whereas the currency, the honest sort provided by the Constitution pays nobody but those who contribute in some useful way.http://ellenbrown.com/…/how-obama-could-beat-the-debt-ceil…/
Comments by Justaluckyfool ( http://bit.ly/MlQWNs )
( “You are always welcome to share, copy, plagiarize, improve, etc..any comments.)
Read and challenge:
Frederick Soddy writings, namely “The Role Of Money”
(Entire book as a free download…)http://archive.org/details/roleofmoney032861mbp ******************** “Believe nothing merely because you have been told it…But whatsoever,
after due examination and analysis,you find to be kind, conducive to the good,
the benefit,the welfare of all beings – that doctrine believe and cling to,and
take it as your guide.”- Buddha[Gautama Siddharta] (563 – 483 BC),
THEN PUBLIC DEBT WOULD BE A GREAT THING-INDIVIDUALS LENDING THE COMMUNITY FOR ITS BETTERMENT.
“WHY PUBLIC DEBT IS A GOOD THING.”
“We wanted to help solve problems of poverty, and create better lives and prosperity.” A/K/A, Justaluckyfool, Maybe you still can.
After this, read: http://bit.ly/MlQWNs
[Clarification — this is not the followup post to Misconceived Project of Social Science — that will be posted a few days later — however, it is part of sequence showing the serious defects of modern economic theory]
Observations of the real world massively contradict trickle-down theories, so economists generally do not admit to believing this idea that further enrichment of the wealthy will lead to prosperity for all. Nonetheless, trickle down is built deeply into the foundations of modern economics. The greatest illusion fostered on the un-suspecting public is that GNP per capita is the best measure of economic growth. The use of GNP per capita as a measure of growth is equivalent to the assumption of a trickle-down effect. The “per capita” means that this statistic is calculated by dividing total national income produced equally among all the people in the country. Unfortunately, the reality is starkly different…
View original post 1,299 more words
Donald J Trump,
RWER asks ‘Why Trump’?
https://rwer.wordpress.com/2016/05/05/why-trump-2/…
..Answer:
**Why not Trump ? (RAP) Renaissance for the American People.
The BEST chance for the American people.
QE 4 Infrastructure- Make America Great Again!
MR. President, the Sec. of the US Treasury, and
Chairman of the Federal Reserve; use the power of the U S Constitution.
Not as a bailout.
Not as a cost to all the taxpayers.
Not as an increase in deficit spending.
Rather a magic economic proven silver bullet that would reduce taxes
while at the same time increase non- deficit spending.
REVERSE: What the Central Banks are doing; rather than making the rich richer have them…
fuel the increase in wealth Equality and …” promote the general Welfare, and secure the
Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,…””
A HONEST CENTRAL BANK;
THE ONE STEP ADMINISTRATION SOLUTION..
When a honest Central Bank uses “QE” for the betterment of the community in a
capitalistic economy, it will be the greatest system ever devised by mankind.
FREE DOWNLOAD: “The Role Of Money”
”http://archive.org/…/role…/roleofmoney032861mbp_djvu.txt
Comments by Justaluckyfool ( http://bit.ly/MlQWNs )
QE !
A simple change in direction of doing something for the common bettering of all the people.
“QE- “State Infrastructure Bonds (Year of Issue).(Ex. SID 2016 $1 Trillion)
Total amount to be issued by States to be $1 trillion of State Infrastructure Bonds, (divided among the 50 states plus 1 for D.C. and Territories,
using a relative population percentage as a guide), with a rate of 2% for 36 years.
The Federal Reserve is to PURCHASE this entire issue, this entire asset.
It would be a purchase “for the people, for the common bettering of all citizens,
rather than for the “private for profit banks” and it would gain revenue,
yes increase revenue of $20 billion/year.(A revenue income of $720 BILLION with a zero cost.)
We must rebuild and replace so that it is not in vain; do it smart; as an investment for the future.
The states will be able to not only rebuild but also do it smart by creating millions of new jobs.
The Fed has already proven that it can do this at a profit to the US Treasury (“we the people”)
and with no increase in the debt (it is an asset purchase).
Make America Great Again !
**Why not Trump ? (RAP) Renaissance for the American People.
Donald J Trump,
Gandhi’s famous quote: ““First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, and then you win.”
You will win with your response to your valid reasoning of ” A Monetary Sovereignty
can not default because they are the issuer of the currency…
” if the debt is in their currency”. Period.
Donald Trump: “The U.S. Gov’t Doesn’t Default Because It Can Print More Money”
Posted on May 9, 2016
“Bonnie Kristian over at Rare writes,’Bonnie Kristian over at Rare writes, Seriously, this proposal is so economically ignorant it is difficult to know how to respond. It’s the sort of thing you’d see if any half-decent economist got a guest writing gig at The Onion. If there were no video evidence, I’d be convinced it was satire.
All that new money would not magically create new wealth. It would simply dilute the purchasing power of the money that already exists—”
Seriously, Bonnie Kristian are you ..”economically ignorant”
believing that this money spent is not in existence ? Then why even pay off debt ?
***** If the nation has ZERO plus dollars in its account as owned funds, how does it ‘spend’ even one dollar-except by stealing it or creating a copy of it “out of thin air”.What is so hard to realize that “It is impossible to create wealth “out of thin air” . What they are really doing is “making a copy of someone elses “real Wealth” and giving that copy made “out of thin air” to someone else thereby “creating two owners for the exact same thing”. If a Nation could, in fact, violate these rules of physics, why would we not be fat and prosperous, sitting on our backsides “printing wealth” for our selves and our children! *****The people receiving the USTBBs are GIVING UP THEIR RIGHTS TO REAL WEALTH THEY OWN and are willing to exchange this new ‘paper’ and have it held in safe hands until needed. (US TREASURY BEARER BONDS @ 0%).
****** BTW you should read the U.S. Constitution: When a Monetary Sovereignty spends more money than that which it has taken out of its own currency circulation: it must “borrow” (as per US Constitution). This creates the debt of the entire sovereignty,that debt being in that currency.When a Monetary Sovereignty has a debt in its own currency that debt is a deposit in its Central Bank. The owner of the Debt Deposit may withdraw upon demand; however the owner then loses the protections and safety of the credit of the sovereignty.
Why is there a problem?
SO where did we go wrong ?
“Its the INTEREST, stupid.”
A deficit that grows exponentially MUST over time destroy the quality and quantity of the currency.Period. One can not ignore this mathematical fact this fatal flaw. With no additional spending, while asleep at the wheel the present debt will go from $19trillion to $38trillion, then to $76trillion, to $142trillion…maybe then, perhaps your great-grand children will ask, “What were you thinking?” MMTers are correct that the debt NEED NOT be paid, but we must FIRST correct the fatal “exponential flaw.” READ: National Debt becomes money deposited in the Central Bank as US TREASURY BEARER BONDS at 0% Interest (USTBB) need only be paid on demand by each holder- there is no growth of debt.
To those who “buy” the debt, it is really just a very safe savings account, identical to a bank CD but totally safe because it is Constitutionally guaranteed.
EXACTLY, why China will not convert its $3.5trillion and be happy with USTBB – and we will no longer have to give them @ $200billion of new money. Nor would the 10%ers that hold this ‘debt’ wish to spend it (that would be ,perhaps, maybe a great boost of income for the 90%ers), or allow the banks to hold their lifetime saving, knowing that they will be subject to risk (they know how trustworthy they are with money.).
https://justaluckyfool.wordpress.com/…/debt-service…/
Quote Thomas Edison, “…Whereas the currency, the honest sort provided by the Constitution pays nobody…” But the owners of the debt that is now on deposit.
***”The ease with which the government’s debt could be paid in this way was demonstrated in January 2004″, As the chairman of the Coinage Subcommittee observed in the 1980s.
READ-CHALLENGE-ENDORSE:
https://justaluckyfool.wordpress.com/…/debt-service…/
THEN PUBLIC DEBT WOULD BE A GREAT THING-INDIVIDUALS LENDING THE COMMUNITY FOR ITS BETTERMENT.
“WHY PUBLIC DEBT IS A GOOD THING.”
**Why not Trump ? (RAP) Renaissance for the American People.
Icahn: Republicans don’t understand economics and it’s killing the country
Everett Rosenfeld | @Ev_Rosenfeld
Thursday, 28 Apr 2016 | 3:35 PM ETCNBC.com
3.1K
SHARES
Republican lawmakers are suffering from a near “pathological” misunderstanding of the national economy, and they may be hurting markets and Americans alike, billionaire investor and Donald Trump supporter Carl Icahn told CNBC on Thursday.
Icahn, who Trump had previously suggested could serve as his Treasury secretary, warned that markets will have a “day of reckoning” without fiscal stimulus, and argued that the U.S. government “certainly could do more spending.”
“The Republican Party that I used to be more sympathetic with — I’m right in the middle now, although as you know I’m for Trump — but what I would say is Congress is in this massive gridlock,” he said, explaining that the Republican-controlled body is “obsessed with this deficit to a point that I think it’s almost pathological.”
http://www.cnbc.com/…/icahn-republicans-dont-understand-eco…
When a Monetary Sovereignty spends more money than that which it has taken out of its own currency circulation: it must “borrow” (as per US Constitution). This creates the debt of the entire sovereignty,that debt being in that currency.When a Monetary Sovereignty has a debt in its own currency that debt is a deposit in its Central Bank. The owner of the “Debt Deposit” may withdraw upon demand; however the owner then loses the protections and safety of the credit of the sovereignty.
Why is there a problem?
SO where did we go wrong ?
“Its the INTEREST, stupid.”
The National Debt: A THING OF BEAUTY.
The National Debt: A THING OF BEAUTY. When a Monetary Sovereignty spends more money than that which it has taken out of its own currency circulation: it must…
Quote, ” A deeper understanding of money could have prevented the Great Recession which followed.”
https://weapedagogy.wordpress.com/2016/04/26/the-veil-of-money/#respondOMG, why then do you wish to discuss, What you know is wrong ?
OMG, why not…”A deeper understanding of money”?
OMG, could a deeper (read simpler) understanding of money prevent recessions?
OMG, Frederick Soddy writings, namely “The Role Of Money”
(Entire book as a free download… http://archive.org/details/roleofmoney032861mbpPREFACE
This book attempts to clear up the mystery of money in its social aspect. With the monetary
system of the whole world in chaos, this mystery has never been so carefully fostered as it is to-day.
And this is all the more curious inasmuch as there is not the slightest reason for this mystery.
This book will show what money now is, what it does, and what it should do. From this will
emerge the recognition of what has always been the true role of money. The standpoint from
which most books on modern money are written has been reversed. In this book the subject is not
treated from the point of view of the bankers as those are called who create by far the greater
proportion of money but from that of the PUBLIC, who at present have to give up valuable
goods and services to the bankers in return for the money that they have so cleverly created
and create. This, surely, is what the public really wants to know about money.It was recognized in Athens and Sparta ten centuries before the birth of Christ that one
of the most vital prerogatives of the State was the sole right to issue money. How curious that
the unique quality of this prerogative is only now being re-discovered. The” money-power ” which
has been able to overshadow ostensibly responsible government, is not the power of the merely ultrarich, but is nothing more nor less than a new technique designed to create and destroy money
by adding and withdrawing figures in bank ledgers, without the slightest concern for the interests of
the community or the real role that money ought to perform therein.
The more profound students of money and, more recently, a very few historians have realized
the enormous significance of this money power or technique, and its key position in shaping the
course of world events through the ages. In this book the mode of approach and the philosophy
of money is expounded in the light of a group of new doctrines, to which the name ergosophy is
collectively given, which regard economics, sociology, and history with the eye of the engineer
rather than with that of the humanist. It is concerned less with the details of particular schemes
of monetary reform that have been advocated than with the general principles to which, in the
author’s opinion, every monetary system must at long last conform, if it is to fulfil its proper role
as the distributive mechanism of society. To allow it to become a source of revenue to private issuers is
to create, first, a secret and illicit arm of the government and, last, a rival power strong enough ultimately
to overthrow all other forms of government.”***** “Believe nothing merely because you have been told it…But whatsoever,
after due examination and analysis,you find to be kind, conducive to the good,
the benefit,the welfare of all beings – that doctrine believe and cling to,and
take it as your guide.”- Buddha[Gautama Siddharta] (563 – 483 BC),
Comments by Justaluckyfool ( http://bit.ly/MlQWNs )(justaluckyfool@aol.com).
Many leading economists have come to agree with Nobel Laureate Stiglitz that modern economic theory represents the triumph of ideology over science. One of the core victories of ideology is the famous Quantity Theory of Money (QTM). The QTM teaches us that money is veil – it only affects prices, and has no real effect on the economy. One must look through this veil to understand the working of the real economy. Nothing could be further from the truth.
In fact, the Q
TM itself is a veil which hides the real and important functions of money in an economy. The Great Depression of 1929 opened the eyes of everyone to the crucial role money plays in the real economy. For a brief period afterwards, Keynesian theories emerged to illuminate real role of money, and to counteract errors of orthodox economics. Economists believed in the QTM, that money doesn’t matter…
View original post 557 more words
? To Big To Fail ? Only IF you know what causes “systemic failure” and or “monetary collapse”?
Can you answer the question….’Why was the ‘failure’ of the Savings and Loans Sector, not a possible
‘systemic failure’ or causation for a ‘monetary collapse’. Or any “BOOM-BUST” ? Dot Coms ?
Perhaps, maybe: It was different- the banks did not abandon their fiduciary duty; they did protect the assets.
In these cases, no systemic risk or possible monetary failure; just bust (recession). The system worked: the Federal Bank turned the “FICTITIOUS” money into “GENUINE” money.
In 2007 and 2008, the Fed was forced to replace the money the banks received (read-stole) for “fraudulently guaranteed safe securities.(MBSs)”
READ…. https://justaluckyfool.wordpress.com/2016/01/21/so-where-is-the-multi-trillion-dollar-class-action-lawsuit/
Quote, Sheila Bair. Quote Ben Bernanke.
http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2016/04/big-fail-eyes-specialist.html#more-10264
Too Big to Fail From the Eyes of a Specialist….
“…understand the statute or the concept of what the statute provides as to when the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) designates an institution as systemically dangerous. (In a telling euphemism, they are actually designated “systemically important.”)…”
We must ask, “What designates an institution as “monetarily systemic dangerous”?
“Let us begin with reality. MetLife reported that at yearend 2015 it had total assets of $878 billion. That means that it poses a massive risk to the global system should it fail. Maybe, if it had $500 billion less in reported assets it might be worthy of debate. It has over $200 billion more in reported assets that Lehman claimed when it failed – and Lehman triggered a global crisis.”
e statute or the concept of what the statute provides as to when the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) designates an institution as systemically dangerous. (In a telling euphemism, they are actually designated “systemically important.”)
Too Big is not the problem, the quality of the assets becomes the question; $878 billion that is leveraged too many times should be considered a “possible systemic risk”. Any institution that has $878 billion in assets that has zero leverage has ONLY its self at risk.
“The probability of a global crisis is increased enormously if (a) we continue to create and make worse the criminogenic environments that produce the increasingly severe fraud epidemics that drive our financial crises and….
Separation of all Private For Profit Corporations from “special entitlements legislated for them from and by government”,
they must become accountable and transparent, subject to civil and criminal law.
(b) if we continue to allow systemically dangerous institutions to exist rather than shrinking them.”
“The issue is when the next systemically dangerous entity will fail – not “if.”
“One of the reasons we, the Bank Whistleblowers United, proposed getting rid of the systemically dangerous institutions through the use of banking regulators’ powers to set individual minimum capital requirements is that it allows vastly quicker remedial action than the cumbersome FSOC procedure that took over two years to designate MetLife as posing a systemic risk.”
” Even if we broke up every big bank, reinstated Glass-Steagall, and put the speculators who created the 2007-2008 crash in jail
I’m not certain we can save the nation from financial collapse.”
Yes, because breaking up the ‘size’ of the too big to fail doesn’t cure the disease.
The disease of “systemic failure” and “monetary collapse” can only be cured by:
‘Separation of Private For Profit Banks’ from being the recipients of special privileges and protections granted by the state, and by taking away their legislated privilege of being allowed to issue our currency and poisoning that issuance with a taxation called ‘interest’.
The sole right of issuance belongs to the people, the true owners of the ‘National Wealth’. The people have entrusted their Central Bank to be the sole guardian of this ‘National Wealth’
‘ Reverse an economic recovery program that has privileged the recovery of financial markets and corporate profits has fueled the increase in wealth inequality, in the United States and across the world.’”
Take back from the Private For Profit Banks (PFPB) what we have legislated as an entitlement, “The issuing of our own money and charging “We The People” interest on that issuance .”
Then we could allow them to fail as they no longer will be a ‘systemic risk’ or be able to cause
‘monetary failure.’ Then we must make them subject to civil and criminal laws.
“Capitalism is the best system to date devised by mankind. As it is administrated, perhaps, is where the ‘flaw’ is manifested. If capitalism used its Central Bank properly, with honesty, accountability and transparency for the betterment of the common good, with equality and justice for all, capitalism could be the one of the greatest achievements of mankind.”
Quote Mises (1998, 440): “Only free banking would have rendered the market economy secure against crises and depression. [And] [t]here is no reason whatever to abandon the principle of free enterprise in the field of banking.”
“Free banking means banks operate in an environment in which banks are subject to the general rules of commercial and civil law and are not the recipients of special privileges and protections granted by the state; placing “the banking business under the general rules of commercial and civil laws compelling every individual and firm to fulfill all obligations in full compliance with the terms of the contract.”
QUOTE: Soddy, “…indeed it is now a truism was that nothing useful can be done unless and until a scientific money system
takes the place of the one now always breaking down. The corollary, however, is never likely to be popular with our professional politicians…
It was that, if such a thing were done, little else in the way of arbitrary interference with and government control over the essential activities
of men in the pursuit of their livelihood would be required.
Indeed, just as now not one in a thousand understands why the existing money system has such power to hurt him,
so, if it were corrected as here outlined, not one in a thousand would need to know or, indeed, would know,
except by the consequences, either that it had been rectified or how it had been rectified…”
Since, in all monetary civilizations, it is money that alone can effect the exchange of wealth
and the continuous flow of goods and services throughout the nation, money has become the life-blood of the community,
and for each individual a veritable licence to live at all…
A very slight knowledge of our actual existing monetary system makes it abundantly clear that,
without democracy knowing or allowing it, and without the matter ever being before the electorate
even as a secondary or minor political issue, the power of uttering money has been taken out of
national hands and usurped as a perquisite by the moneylender. Practically every genuine
monetary reformer is unanimous that the only hope of safety and peace lies in the nation
instantly resuming its prerogative over the issue of all forms of money…”
Comments by Justaluckyfool ( http://bit.ly/MlQWNs )
( “You are always welcome to share, copy, plagiarize, improve, etc..any comments.)
Read and challenge: DESTROY, EDIT OR ENDORSE. “SODDYISM”
… every monetary system must at long last conform, if it is to fulfil its proper role
as the distributive mechanism of society. To allow it to become a source of revenue to private issuers is to create, first, a secret and illicit arm of the government and, last, a rival power strong enough ultimately to overthrow all other forms of government.”
Frederick Soddy writings, namely “The Role Of Money”
(Entire book as a free download…) http://archive.org/details/roleofmoney032861mbp ;
UPDATE-NEW POST:
http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2016/04/bernies-economic-policies-fit-economic-theory.html#more-
http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2016/04/bernies-economic-policies-fit-economic-theory.html#more-10285
“Fifth, mainstream macro proponents like Athreya (p. 340) strongly support Bernie’s policy that it is essential to get rid of the systemically dangerous banks, which he aptly describes as holding America for “ransom.” …
“Athreya, a strong supporter of freshwater macro, agrees that creating effective institutions that restore the rule of law are vital to countering the negative externalities caused by elite fraud and global climate change.
A good deal of macroeconomic work on the crisis aims to clarify why privately optimal arrangements, particularly debt, can create ex-ante and ex-post inefficiency.
Bernies policy, “get rid of” would be a treatment of the symptoms since it lacks the … “creating effective institutions that restore the rule of law (which) are vital to countering the negative externalities caused…”
The cure would be an Honest Central Bank as the sole guardian of the sovereign currency and all institutions being held accountable to civil and criminal rule of law.
MMT scholars begin with assumptions that are empirical and based on how sovereign currencies actually function.I will leave the heavy lifting on MMT to my colleagues. …What Davidson asserts – “money.” He also thinks money must be “raised” (presumably through taxation), so he does not understand how sovereign money is created.
MMT…assumes incorrectly how sovereign currencies actually function as a SYSTEM OF DISTRIBUTION… and does not understand how sovereign money AS WEALTH is created;yet, does understand how sovereign money AS A REDEEMABLE RECEIPT is created.
It can never be repeated enough:Read and challenge: DESTROY, EDIT OR ENDORSE. “SODDYISM”
“Since, in all monetary civilizations, it is money that alone can effect the exchange of wealth
and the continuous flow of goods and services throughout the nation, money has become the life-blood of the community,
and for each individual a veritable licence to live at all…
A very slight knowledge of our actual existing monetary system makes it abundantly clear that,
without democracy knowing or allowing it, and without the matter ever being before the electorate
even as a secondary or minor political issue, the power of uttering money has been taken out of
national hands and usurped as a perquisite by the moneylender. Practically every genuine
monetary reformer is unanimous that the only hope of safety and peace lies in the nation
instantly resuming its prerogative over the issue of all forms of money…”
Read and challenge: DESTROY, EDIT OR ENDORSE. “SODDYISM”
“… every monetary system must at long last conform, if it is to fulfil its proper role
as the distributive mechanism of society. To allow it to become a source of revenue to private issuers is to create, first, a secret and illicit arm of the government and, last, a rival power strong enough ultimately to overthrow all other forms of government.”
Frederick Soddy writings, namely “The Role Of Money”
(Entire book as a free download…) http://archive.org/details/roleofmoney032861mbp ;
“How do you democratically have a “Capitalistic Economy For The Betterment Of The People” ?
Quote Bernie Sanders, “We have got to break them up so that they do not pose a systemic risk and so that we have a vibrant economy with a competitive financial system.”
QUOTE, Clinton Vs. Sanders on Big Banks
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id
“…Your talking about a fundamental tension in our democracy. Between a representative democracy and a capitalist economy. Our market cares about profit. The government cares about people. And there is a built in tension between a representative democracy and a capitalist economy, which only cares about profit and really doesn’t care about its effect on people.”
Quote Alan Greenspan,
“In testimony before Congress on October 23, 2008 Alan Greenspan said that he had overestimated the ability of free financial markets to self-correct and he had missed the possibility that deregulation could unleash a destructive force on the economy. Greenspan then added “I still do not fully understand why it happened, and obviously to the extent that I figure it happened and why, I shall change my views”.(Greenspan stated: “This crisis, however, has turned out to be much broader than anything I could have imagined…. In recent decades, a vast risk management and pricing system has evolved, combining the best insights of mathematicians and finance experts supported by major advances in computer and communications technology. A Nobel Prize was awarded for the discovery of the [free market] pricing model that underpins much of the advance in [financial] derivatives markets. This modern risk management paradigm held sway for decades. The whole intellectual edifice, however, collapsed.”)”THE KEYNES SOLUTION: THE PATH TO GLOBAL ECONOMIC PROSPERITY VIA A SERIOUS MONETARY THEORY” by Paul Davidson, 2012.
JUSTALUCKYFOOL asks,
“How do you democratically have a “Capitalistic Economy For The Betterment Of The People” ?
” Even if we broke up every big bank, reinstated Glass-Steagall, and put the speculators who created the 2007-2008 crash in jail
I’m not certain we can save the nation from financial collapse.”
Yes, because breaking up the ‘size’ of the too big to fail doesn’t cure the disease.
The disease of “systemic failure” and “monetary collapse” can only be cured by:
‘Separation of Private For Profit Banks’ from being the recipients of special privileges and protections granted by the state, and by taking away their legislated privilege of being allowed to issue our currency and poisoning that issuance with a taxation called ‘interest’.
‘ Reverse an economic recovery program that has privileged the recovery of financial markets and corporate profits has fueled the increase in wealth inequality, in the United States and across the world.’”
Take back from the Private For Profit Banks (PFPB) what we have legislated as an entitlement, “The issuing of our own money and charging “We The People” interest
on that issuance .”
Allow them to fail for they no longer will be a ‘systemic risk’ or be able to cause
‘monetary failure.’ Allow them to be subject to civil and criminal laws.
The sole right of issuance belongs to the people.
“Capitalism is the best system to date devised by mankind. As it is administrated, perhaps, is where the ‘flaw’ is manifested. If capitalism used its Central Bank properly, with honesty, accountability and transparency for the betterment of the common good, with equality and justice for all, capitalism could be the
one of the greatest achievements of mankind.”
Quote Mises (1998, 440): “Only free banking would have rendered the market economy secure against crises and depression. [And] [t]here is no reason whatever to abandon the principle of free enterprise in the field of banking.”
“Free banking means banks operate in an environment in which banks are subject to the general rules of commercial and civil law and are not the recipients of special privileges and protections granted by the state; placing “the banking business under the general rules of commercial and civil laws compelling every individual and firm to fulfill all obligations in full compliance with the terms of the contract.”
QUOTE: Soddy, “…indeed it is now a truism was that nothing useful can be done unless and until a scientific money system
takes the place of the one now always breaking down. The corollary, however, is never likely to be popular with our professional politicians…
It was that, if such a thing were done, little else in the way of arbitrary interference with and government control over the essential activities
of men in the pursuit of their livelihood would be required.
Indeed, just as now not one in a thousand understands why the existing money system has such power to hurt him,
so, if it were corrected as here outlined, not one in a thousand would need to know or, indeed, would know,
except by the consequences, either that it had been rectified or how it had been rectified…”
Since, in all monetary civilizations, it is money that alone can effect the exchange of wealth
and the continuous flow of goods and services throughout the nation, money has become the life-blood of the community,
and for each individual a veritable licence to live at all…
A very slight knowledge of our actual existing monetary system makes it abundantly clear that,
without democracy knowing or allowing it, and without the matter ever being before the electorate
even as a secondary or minor political issue, the power of uttering money has been taken out of
national hands and usurped as a perquisite by the moneylender. Practically every genuine
monetary reformer is unanimous that the only hope of safety and peace lies in the nation
instantly resuming its prerogative over the issue of all forms of money…”
Comments by Justaluckyfool ( http://bit.ly/MlQWNs )
( “You are always welcome to share, copy, plagiarize, improve, etc..any comments.)
Read and challenge: DESTROY, EDIT OR ENDORSE. “SODDYISM”
… every monetary system must at long last conform, if it is to fulfil its proper role
as the distributive mechanism of society. To allow it to become a source of revenue to private issuers is to create, first, a secret and illicit arm of the government and, last, a rival power strong enough ultimately to overthrow all other forms of government.”
Frederick Soddy writings, namely “The Role Of Money”
(Entire book as a free download…) http://archive.org/details/roleofmoney032861mbp ;
For individuals- – -“Inequality and Poverty Reduction Adjustment Program”. For corporations–“Human Rights and Justice Adjustment
Program”.s://rwer.wordpress.com/2016/04/09/us-corporate-income-taxes-1934-2015/
“Human people” pay 80% of the $3.18 trillion Federal Tax Revenue.
“Corporate people” pay 11%.
Can you wonder why there are such tremendous gaps in INEQUALITY ?
US corporate income taxes 1934-2015 https://rwer.wordpress.com/2016/04/09/us-corporate-income-taxes-1934-2015/
April 9, 2016 David F. Ruccio
Corporate income taxes represent a small percentage of total federal tax revenue (at 11 percent) and they’ve been declining for a long time (since the 1940s).
ind_and_corpo_tax_line_chart,_enacted_2015
revenue_pie,__2015_enacted
Capitalism demands inequality.
It is the size of the gaps where the administration of inequality becomes distorted.
If capitalism is for the betterment of all the members of the community instead of just a small percentage;there should be smaller gaps between percentiles. But most important would be that the bottom 10%ers would have a living standard based upon 10% of the wealth. This is not a production problem, this is a distribution problem.
RE: Taxation, any taxation.
A Monetary Sovereignty doesn’t need taxation to spend.
For that matter, taxation can only occur after currency is in circulation.
Taxation is the ways and means by which a Monetary Sovereignty recaptures
currency already in circulation. Currency that it can redistribute without changing the quality or quantity of the entire currency.
A Monetary Sovereignty should tax all circulating currency, the question is; fairness and justice !
For individuals- – -“Inequality and Poverty Reduction Adjustment Program”
For corporations–“Human Rights and Justice Adjustment Program”
A Fair Capitalistic “Inequality and Poverty Reduction Adjustment Program”
The Federal Personal Income Tax:
A ONE PAGE FORM.
“Inequality and Poverty Reduction Adjustment Program”
ALL income is taxable and must be reported
Income up to $75,000 will be taxed at a rate of ………………………….ZERO %.
JOINT Income up to $150K………………………………………………………ZERO%
Income from $75,001 to $150,000 will be tax at a rate of……………..10%
Income from $150,001 to$500,000 will be taxed at a rate of…………20%
Income from 500,001 up to any amount will be taxed at a rate of …30%
NO exemptions. Tax must be paid, any claim of injustice
may be filed for a proportional refund.
The ZERO taxed will receive a 6% distribution to replace their loss caused by sales taxes
which are a detriment to their ‘standard of living’.
All will be entitled to free Medicare with a 20% copay.
The ZERO and 10% taxed will have a ZERO copay for the first $20,000 of Medicare billing.
The ZERO and 10% taxed will receive a ‘take home pay increase in the amount of 15%.
This is at ZERO cost to production because it will be the 15% F.I.C.A. that was withheld from them; now going into their take home pay.
US corporate Profit income taxes;
A Fair Capitalistic “Human Rights and Justice Adjustment Program”
A ONE PAGE FORM:
All profit up to 6%…………………………………ZERO TAX RATE
Profit from 6.01%…..up to 15%……………..20%
Profit from 20.01……up to 50%…………….40%
Profit over 50%…………………………………….60%
But, How would we pay for these program ?
No matter what the amount is, It can be paid for “by raising money from “somewhere else”
You will hear that this plan will increase the standard of living, will increase jobs, but there
could, maybe,perhaps, be a loss of revenue versus the present income revenue stream..
Please ask “The Tax Foundation”,” What would be the increase/ decrease?
SOLUTION.
Capitalism is the “best” system to date devised by mankind. When capitalism uses its Honest Central Bank properly,that is for the betterment of the common good, with equality and justice for all, capitalism would be one of the “greatest” achievement of mankind.
A PLAN TO REDUCE THE GAPS OF INEQUALITY, ELEVATE THE STANDARD OF LIVING, AND … “to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,…”
Quote,”US corporate income taxes 1934-2015
April 9, 2016 David F. Ruccio
Capitalism demands inequality.
It is the size of the gaps where the administration of inequality becomes distorted.
If capitalism is for the betterment of all the members of the community instead of just a small percentage;there should be smaller gaps between percentiles. But most important would be that the bottom 10%ers would have a living standard based upon 10% of the wealth. This is not a production problem, this is a distribution problem.
RE: Taxation, any taxation.
A Monetary Sovereignty doesn’t need taxation in order to spend.
For that matter, taxation can only occur after currency is in circulation.
Taxation is the ways and means by which a Monetary Sovereignty recaptures
currency already in circulation. Currency that it can redistribute without changing the quality or quantity of the entire currency.
A Monetary Sovereignty should tax all circulating currency, the question is; fairness and justice !
For individuals- – -“Inequality and Poverty Reduction Adjustment Program”
For corporations–“Human Rights and Justice Adjustment Program”
The Federal Personal Income Tax:
Needs to change to…A ONE PAGE FORM.
“Inequality and Poverty Reduction Adjustment Program”
******************************************************************.
ALL income is taxable and must be reported
Income up to $75,000 will be taxed at a rate of ………………………….ZERO %.
JOINT Income up to $150K………………………………………………………ZERO%
Income from $75,001 to $150,000 will be tax at a rate of……………..10%
Income from $150,001 to$500,000 will be taxed at a rate of…………20%
Income from 500,001 up to any amount will be taxed at a rate of …30%
NO exemptions. Tax must be paid, any claim of injustice or unfairness
may be filed for a proportional refund.
The ZERO taxed will receive a 6% distribution to replace their loss caused by sales taxes which are a detriment to the ‘standard of living’.
All Taxpayers will be entitled to free Medicare with a 20% copay.
The ZERO and 10% taxed will have a ZERO copay for the first $20,000/annual Medicare billing.
All qualified VETERANS will have ZERO copay.
The ZERO and 10% taxed will receive a ‘take home pay increase in the amount of 15%.
This is at ZERO cost to production because it will be the 15% F.I.C.A. that was withheld from them; now going into their take home pay.
CORPORATION PLAN:
US Corporate Profit Income Taxes;
A Fair Capitalistic “Human Rights and Justice Adjustment Program”
A ONE PAGE FORM:
All profit up to 6%…………………………………ZERO TAX RATE
Profit from 6.01%…..up to 15%……………..20% tax rate.
Profit from 20.01……up to 50%…………….40% tax rate.
Profit over 50%…………………………………….50% tax rate.
But, How would we pay for these program ?
No matter what the amount is, It can be paid for “by raising money from “somewhere else”
You will hear that this plan will increase the standard of living, will increase jobs, but there
could, maybe,perhaps, be a loss of revenue versus the present income revenue stream..
Please ask “The Tax Foundation”,” What would be the increase/ decrease?
SOLUTION.
Capitalism is the “best” system to date devised by mankind. When capitalism uses its Honest Central Bank properly,that is for the betterment of the common good, with equality and justice for all, capitalism would be one of the “greatest” achievement of mankind.
No matter what the amount is, It can be paid for “by raising money from “somewhere else”.
TAXATION IS TAXATION, surely you are aware of the fact anything CAN be taxed. It would only change how the revenue stream
is acquired while controlling the quality and quantity of the money.
Next step: Increase Social Security benefits and Increase Medicare !
How do you pay for it ? Simple. Increase in change how the revenue stream
is acquired.
Read more:
http://bit.ly/MlQWNs
THE K.I.S. SOLUTION TO DECREASE INEQUALITY GAPS, POVERTY, and NATIONAL DEBT.
ONE SENTENCE -A CAPITALISTIC ECONOMY WITH A HONEST CENTRAL BANK.
AN HONEST CENTRAL BANK (GUARDIAN) THAT BORROWERS MONEY FROM ITS LAWFUL OWNERS, LENDS IT AND CHARGES INTEREST (TAX) TO SECURE AN INCOME STREAM TO TURN OVER TO CONGRESS TO USE FOR THE BETTERMENT OF ALL.
Quote,”US corporate income taxes 1934-2015
April 9, 2016 David F. Ruccio
Corporate income taxes represent a small percentage of total federal tax revenue (at 11 percent) and they’ve been declining for a long time (since the 1940s).
ind_and_corpo_tax_line_chart,_enacted_2015
revenue_pie,__2015_enacted
QUOTE, “Inequality and human rights.
April 5, 2016David F. Ruccio
We all know that economic inequality has reached grotesque, even obscene, levels around the world. And the gap between a tiny group at the top and everyone else continues to grow.
But is inequality a human rights concern?
As Ignacio Saiz and Gaby Oré Aguilar [ht: ms] explain, the ongoing debates about inequality
have rarely made reference to human rights. In turn, the human rights community has paid very little attention to economic inequality. While inequality on grounds such as gender, race and disability have long been core human rights concerns, gross inequalities in economic status remain largely unchallenged by human rights law and advocacy.
The question then is, is it possible or even desirable to make inequality a central concern of the global human-rights movement?
UDHR
The problem is that human rights have mostly been articulated in terms of individual rights—such as in the “right to life, liberty, and security of person” (as in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights). And inequality raises a very different set of questions, not about individual rights but about economic and social relations, about the relationshop between smaller and larger groups of people within society. Ultimately, growing inequality challenges the idea of “just deserts” and raises the prospect that one small group on top is “ripping off” everyone else, who are forced to have the freedom to continue to work for their benefit.
That’s what Samuel Moyn is getting at when he argues that “even perfectly realized human rights are compatible with radical inequality.”
The assertion of human rights in the 1940s began as one version of the update to the entitlements of citizenship on whose desirability and necessity almost everyone agreed after depression and war. Franklin Roosevelt issued his famous call for a “second bill of rights” that included socioeconomic protections in his State of the Union address the year before his death. But in promising “freedom from want” and envisioning it “everywhere in the world,” Roosevelt in fact understated the actually egalitarian aspirations that every version of welfarism proclaimed. These went far beyond a low bar against indigence so as to guarantee a more equal society than before (or since). His highest promise, in his speech, was not a floor of protection for the masses but the end of “special privilege for the few”—a ceiling on inequality.
But the harmony of ideals between the campaign against abjection and the demand for equality succeeded only nationally, and in mostly North Atlantic states, and then only partially. Whatever success occurred on both fronts thus came with sharp limitations—and especially the geographical modesty that the human rights idiom has since successfully transcended. It is, indeed, as if globalization of the norms of basic protection were a kind of reward for the relinquishment of the imperative of local equality.
Even the decolonization of the world, though unforeseen at the time of the Universal Declaration that accommodated itself to the empires of the day, hardly changed this relationship, since the new states themselves adopted the national welfarist resolve. The burning question was what would happen after, especially in the face of the inability of the global south to transplant national welfarism and the wealth gap that endures to this day between two sorts of countries: rich and poor.
The fact is, while the gap between countries has decreased somewhat (at least in terms of national income per capita), the gap within countries (especially within the North) has been growing—and the human-rights movement has mostly been “a helpless bystander of market fundamentalism.”
Philip Alston offers a very different view:
the human rights community needs to address directly the extent to which extreme inequality undermines human rights. One starting point is to clearly recognize that there are limits to the degree of inequality that can be reconciled with notions of equality, dignity and commitments to human rights for everyone. Governments should formally commit to policies explicitly designed to eliminate extreme inequality. Economic and social rights must become an integral part of human rights programs. A concerted campaign to ensure that every state has a social protection floor in place would signal a transformation in this regard. That concept—initially elaborated by the International Labour Organization, subsequently endorsed by the UN and now even by the World Bank—draws upon the experience of a range of countries around the world that have successfully tackled poverty in terms of programs with universal coverage, formulated in terms of human rights and of domestic legal entitlements.
But, in all honesty, the challenge facing the human-rights movement is to pick up where Alston stops. He leaves us with the idea of a “social protection floor,” which is pretty much where we were at when Franklin Delano Roosevelt presented his “second bill of rights” in 1944.
The real obstacle is to make sense of the conditions and consequences of the social “ripping-off” that serves as the basis of the extreme and growing levels of inequality we are witnessing today. The human-rights community has succeeded in making it obvious that we need to eradicate traditional forms of slavery as a violation of fundamental human rights.
As I see it, the human-rights movement now needs to confront the modern problem of class exploitation based on the continued existence of wage-slavery.
justaluckyfool 