It's annoying to listen to economists talk about money, the economy, and other related subjects. They adopt the stance of a subject matter expert, and tend to talk down to the rest of us; and what they say might even be true. But they perform a time-honored maneuver, common to their colleagues in the history department, of pretending that their explanations represent the whole truth, or at least the most significant aspects of it. The net result is to mask what is really happening.
If we're interested in the economy there are two fundamental aspects that need to be considered. The first is energy; in our day that means oil, and to a lesser extent natural gas. In the 20th century oil production was increasing, hence the economy could expand. But now oil production is decreasing, which means the economy is going to contract, if it hasn't already. The idea that there are viable alternatives, such as wind and solar, are pipe dreams: the EROEI (Energy Returned On Energy Invested) ratio is too low. All the high level politicians, think-tank executives, billionaires, and other interested parties know this only too well. It means that not only will economies contract, but those economies that get blocked from accessing oil will contract the fastest, and collapse sooner. So sooner or later there will be generalized resource wars, culminating in WWIII, if it hasn't started already. We remember that Iraq (sitting on a lot of oil) was invaded by the US not long ago. Iran likewise has a lot of oil, and one might expect intrigue, cold and hot, to be centered around them as well. One way or another there will be a population die-off, probably a significant one (50 percent or greater). The cv "crisis" probably represents tptb's effort to control the die-off in a fashion favorable to themselves, all the while lying through their teeth about the real problem, which is not climate change, pandemics, or any other phony red flag, but declining oil production.
The other problem concerns the banksters and their control over the process of money creation. The way it is now, they, let's call them The Bank, creates the money; they create it out of nothing (obviously, since otherwise it wouldn't exist at all). But they create it as an interest-bearing debt. So all this arm-waving about "deficit spending" is complete rubbish. The more the gov't spends, the faster the debt (the National Debt) grows. It can never be paid off, since the money to pay it off with was never created in the first place. It only grows exponentially, and if the nation spends a lot of money in a short period of time, it grows faster. Thus it is to the advantage of The Bank to encourage gov't spending, and the item a gov't spends the most on is a war, especially a major war, hence WWI, and WWII. After nuclear weapons were developed a major war became impractical, so substitutes were found in smaller wars that lasted longer (Vietnam) and other major enterprises such as the Space Race, the Arms Race, and the Great Society. The ideal solution (from our point of view) would be to repudiate the debt, and kick the banksters out of their position of financial control, return the money creation function back to the gov't (treasury department), and spend money into circulation without creating debt, as it used to be done before the nefarious amendment passed in 1913. Of course that's impractical now, since the banksters are far too powerful: their cut of the taxation revenues being so large as to enable them to operate a background gov't that pulls the strings of the foreground gov't just about everywhere (not just in the US). Since their primary motivation is sinful (mainly greed and pride) their end will not be a good one, although they can take many of us down with them in a paroxysm of chaos. God only knows how it will all end, but it is to guessed that end is very near.
Dedollarization should not be interpreted as a negative trend for the US domestically as it will substantially reduce the ability for the US to fund foreign wars where its national interest is not directly threatened. Currency competition is a good thing for the entire world.
Yes! And I suggest that just about everybody now has experienced someone like Kamala who leapt to the top the heap solely on her color, gender or 'views'. Heretofore, it would have been career 'suicide' if anything was said about her ascent. Now, nobody gaf anymore and entitled, incapable frauds like KH, will get the derision they deserve. No sense anymore of trying to support the unsupportable. It never worked anyway!
It's annoying to listen to economists talk about money, the economy, and other related subjects. They adopt the stance of a subject matter expert, and tend to talk down to the rest of us; and what they say might even be true. But they perform a time-honored maneuver, common to their colleagues in the history department, of pretending that their explanations represent the whole truth, or at least the most significant aspects of it. The net result is to mask what is really happening.
If we're interested in the economy there are two fundamental aspects that need to be considered. The first is energy; in our day that means oil, and to a lesser extent natural gas. In the 20th century oil production was increasing, hence the economy could expand. But now oil production is decreasing, which means the economy is going to contract, if it hasn't already. The idea that there are viable alternatives, such as wind and solar, are pipe dreams: the EROEI (Energy Returned On Energy Invested) ratio is too low. All the high level politicians, think-tank executives, billionaires, and other interested parties know this only too well. It means that not only will economies contract, but those economies that get blocked from accessing oil will contract the fastest, and collapse sooner. So sooner or later there will be generalized resource wars, culminating in WWIII, if it hasn't started already. We remember that Iraq (sitting on a lot of oil) was invaded by the US not long ago. Iran likewise has a lot of oil, and one might expect intrigue, cold and hot, to be centered around them as well. One way or another there will be a population die-off, probably a significant one (50 percent or greater). The cv "crisis" probably represents tptb's effort to control the die-off in a fashion favorable to themselves, all the while lying through their teeth about the real problem, which is not climate change, pandemics, or any other phony red flag, but declining oil production.
The other problem concerns the banksters and their control over the process of money creation. The way it is now, they, let's call them The Bank, creates the money; they create it out of nothing (obviously, since otherwise it wouldn't exist at all). But they create it as an interest-bearing debt. So all this arm-waving about "deficit spending" is complete rubbish. The more the gov't spends, the faster the debt (the National Debt) grows. It can never be paid off, since the money to pay it off with was never created in the first place. It only grows exponentially, and if the nation spends a lot of money in a short period of time, it grows faster. Thus it is to the advantage of The Bank to encourage gov't spending, and the item a gov't spends the most on is a war, especially a major war, hence WWI, and WWII. After nuclear weapons were developed a major war became impractical, so substitutes were found in smaller wars that lasted longer (Vietnam) and other major enterprises such as the Space Race, the Arms Race, and the Great Society. The ideal solution (from our point of view) would be to repudiate the debt, and kick the banksters out of their position of financial control, return the money creation function back to the gov't (treasury department), and spend money into circulation without creating debt, as it used to be done before the nefarious amendment passed in 1913. Of course that's impractical now, since the banksters are far too powerful: their cut of the taxation revenues being so large as to enable them to operate a background gov't that pulls the strings of the foreground gov't just about everywhere (not just in the US). Since their primary motivation is sinful (mainly greed and pride) their end will not be a good one, although they can take many of us down with them in a paroxysm of chaos. God only knows how it will all end, but it is to guessed that end is very near.
Dedollarization should not be interpreted as a negative trend for the US domestically as it will substantially reduce the ability for the US to fund foreign wars where its national interest is not directly threatened. Currency competition is a good thing for the entire world.
FB wouldn’t let me post this article! I’ve disputed it.
I've been a certified coin dealer for 25 years, my advice when buying and selling is to check around, it's a very competitive marketplace: https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/comment/13819365#Comment_13819365
.
Kamala Deserved To Win.
That Is,
Kamala Deserved To Have Allowances Made For Her.
If Everyone,
Would Have Just Made Enough Allowances For Her
She Could Have Won.
.
Yes! And I suggest that just about everybody now has experienced someone like Kamala who leapt to the top the heap solely on her color, gender or 'views'. Heretofore, it would have been career 'suicide' if anything was said about her ascent. Now, nobody gaf anymore and entitled, incapable frauds like KH, will get the derision they deserve. No sense anymore of trying to support the unsupportable. It never worked anyway!