YouTube has the video Common Good Economics – What Biden’s Big Spending Plan Means for the Economy

Economics Professor Fadhel Kaboub joins us to talk about what $6 TRILLION in federal spending would mean for the economy.

Fadhel never disappoints. I have been saying for years that the MMT proponents need to explain things the way Fadhel Kaboub does. It frustrates the heck out of me that other MMT folk just do not explain things as well as Fadhel does. For years I have been urging MMT people to talk about the inflation of the 1970s as Fadhel Kaboub does here. I have been so insistent about this one issue that I have been banned from a few MMT web sites and Facebook pages.

If you are a proponent of MMT, but you cannot explain the inflation of the 1970s, then you don’t understand MMT as well as you claim you do. Steve Grumbine attacked me personally on social media because I kept saying this. When I complain about this, I am not attacking the ideas of MMT. I am attacking the proponents of MMT who won’t explain what is so easy to explain in terms of MMT.

Some MMT proponents are their own worst enemies. Warren Mosler sticks to his way of not explaining even though he could explain in ways that more people would understand. It is not for lack of me understanding that I complain. I complain of the adamant refusal to reach more people with easy to understand simple explanations.

One thing I remember about the oil embargo by OPEC in the 1970s was that inflation was already happening. The OPEC countries were getting about $2.50 per barrel of oil. They came to realize that with inflation of the dollar running rampant, $2.50 was not near enough to pay for the valuable commodity they were selling. Sure, their conflict with Israel ws part of the issue, but there was a pure economic issue, too.

YouTube has the video American DEBUNKS All Major Western Propaganda on Uyghurs and Xinjiang!

We have done it… We have broken down each bit of major Western propaganda on the Uyghur and Xinjiang situation in order to debunk the lies and reveal the truth. For over an hour, Bay takes on a series of propaganda ranging from Adrian Zenz to inconsistent witness testimony to debunking sterilization claims and all major propaganda promoted surrounding this incredibly manufactured issue.

I was hoping for an independent analysis to back up what The Gray Zone has been reporting. Unfortunately for that purpose, this uses Gray Zone reporting for some of what he says. That does not make it any more or less true, but it isn’t the completely independent source that I thought this might be. As I got further into the video, it does seem to bring in many other sources. He makes a very convincing case for what he is saying, but that just raises my doubts. I know when I am getting the hard sell.

Of course each side is going to say that the other side’s witnesses are being coerced. I don’t know how viewers and readers of these reports can know which side, if any, is telling the truth. If I am forced to say that I no longer know what is true, then one side’s propaganda is working. In the high tech industry where I worked for 40 or so years, campaigns to disparage a competitor’s product would use fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) if our own product could not win on its own merits.

I tried to discourage the use of FUD behavior, but my influence was minimal in most cases. I did have a situation where our marketing people wanted to suppress a customer’s effort to build a product similar to what my team had built. I told them that the customer could get all the technical information he needed from the same university published work where I got my information. Our company’s failure was to not understand the market for the product, and I did not do enough inside the company to educate the marketeers. Another customer we tried to sell the product to, told us what other things we needed to do to get him to buy the product. When we failed to listen, he eventually joined a company that made the product the way he wanted. My company eventually bought his company.

May 3, 2021

Here is the list of sources that go with the video. There are over 71 items in the list.

The source that I first checked out was Demystifying Xinjiang and the Uighers with Carl Zha. This was number 2 in the list of sources.

Common Dreams has the article Dingell and Markey Introduce $10 Trillion THRIVE Act to Tackle ‘Our Biggest Emergencies’.

The bill aims to ensure “an intersectional response” to the climate crisis, coronavirus pandemic, economic inequity, and racial injustice “that is proportionate to the scope of the problems we face.”

If you want to read the 65 pages of the act, read this PDF file This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Transform, Heal, and 4Renew by Investing in a Vibrant Economy Act’’ or the ‘‘THRIVE Act’’

Now we have some people talking about a plan that is of a scope that matches the problems we face. Makes Biden’s plans look rather puny – too little, too late.

I looked up the SCOTUS decision on Citizens United. Admittedly, I only did a cursory scan of some of the materials here. I was interested in the remarks about corruption. It is complicated, but in this opinion by Justice Kennedy, I found the following quote. It may very well be out of context. Check for yourself.

Justice Kennedy , Opinion of the Court

What we have said also shows the invalidity of other arguments made by the Government. For the most part relinquishing the antidistortion rationale, the Government falls back on the argument that corporate political speech can be banned in order to prevent corruption or its appearance. In Buckley , the Court found this interest “sufficiently important” to allow limits on contributions but did not extend that reasoning to expenditure limits. 424 U. S., at 25. When Buckley examined an expenditure ban, it found “that the governmental interest in preventing corruption and the appearance of corruption [was] inadequate to justify [the ban] on independent expenditures.” Id. , at 45.

With regard to large direct contributions, Buckley reasoned that they could be given “to secure a political quid pro quo ,” id. , at 26, and that “the scope of such pernicious practices can never be reliably ascertained,” id. , at 27. The practices Buckley noted would be covered by bribery laws, see, e.g., 18 U. S. C. §201, if a quid pro quo arrangement were proved. See Buckley, supra, at 27, and n. 28 (citing Buckley v. Valeo , 519 F. 2d 821, 839–840, and nn. 36–38 (CADC 1975) (en banc) (per curiam) ). The Court, in consequence, has noted that restrictions on direct contributions are preventative, because few if any contributions to candidates will involve quid pro quo arrangements. MCFL , 479 U. S., at 260; NCPAC , 470 U. S., at 500; Federal Election Comm’n v. National Right to Work Comm. , 459 U. S. 197, 210 (1982) (NRWC) . The Buckley Court, nevertheless, sustained limits on direct contributions in order to ensure against the reality or appearance of corruption. That case did not extend this rationale to independent expenditures, and the Court does not do so here.

For the reasons explained above, we now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.

Here is what I found in the Stevens opinion.

Undergirding the majority’s approach to the merits is the claim that the only “sufficiently important governmental interest in preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption” is one that is “limited to quid pro quo corruption.” Ante , at 43. This is the same “crabbed view of corruption” that was espoused by Justice Kennedy in McConnell and squarely rejected by the Court in that case. 540 U. S., at 152. While it is true that we have not always spoken about corruption in a clear or consistent voice, the approach taken by the majority cannot be right, in my judgment. It disregards our constitutional history and the fundamental demands of a democratic society.

What does he mean by crabbed view? From the Oxford English Dictionary, we have the following:

1.1 (of style) contorted and difficult to understand.
‘crabbed legal language’

On Michael Hudson’s web page this article is called The Honest Sector. On YouTube this is called Webinar with Michael Hudson: a 4000-year perspective on economy, money and debt.

So far, I have only watched 25 minutes of this. To demonstrate my nerdiness, i find this presentation to be fascinating. Luckily I will know what the future holds, but most people won’t watch this. I can invest like I am reading tomorrow’s newspapers today. I only post this here for bragging rights. In the future, I will refer to this post and say “See, I told you so.” Don’t spoil my fun by looking at this now.

I just realized that with the transcript on Michael Hudson’s web page, I can easily mine this for pithy quotes.

China says: we’re not in it for the money, we’re not developing this transport and belt and road infrastructure in order to make a profit. We’re developing it in order to create a region-wide prosperity, in which we can all share.
.
.
.
So, the conflict between the United States and with Europe is the tail in China. It isn’t a conflict about who’s going to make better iPhones. It’s a conflict to the death of economic systems. The United States and Europe cannot permit any country to survive that is not polarizing the economy.

It’s a conflict between an economic system that impoverishes the economy, which is the political aim of the European governments and the American governments, or an economy that is structured so as to help economies grow, which is Chinese pragmatic industrial economy.

We’re really talking about a conflict not among nations, but between what was industrial capitalism, which is evolving into socialism, or finance capitalism. The United States represents finance capitalism, and it imposed this on Europe as its satellite. As long as Europe lets itself become a satellite for finance capitalism, it’s going to end up being de-industrialized as the United States.

YouTube has the video Discussing MMT (Modern Monetary Theory) with Warren Mosler.

Discussing MMT (Modern Monetary Theory) with Warren Mosler

Warren Mosler might have explained that money created by private banks has been tried many times throughout history, but most times such monetary systems were subject to panics and crashes. That’s ostensibly why the Federal Reserve Bank system was created. Why didn’t Warren understand where the interviewer was coming from so that he could adjust his explanation to the capabilities of the interviewer? I could only stand to watch about 50 minutes of this. Maybe, in the next hour that I didn’t see it all worked out.

This is the comment I left for Warren Mosler.

Sorry to say this, but in the 49 minutes of this that I watched, it seems like you kept going around in circles. You kept sticking to your fundamental, but you weren’t successfully communicating with this guy. It’s a fun exercise if you like that sort of thing, but after enough experiences with this type of argument, wouldn’t you start to suspect that there must be a better way to go at this? Have you ever watched Fadhel Kaboub? He seems to make progress explaining these things to people that you don’t seem able to achieve.

Is there some point to discussing MMT beyond just being right? Tell me where in this two hour video I should look to see where you finally got through to this guy. If you continually fail to get through to large numbers of people, maybe the blame doesn’t fall solely on the listener. Maybe the speaker has to learn how to adapt to the way people learn.

Your teaching methods worked for me, because I have learned to understand MMT pretty well. However, the vast majority of the people haven’t go it yet. Some of the people who have got it learned from Stephanie Kelton and Fadhel Kaboub. I am also a big fan of Michael Hudson’s, but it has taken me several years to finally understand him.

It was either Bill Keane or William Mitchel who mentioned the high level of debt that was a problem in China. I thought that was an odd thing for an MMT proponent to say. It took me a few years to realize thew debt he was worried about was private sector debt, not government debt of a country that had a sovereign currency. Maybe it was listening to Michael Hudson over and over again that finally made me see the light.

I love good explanations that straighten out my understanding of reality, but I also appreciate good teaching methods that more people can use to understand the explanation.

Where I went to college we often talked about lessons where the professor would apocryphally say that “this is obvious to the most casual observer”. However, that was an ironic joke on how some professors taught. To many very smart students it was not obvious at all. We spent many hours trying not to be the most casual observer, and we still had troubles some times.

As a matter of fact, I have great difficulty explaining this problem to some leading proponents of MMT. I keep plugging away trying different methods of explaining, but so far I don’t seem to find the way to explain it. I wish Fadhel Kaboub would teach me how to explain it the way he does.

I have two previous posts that demonstrate how Fadhel Kaboub explains things. See MMT Insights on Different Amounts of Currency Sovereignty and African Monetary Sovereignty

YouTube has the video “MMT Insights for the Ukrainian Economy,” Speech for the Ukrainian Society of Financial Analysts by Fadhel Kaboub.

In this presentation, I introduce the basics of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) and highlight some red flags for the Ukrainian economy with regards to inflation, exchange rate stability, food prices, real estate speculation, and external debt.

Watch the video to see how Kaboub comes to these conclusions.

This is a video that the USA and the EU would rather the Ukraine not hear. When the USA overthrew the elected regime and installed one favorable to the west, they gave the Ukraine an economic deal that is the antithesis of what Kaboub would recommend. I bet the first question being asked is motivated by the debts owed to the IMF and the EU. This deal was intended to limit The Ukraine’s monetary sovereignty. This facilitated the ability of the western powers to strip the assets from The Ukraine.

If you can make it through the Q & A part of this video, Prof. Kaboub makes the above point, but perhaps too diplomatically. Since I have no need for diplomacy, I can come right out and explain that this trap for The Ukraine was purposely set by the USA and the EU. The current build up of hostilities between Russia and The Ukraine may be motivated by the West’s need to distract The Ukraine from understanding the damage we in the West are doing to them.

I realize that this presentation is the answer to my complaint about how the leading lights of MMT discuss inflation. I have often heard them bat down complaints of inflation, by saying “See, inflation is not a problem now.” I complain that is not enough of an answer. You have to look at why inflation has not been a problem and what could change to make it a problem in the future. Prof. Kaboub’s response “Look for the actual sources of inflation in the real economy” is exactly the answer I would like to hear from the other proponents of MMT.

YouTube has the video “African Monetary Sovereignty.” Keynote speech: Association of Panafrican Journalists (April 2021)

A brief introduction to the structural economic problems facing Africa and an outline of key policy insights from Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) that will ensure higher degrees of economic and monetary sovereignty.

Event hosted by the Association of Panafrican Journalists (Yaoundé, Cameroon).

There is a lot of great information packed into only 15 minutes.

CounterPunch as the article America’s Neoliberal Financialization Policy vs. China’s Industrial Socialism by Michael Hudson.

The problem was not Russia, whose Communist nomenklatura let their country be ruled by a Western-oriented kleptocracy, but China. The U.S.-China confrontation is not simply a national rivalry, but a conflict of economic and social systems. The reason why today’s world is being plunged into an economic and near-military Cold War 2.0 is to be found in the prospect of socialist control of what Western economies since classical antiquity have treated as privately owned rent-yielding assets: money and banking (along with the rules governing debt and foreclosure), land and natural resources, and infrastructure monopolies.

Market Watch as the article U.S consumer prices surge in March, CPI finds, pushing inflation to 2 1/2-year high.

The rate of inflation over the past year shot up to 2.6% from 1.7% in the prior month, marking the highest level since the fall of 2018.

Inflation is officially only at 2.6% (the Fed has been trying to reach 2% for years). However, I have been warning my fellow MMT proponents not to say that there has been no inflation, so inflation is not a problem. I have been suggesting that MMT proponents ask themselves, “Why has there been no Consumer Price Index inflation? What in the economic environment could change that would cause inflation?”

There has not been Consumer Price Index inflation, but there has been stock market inflation because we have had massive monetary stimulus going to the oligarchs.

The change that is starting to come about is redirecting more stimulus to the people who need it most. If they now have money to spend, but the economy is hobbled by COVID-19 lock downs. (An example, I want to buy a whole house backup generator, but a lock down pause at he factory means they cannot deliver one to me until October).

Since the answers to my suggested questions are obvious with a moment’s thought by the economic experts, why haven’t there been plans put in place to handle these contingencies?
As I have been pondering these scenarios for over a year, I finally stopped procrastinating last April. I bought some GOLD ETF’s back on April 2, 2020 as a hedge against my predictions coming true. I hadn’t invested in gold since the 1970s before this.