Palestina, erresilientzia (85) gehi MTM (Moneta-Teoria Modernoa)

Bideoa: https://x.com/i/status/1807069131247673526

Hasiera:

Gogoratu ondoko hau: Pascal Lottaz eta ICJ delakoa

Segida:

oooooo

Macro n Cheese Podcast #MMT@CheeseMacro

oooooo

oooooo

ira. 1

When the BRICS gold-backed stablecoin comes out trade in USD will drop hard, central banks will exit USD and the US money printing Ponzi scheme will burn. 14% of global GDP will shift from the US to other nations by 2030. The most rapid economic collapse of any empire in history

oooooo

Bideoa: https://x.com/i/status/1830440993067331765

oooooo

Jackson Hinkle @jacksonhinklle

Bideoa: https://x.com/i/status/1830322903721869313

oooooo

oooooo

oooooo

oooooo

Bill Goggin@wgoggin

oooooo

EconReality@EconomicReality

ooo

The Power of the Pound

Bideoa: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHxloLkMXeU

Using the lens of modern monetary theory, this video explains how the United Kingdom can afford what it needs for its citizens, once the real mechanisms of money are understood.

For further exploration into this topic, here are some resources worth visiting: Seven Deadly Innocent Frauds of Economic Policy by Warren Mosler: https://moslereconomics.com/wp-content/powerpoints/7DIF.pdf

Transkripzioa:

0:00

What are the nice things that we might want for the United Kingdom?

0:05

Comprehensive health care for all through a National Health Service?

0:09

Well-made and up-to-date infrastructure, like roads, water, sewage, communication?

0:14

World-class science and medical research?

0:17

High quality education across the board?

0:20

Income and care for the elderly and infirm?

0:23

Can we afford these?

0:25

Yes, we can.

0:26

The UK is one of the richest countries in the world.

0:30

But somehow, we’ve come to think that the nice things we want as a country are unaffordable.

0:35

We believe there is a shortage of pounds.

0:37

We don’t realise the power that comes about from the UK having its own currency¹.

0:42

Yet such power can allow us to mobilise the huge resources that are available,

0:47

especially human resources, to achieve what is important to us.

0:51

Many people – including a lot of politicians, commentators, and economists –

0:56

believe that the government has to act like a household.

0:59

They believe that like a household, the government has an income that it raises from taxation.

1:04

It cannot spend money that it doesn’t have –

1:07

and if it borrows money to cover a pressing expense, that money must ultimately be repaid.

1:13

According to this household model, the government MUST think ahead before borrowing money to spend.

1:19

Do we raise enough money through tax to pay this debt off? And if the answer is no, the money can’t be spent.

1:26

‘There isn’t a magic money tree,’ as Theresa May famously told nurses seeking a pay rise in 2017.

1:33

But there is a flaw in this understanding of money.

1:36

It does not take into account the very important fact

1:40

that the UK government is the sole issuer of a sovereign currency, the pound.

1:45

There is another model that completely changes the way we understand how money works.

1:50

It’s called Modern Monetary Theory.

1:52

It’s been around for a generation and it has a solid background of academic work behind it.

1:59

It argues that in a country that has a sovereign currency, like the UK,

2:03

money is not a commodity – like gold – the supply of which is clearly limited.

2:08

Instead, the state can create as much currency as it needs.

2:13

Let’s see how this changes things.

2:16

As a currency issuer, our government in Westminster is different from the rest of us, who are currency users.

2:22

This matters!

2:24

None of us, whether the UK nations and regions like Scotland or Yorkshire,

2:29

nor businesses and corporations, nor individual households, can issue the pound.

2:34

Only the UK government and its agents can and do.

2:38

This ability to create pounds makes it unique, but somehow, our politicians don’t seem to realise this.

2:46

As currency users, you and I have to acquire pounds before we can spend them.

2:51

If necessary, we can borrow.

2:53

The UK government, as a currency issuer, creates pounds every time they spend.

2:58

They do this by using a computer keyboard to make the numbers in someone’s account larger.

3:04

This is the power we gave them when we voted them in.

3:07

If the government can create as much money as it needs, why do we need to pay taxes?

3:18

If the government can create as much money as it needs, why do we need to pay taxes?

3:24

By insisting that a fraction of the pounds it spends must be returned as tax,

3:28

the UK government creates a demand for their currency.

3:32

We are obliged to pay our taxes in the government’s currency.

3:35

We can’t use anything else.

3:37

Not US dollars, Bitcoin, or supermarket vouchers.

3:41

Only pounds Sterling.

3:43

If we don’t, the government has the legal right to punish us,

3:47

either through fines or even loss of freedom.

3:50

The Government can spend as necessary to give us the things we want;

3:54

security and defence, health and social care, whatever.

3:58

When they spend, they give us the pounds we need to pay our taxes.

4:02

The spending puts pounds into the economy.

4:05

The taxes take them out.

4:07

That spending is only limited by the resources available, particularly labour, not by the size of the tax take.

4:15

These two flows need to be kept in balance.

4:17

The government has to buy resources on the open market and if it buys up too much,

4:22

it will force the private sector to try and outbid it.

4:25

Prices would rise, driving up inflation.

4:28

Too much tax and not enough spending will drain the economy of pounds.

4:32

Businesses contract and unemployment grows. So does private debt.

4:37

But doesn’t the UK government have to borrow from the markets?

4:41

Aren’t its finances subject to the whims of the bond investors?

4:45

No, they are not.

4:47

Monetarily sovereign governments issue bonds for other reasons.

4:51

These days, the UK government doesn’t need to borrow because it can always create pounds.

4:57

And bond holders know this.

4:59

They know that the government can always pay.

5:01

That’s why government bonds are an important risk-free part of any investment strategy.

5:07

What gets called government ‘borrowing’

5:09

is not borrowing in the sense that you or I (currency users) experience it.

5:15

Government bonds are really just saving accounts with a gilt-edged return.

5:20

But in a mistaken understanding of how our money system works,

5:24

politicians create arbitrary promises and ‘fiscal rules’ to link their spending plans to so-called ‘borrowing’.

5:31

But what about the deficit?

5:33

Surely the government must balance its books?

5:36

When the government spends, it puts pounds into the economy.

5:39

When it taxes, it takes them out.

5:42

The amount the government spends in excess of what it taxes is called the deficit.

5:47

It’s a word with very negative connotations.

5:49

But elementary bookkeeping tells us that where there is a deficit,

5:53

there must be a surplus.

5:55

That surplus exists as all our savings lumped together.

5:59

The trillions of pounds in savings accounts is the cumulative deficit that has built up over decades.

6:05

It is simply the pounds that the UK government created which haven’t yet been returned to the government as tax.

6:11

When the government says it must pay down the debt,

6:14

it is essentially saying that it must drain away our savings.

6:17

Is that such a good idea?

6:19

If politicians on all sides understood how the government’s currency really works,

6:24

they would appreciate their central role in a healthy economy.

6:27

They would spend as much as needed to give us what we require,

6:31

the reason the government exists in the first place.

6:34

They would tax to achieve specific social outcomes and keep prices stable.

6:39

A Job Guarantee scheme would ensure employment for anyone willing and able to work,

6:43

itself a powerful stabiliser of the economy.

6:48

When we understand the true nature of money we can hold government to account

6:53

and ensure it uses its power of currency sovereignty

6:56

to fulfil the responsibility to serve the people of the country.

oooooo

Gower Initiative for Modern Money Studies@GowerInitiative

oooooo

From gimms.org.uk

oooooo

Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) White Paper – UK

24th October 2020 – by admin – Leave a Comment

The Gower Initiative for Modern Money Studies

Published online 24th October 2020

Full Document

Introduction

The purpose of this white paper is to outline the fundamentals of MMT and its application to the United Kingdom

What is MMT?

MMT began largely as a description of Central Bank monetary operations, which are best thought of as debits and credits to accounts as kept by banks, businesses, and individuals.

Warren Mosler independently originated what has been popularised as MMT in 1992.  And while subsequent research has revealed writings of authors who had similar thoughts on some of MMT’s monetary understandings and insights, including Abba Lerner, George Knapp, Mitchell Innes, Adam Smith, Wynne Godley, and former NY Fed chief Beardsley Ruml, MMT is unique in its analysis of monetary economies, and therefore best considered as its own school of thought.

oooooo

@tobararbulu # mmt@tobararbulu

oooooo

oooooo

Jake Shields@jakeshieldsajj

Bideoa: https://x.com/i/status/1831016496467697986

oooooo

Bideoa: https://x.com/i/status/1831053087265738842

oooooo

Bideoa: https://x.com/i/status/1830863302660067733

oooooo

From as.com

oooooo

Chay Bowes@BowesChay

oooooo

Alfred de Zayas@Alfreddezayas

oooooo

Alan MacLeod@AlanRMacLeod

oooooo

Nour Naim| نُور@NourNaim88

BRICS News@BRICSinfo

oooooo

Bideoa: https://x.com/i/status/1831148999752954096

oooooo

Bideoa: https://x.com/i/status/1831004275889082389

oooooo

Afshin Rattansi@afshinrattansi

Bideoa: https://x.com/i/status/1831057466643394627

oooooo

Globe Eye News@GlobeEyeNews

Pelham@Resist_05

Bideoa: https://x.com/i/status/1830867300154761525

oooooo

Bideoa: https://x.com/i/status/1831209238619713797

oooooo

oooooo

Bideoa: https://x.com/i/status/1830872889962234122

oooooo

Assal Rad@AssalRad

oooooo

ira. 3

This is Israel’s longest-running English podcast, Two Nice Jewish Boys. Hosts Naor Meningher and Eytan Weinstein call for wiping out every single Palestinian in Gaza and the occupied West Bank.

Radio Rwanda in full effect here. This is deeply disturbing.

Bideoa: https://x.com/i/status/1830951276915630183

oooooo

Chay Bowes@BowesChay

oooooo

BRICS News@BRICSinfo

oooooo

Mairav Zonszein מרב זונשיין@MairavZ

Bideoa: https://x.com/i/status/1830751532696092901

oooooo

Rania@umyaznemo

Bideoa: https://x.com/i/status/1831222517094121730

oooooo

ooo

SCOTT RITTER: On a Highway to Hell

(https://consortiumnews.com/2024/09/01/scott-ritter-on-a-highway-to-hell/)

September 1, 2024

Nuclear weapons offer an illusion of security. By allowing the U.S. nuclear posture to shift from deterrence to employment, there will be a scenario where the U.S. will use nuclear weapons. And then it’s lights out.

Successive U.S. administrations have eschewed arms control in favor of maintaining American strategic advantage over real and/or imagined adversaries.

This is accomplished by embracing nuclear weapons employment strategies that deviate from simple deterrence into war-fighting at every level of conflict, including scenarios that don’t involve a nuclear threat.

At a time when the U.S. advocates policies exacerbating already high levels of tension with nuclear-armed adversaries Russia and China, the Biden administration has signed off on a new nuclear employment plan that increases, rather that decreases, the probability of nuclear conflict.

Left unchecked, this policy can have only one possible outcome — total nuclear annihilation of humanity and the world we live in.

By Scott Ritter

Special to Consortium News

An interesting thing happened on the road to Armageddon.

In January 2017, then-Vice President Joe Biden, speaking at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, warned about the dangers inherent in expanding funding for, and by extension increasing the importance of, nuclear weapons.

“If future budgets reverse the choices we’ve made, and pour additional money into a nuclear buildup,” said Biden — referring to Obama administration policies that included secured the New START Treaty limiting the size of the U.S. and  Russian nuclear arsenals —  “it hearkens back to the Cold War and will do nothing to increase the day-to-day security of the United States or our allies.”

Later, in 2019, Biden, now a candidate for president, commented on the decision made by President Donald Trump to deploy two missile systems — a cruise missile still under development, and the Trident submarine-launched ballistic missile deployed onboard the U.S. Navy’s Ohio-class submarines —armed with a new low-yield nuclear warhead.

“The United States does not need new nuclear weapons,” Biden declared in a written answer to questions posed by the Council for a Livable World. “Our current arsenal of weapons…is sufficient to meet our deterrence and alliance requirements.”

In an article published in the March/April 2020 issue of Foreign Affairs, candidate Biden vowed to “renew our commitment to arms control for a new era,” including a pledge to “pursue an extension of the New START treaty, an anchor of strategic stability between the United States and Russia, and use that as a foundation for new arms control arrangements.”

Biden went on to declare that “that the sole purpose of the U.S. nuclear arsenal should be deterring—and, if necessary, retaliating against—a nuclear attack. As president, I will work to put that belief into practice, in consultation with the U.S. military and U.S. allies.”

Biden prevailed over Trump in the 2020 Presidential election, and on Jan. 21, 2021, was sworn in as the 46th President of the United States.

And then…nothing. 

Copying Trump’s Pre-Emptive Strike

In March 2022, after much speculation about whether or not Biden would follow through with his pledge to implement a “sole purpose” nuclear policy, the Biden administration published the 2022 edition of the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), a Congressionally-mandated document which describes United States nuclear strategy, policy, posture, and forces in support of the National Security Strategy (NSS) and National Defense Strategy (NDS).

It was a near carbon-copy of the February 2018 NPR published by the Trump administration, including language which enshrined as doctrine the U.S. ability to use nuclear weapons pre-emptively, even in scenarios that did not involve a nuclear threat.

In December 2022, during a reunion of personnel involved in the negotiation and implementation of the landmark 1987 Intermediate Nuclear Forces treaty, a senior Biden administration arms control official was asked by a veteran arms controller why Biden had backed away from his pledge regarding the “sole purpose” doctrine.

“The inter-agency wasn’t ready for it,” this official replied.

The “inter-agency” the official was referring to is the amalgam of departments and agencies, staffed by unelected career civil servants and military professionals who serve as the executioners of policy regarding America’s nuclear enterprise.

It was a surprising, and extremely disappointing, admission on the part of an official whose oath of office bound him or her to the bedrock constitutional principle of executive authority and civilian control of the military.

Biden had, even before being sworn in, received push-back regarding any alterations in the nuclear doctrine of the United States.

In September 2020, Admiral Charle Richard, commander of U.S. Strategic Command, responsible for America’s nuclear arsenal, warned that, “We are on a trajectory, for the first time in our nation’s history, to face two peer nuclear-capable competitors.” Richard was referring to the nuclear arsenals of Russia and China.

Once he became president, Biden was immediately confronted with two major challenges for which he was ill-equipped to handle — the Russian-Ukraine crisis, and China’s assertion of its national interests over Taiwan and the South China Sea.

Both involved the potential of military escalation leading up to direct force-on-force conflict between the U.S. military and their Russian and Chinese counterparts, both of which included the possibility of nuclear war.

The Russian initiation of its “Special Military Operation” against Ukraine, in February 2022, brought with it the inherent risk of escalation with NATO, leading to Russian threats about the potential for nuclear weapons use if NATO decided to directly intervene in Ukraine.

And a November 2022 Pentagon report forecast that China would increase its nuclear arsenal from around 400 weapons to more than 1,500 by 2035.

The New START treaty limits the number of deployed nuclear warheads to 1,550 each for the U.S. and Russia. The treaty was negotiated on the principle of bilateral reciprocity.

With the U.S. facing a potential Chinese nuclear arsenal of 1,500 weapons, and the existing Russian arsenal of around the same, it was clear that, left unchecked, the U.S. was going to find itself in a disadvantageous position when it came to its strategic nuclear forces.

While the NPR provides a general policy statement regarding the U.S. nuclear arsenal, there are two more documents — the President’s Nuclear Employment Guidance and the Secretary of Defense’s Nuclear Weapons Employment Planning and Posture Guidance — that direct planning for actual employment of nuclear weapons consistent with national policy.

The last Nuclear Employment Guidance document, published in 2019, was responsive to the 2018 NPR. This guidance fully incorporated the new low-yield W-76-2 nuclear warhead into the nuclear employment plans of the United States. It did the same for the new generation of B-61 gravity bombs that constitute NATO’s nuclear deterrence force.

The employment plans, which were based upon the concept of “escalate to de-escalate” (i.e. by using a small nuclear weapon, the U.S. and NATO would deter Russia from escalating out of fear of bringing on a general nuclear exchange.)

In short, America’s nuclear war plans were front loaded for the localized employment of nuclear weapons against both a Russian and Chinese threat.

This U.S. nuclear war plan was premised on the ability to deter Russian nuclear escalation and deter or defeat China’s nuclear force using the number of nuclear warheads permitted under the caps implemented by the New START treaty. 

Facing a Stronger Nuclear China

However, the Biden administration is now confronted with the possibility and or probability of a much larger, capable Chinese strategic nuclear force capable of surviving a limited U.S. first-strike and delivering a nation-killing nuclear payload to U.S. soil in retaliation.

To adjust to this new reality, the U.S. would need to allocate nuclear warheads currently targeted against Russia onto China. This would require that the U.S. not only develop revised target lists for both Russia and China, but also rethink targeting strategies in general, looking to maximum physical destruction over political impact.

More dangerously, the U.S. would have to look at employment strategies that maximized the element of surprise to ensure all targets were hit by their designated weapons. This would require a change in the readiness posture and operational deployment areas of U.S. nuclear forces.

With increased readiness comes the need for vigilance against any preemption efforts by a potential nuclear adversary, meaning that U.S. nuclear forces will be placed on a higher alert status.

In short, the risk of nuclear war, inadvertent or otherwise, has become exponentially greater.

In March the Biden administration reportedly issued a new Nuclear Employment Guidance document reflecting this reality.

Nowhere in this guidance is there consideration for using arms control as a means of managing the nuclear equation, either by extending the New START treaty, or working with China to prevent a Chinese nuclear breakout.

Instead, the U.S. appears to be concerned about the erosion of nuclear deterrence that will be brought about by diverting weapons dedicated to non-Chinese contingencies. When seen in this light, the answer to the problem is more, not fewer, nuclear weapons.

This is why the U.S. is going to let the New START treaty lapse in February 2026 — once the treaty goes away, so, too, does the cap on the number of deployed warheads, and the U.S. nuclear establishment will be able to build up the U.S. operational nuclear arsenal so that there are enough weapons for every designated target.

The world is becoming a very dangerous place.

Nuclear weapons offer the illusion of security.

By allowing the U.S. nuclear posture to shift away from deterrence toward warfighting, all we guarantee is that eventually there will be a warfighting scenario where the U.S. will end up using nuclear weapons.

And then we all die.

We are, literally, on a Highway to Hell.

Scott Ritter is a former U.S. Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD. His most recent book is Disarmament in the Time of Perestroika, published by Clarity Press.

The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of Consortium News.

oooooo

MMT: Modern Monetary Theory

1Gauza bera esan daiteke Euskal Herriaz: INDEPENDENTZIA gehi EH-ren egoera ekonomikoa direla eta, guk ez dakigu zer suposatzen duen moneta propioa izateaz, edozein delarik haren izena, baina eurotik at!