6 June 2013


The corporate media pretends that every “bailout” of a euro-zone nation shows the kindness and generosity of the Troika and Germany, and that the receiving nations should be grateful for each “bailout,” and be ashamed for needing it. (Most Germans share this same self-righteous arrogance.)

In reality,  euro-zone nations must borrow all their money.  Hence every “bailout” is another savage and calculated ATTACK with debt bombs.









New Economic Perspectives is a blog for people who adhere to “Modern Money Theory” (MMT), which explains how money actually works in the real world.

MMT is not a hypothesis, or a suggestion. Instead, it is a functional theory  based on facts, like the theory of aerodynamics, or the theory of relativity.

MMT proponents discuss the mechanics of money, but that’s where their objectivity ends. Most MMT proponents have a bizarre and irrational impediment to fully acknowledging the politics of money. For example, many of them claim there is “no proof” that bankers and rich people pay politicians to impose austerity, and pay university professors to justify austerity.  I have provided proof many times before in past blog posts here, so I will not do so again. (MMT people won’t listen anyway.)

This strange denial causes MMT people to be quite illogical. For example, here is Bill Black:

“The reason that Nobel Laureates in economics have proven so faulty is not that the Laureates are incompetent or evil.”  Rather, “It is the failure of economics to take ethics seriously.”


Got that? Professors who shill for the rich are not evil. They just fail to take ethics seriously.


This is especially strange when it comes from people like Bill Black, who spends all his time discussing fraud and “crimeogenic” environments. And the above example is only one of many at the NEP blog.

What are we to make of this strange denial? Is it an attempt to appear “sophisticated”?


Why is it okay for right-wing retards to brand their victims “terrorists,” but not okay for MMT people to mention bribery in politics?

Austerity is not “misguided.” Nor is it a “failed policy.” It is deliberate, calculated genocide, designed to widen the gap between the rich and the rest, and between the financial economy and the real economy.

The refusal to acknowledge this is not an “error,” nor stupidity. It is cowardice. It shows a lack of moral character.




Above, I accused Bill Black of being illogical. However, Bill Black is an extremely logical in comparison to the champions of austerity. The following item would be hilarious if austerity were not genocide.

First, some background. I will throw some numbers at you. You can skim down and pay attention only to the numbers in bold text.

Senator Patty Murray (D-Wash.) heads the Senate Budget Commitee, and she has long insisted that you need more poverty and austerity.  On 12 March 2013 she released a proposed budget that entailed $100 billion in stimulus spending on infrastructure projects, $975 billion in new tax increases, $493 billion in domestic cuts (including $275 billion in health cuts), and $240 billion in defense cuts – for a net figure of $1.368 trillion in austerity. Added to the $242 billion that the Senate budget would cut in interest payments, this adds up to a $1.85 trillion removed from the US economy and destroyed.

Together with the $2.5 trillion in austerity that Congress has already passed, this means that Senate Democrats want $4.35 trillion in austerity — enough to maintain the depression through the next decade.

Recently, however, Mr.Murray used the Senate Budget Committee, which she chairs, to hold a hearing on the negative effects of “premature austerity.” She said, “The case for austerity in a time of economic weakness is simply wrong.”

(Actually Ms. Murray, the case for austerity is ALWAYS wrong. Yesterday, today, tomorrow, and forever.)

With her was former Treasury secretary and Harvard economics professor Larry Summers, plus MIT economist and former IMF chief economist Simon Johnson.

Summers said, “International comparisons tend to confirm the view that excessively rapid austerity fiscal consolidation has adverse impacts on economic performance.”

Simon Johnson concurred, saying, “Immediate spending cuts would, by themselves, likely slow the economy.”

Got it? Immediate austerity causes harm, whereas long-term permanent austerity is good, because…well…it just is.

In reality, austerity is always bad, whether it is imposes rapidly, slowly, or whatever.

Now here is the comical part…

Also appearing at the Senate hearing was Salim Furth, a right-wing creep from the Heritage Foundation who claimed that (a) tax increases harm the economy and (b) spending cuts permanently help economic growth.

salim furth

Got it? Austerity from spending cuts helps the economy, but austerity from tax increases hurts the economy.

In reality ALL austerity hurts the economy. Always.

Furth also claimed that euro-zone nations are having no austerity at all, since they have increasing budget deficits.

Got it? Because most euro-zone nations must borrow all their money, the more austerity they adopt, the larger their budget deficits grow, which brings more austerity, which causes a larger deficit, which results in more austerity.  Since their budget deficits keep growing – voila – they have NO AUSTERITY AT ALL!

Furth also claimed that what austerity did occur was largely tax increases rather than spending cuts.

Got it? Austerity from spending cuts is austerity, but austerity from tax increases is not austerity! Therefore the euro-zone has had NO AUSTERITY AT ALL!

This clown is such a goof that even the Washington Post called him on it, in an article titled “Yes, Europe really is in the throes of austerity.”


The day before yesterday I commented on Fox News’ claim that the euro-zone has had no austerity.  That was John Stossel of Faux News…


Stossel (the “mothman”) continues to claim in various blogs that we need more austerity. What about the devastation that austerity has caused in the euro-zone? Stossel says that doesn’t count, since the euro-zone has had NO AUSTERITY.

Here’s an example of the mothman’s excrement.




There are countless propaganda mills “think tanks” in Washington DC, some of which are right-wing, and some that call themselves “left wing.”

Regardless of their posturing, I suspect that ALL OF THEM are funded by the Koch brothers, Pete Peterson, big corporations, Wall Street, and so on.

Reason: all of them want more austerity.

Right-wing groups want austerity in the form of eliminated or privatized social programs. Left-wing groups (the “deceivers”) want austerity in the form of tax increases. (Democrats call austerity-by-tax-increase a “centrist” approach!)

The Campaign for America’s Future is an example of a “left-leaning” group that shills for the rich by campaigning for higher taxes, which the rich don’t pay anyway. (All federal tax increases favor the rich at the expense of the rest.)

In this article they lament that tax breaks will “cost” the federal government 900 billion in 2013 and $12 trillion over the next decade. You and I know this is nonsense, since the federal government creates and destroys money by simply changing the numbers in bank accounts. For the federal government, the words “cost,” “saving,” “profit” and “earn” are meaningless.

The article then says that most of the tax breaks are enjoyed by the rich. That is true, but if we were to force the rich to give up more taxes, so their money was destroyed the instant it is paid, it would make no positive difference to the quality of the average American’s life — unless everyone had the same amount of money, in which case we would have rule by a Kafka-esque bureaucracy, instead of rule by an elitist plutocracy. Both extremes are equally bad.

The point is that by whining that the rich are not paying enough taxes, these “progressive” groups maintain the lies that favor the rich, and keep the masses brainwashed.




One Response to 6 June 2013

  1. Steve says:

    Stossel, a purposeful (for the rich anyway) idiot supreme. The oligarchy’s moronic lackey Stossel shovels bullshit by the barrel full. Doesn’t Stossel know that big government suites him just fine? After all, federal$$$ rebuilt his seaside mansion in Jersey several years ago, but of course he now claims he’s against any government “intervention” of that sort these days. Sure John, let’s also add up those rich guy tax breaks courtesy of your affiliation with Foxx, too. Still hate big government? So many holes in his article , a comparison to a household budget and national bankruptcy is beyond disgraceful. 103 clueless comments on the article, too. Even more lame and nonsensical than porno stash himself.

    Good counterpoint to Stossel and his lie about Iceland as a “shining example of fiscal consolidation,” can be found below. (Although there is a laudable reference to the above mentioned Simon Johnson, so take with grain of salt).


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: