Breaking News from S.E.R.C.E
7.1K views | +0 today
Follow
 
Scooped by Joe Russo
onto Breaking News from S.E.R.C.E
Scoop.it!

Government is not Above the Law

Government is not Above the Law | Breaking News from S.E.R.C.E | Scoop.it
Judge Andrew Napolitano: "Fidelity to the rule of law is the centerpiece of a free society. It means that no one is beneath the protection of the law and no one is absolved of the obligation to com...
more...
No comment yet.
Breaking News from S.E.R.C.E
Breaking News from S.E.R.C.E
EWT's Social & Economically Relevant Curatorial Exchange
Curated by Joe Russo
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Scooped by Joe Russo
Scoop.it!

What is the Value and Purpose of Sharing?

What is the Value and Purpose of Sharing? | Breaking News from S.E.R.C.E | Scoop.it
In the history of humankind, with the possible exception of the Gutenberg Press, there has not been a more disruptive advance in…
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Joe Russo
Scoop.it!

Why Taxation is Slavery: Words From Frederick Douglass

Why Taxation is Slavery: Words From Frederick Douglass | Breaking News from S.E.R.C.E | Scoop.it
What do you call it when someone takes 100% of your labor by force? Slavery.

Slavery is being forced to work against your will for the benefit of your master, your owner. The only reason they own the products of your labor is because they own you. If you had exclusive control over what is done to and with your body, the most basic right of self-ownership, you would not owe anybody your labor.

So then a lesser percentage of forced labor is also slavery, though to an obviously lesser degree.

Whether a cent or a million dollars is taken without consent, it is theft. And if someone forces you to work for them 1% of the time, or 100% of a time, that is still slavery.

Frederick Douglass was a slave, by any reckoning. So it is interesting to read his own words, on having his rightfully earned wages taken by force. In his book My Bondage and My Freedom, Douglass laments the state of his servitude, that all his hard work is confiscated from him.
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Joe Russo
Scoop.it!

Money In America

Money In America | Breaking News from S.E.R.C.E | Scoop.it

There is a great truth in what Bryan says, though, I believe, in service of the exact wrong direction. What he, like de Tocqueville, had noticed is balance; a simple and yet altogether insanely complex ideal. There must be money and there must be rules governing that money, but those must be stable as well as faithful to the balance to labor. We cannot swing too far in any one direction, as Bryan proposed with his further silver agitation, for that is the place where all economics becomes the pure politics of dissatisfaction and revolution; from the contradictions of early America to the constant upheaval of 19th century France and Europe.


This can, at times, seem like all ancient stuff. Surely the modern 21st century has left long ago the criticisms of the 1800’s like those of Karl Marx (who was no fool). But Marxism has undergone resurgence, and a big one that should not be underestimated, and all because of the bastard lie of the Great “Moderation.” Economists tells us that it was the golden age where technocratic prowess of perfect ideals was put best to work in fashioning stable growth – and then leave us with no answers, none, to the asset bubbles as well as what really happened ten years ago.

They have done this under the banner of capitalism and free markets. And so the grave dissatisfaction over this lost decade everywhere in the world has taken on those proportions for a sizable minority (feel the Bern). The longer this is allowed to continue, the closer to the tipping point we might get.


The irony of classifying the Great “Moderation” as one age of ideal capitalism is its utter lack of capital. Money has become so fungible as to be purely undefinable. If money is such, there cannot be balance of capital to money, nor of most importantly money to labor. That hidden imbalance of the last few decades in that regard is everything about the stagnant world left in its wake; the economists of the 1980’s forward have allowed the US and global economy to transverse the Ohio River to the Southern side. By that I don’t mean the socialists are right and that we all are slaves regardless; rather, I mean simply that by allowing money growth to go so far out of control (in both directions now) labor is no longer honored as it needed to be, and still does.


The affliction of wage reduction, in aggregate terms, is not at all about drug addicted, lazy Americans and their retiring grandparents; it is the lack of restored balance in money. It is, again, just that simple as well as insanely, incomprehensibly complicated.

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Joe Russo
Scoop.it!

The End of Ultra-Easy Money?

The End of Ultra-Easy Money? | Breaking News from S.E.R.C.E | Scoop.it
After eight years of extremely loose monetary policy, the economy is great again and we are to enter into a post-stimulative era of monetary policy. So said Yellen at a recent discussion at the University of Michigan. In her words, the Fed had given the economy all the "oomph [they] possibly could" and it was time to "allow" the economy to coast along.

Paying no attention to their own econometric constructs such as the GDP, the Fed has declared that the economy is fantastic. After all, the unemployment rate has leapt downward over the last several years (just don't look at the denominator — the labor participation rate) and the Fed's inflation measures are right around their arbitrary 2% level. Allegedly, these two pieces (and the unrelenting stock market) means everything is great! 

According to the WSJ's summary: "Fed officials plan to continue gradually raising interest rates unless the economy begins to deteriorate." So the financial system, after eight years of balance sheet expansion at the Fed, is stable, unless it's not. Then what? Well, then the rate-rising narrative will quickly reverse and we'll be back where we were — more stimulative monetary policy!
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Joe Russo
Scoop.it!

The Cost of a Trump Presidency

The Cost of a Trump Presidency | Breaking News from S.E.R.C.E | Scoop.it
Trump’s capitulation makes it abundantly clear that the system itself is beyond repair.  Getting the right individual to salvage the American welfare/warfare state cannot be done.  Trump had many advantages that no future candidate will likely possess which means that anybody that follows will be an “insider.”  Much of his base, therefore, will no longer support a future Republican candidate or will give him only lukewarm support .  With no independent personality to rally around, the millions of disappointed Trumpians will seek new governing paradigms which hopefully will lead to the growth of secession movements.

Ultimately, however, a permanent American foreign policy of non intervention, peace, and free trade will only come about when there is a change in the prevailing ideology of society where all contenders for political office espouse such a notion and today’s warmongers are seen for what they are: enemies of humanity and its Creator.
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Joe Russo
Scoop.it!

War is the Continuation of Trumpism by Other Means

War is the Continuation of Trumpism by Other Means | Breaking News from S.E.R.C.E | Scoop.it
Donald Trump’s airstrikes in Syria are tragic proof that he is just as eager to wage actual warfare as he is to wage economic warfare.

Yet there should be nothing surprising about his recent attacks. Military intervention does not represent a reversal of Trump’s deeply-held values (if he has any), nor is it a subversion of good intentions by malevolent forces in US politics. He is simply staying true to his word, for once.

Trump was never a peace candidate. Even during his campaign, he never criticized foreign intervention on principle, or took a strong stand against regime change and imperialism—a few vague Tweets about Obama’s foreign policy do not a non-interventionist make. On the contrary, Trump repeatedly endorsed vicious tactics and emphasized US military dominance through the aggressive expansion of its budget and capabilities. Over the last three months, his continuation of Obama’s interventions—and the resulting death toll—have provided ample evidence of his hawkishness, but the attacks on Syria represent the true dawn of the Trump era in foreign policy.
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Joe Russo
Scoop.it!

The War on Cash: Old and New

The War on Cash: Old and New | Breaking News from S.E.R.C.E | Scoop.it
Before the United States ran aground on the dangerous reefs of State interventionism and centralism, the dollar was not only a sign of stability, but also a symbol of human freedom. A dollar was a means to express your wants and commands to the business class. The consumer, for the most part, was sovereign. Any American could save, consume, and invest his money whose value was not debauched by a government in lack of resources. To this day, and despite the evils of inflationism and central banking, the dollar remains an instrument of freedom and independence for many Americans. There are those, however, who would like to change that. They are the Wall Street financiers, politicians, annointed intellectuals, and central bankers for whom a centralized control of the money supply is not enough. To them, not only the supply of money but also the free and innocent use of money should be strictly limited and regulated by the State. Their new enemy is the banknote and their new war is the war on cash.
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Joe Russo
Scoop.it!

Ryancare is Failing — What Should Happen Next?

Ryancare is Failing — What Should Happen Next? | Breaking News from S.E.R.C.E | Scoop.it
The beltway Republicans are scrambling now that it seems the Obamacare replacement package put forward for Paul Ryan and endorsed by Donald Trump can’t get enough support to get through the House. The failure of the American Health Care Act should surprise no one, as it is a piece of legislation that managed to please no one. The Freedom Caucus, made up of the “true believers” of the Tea Party, balked at its similarities to Obamacare, while more moderate members found the bill’s modest change to the ACA too radical for their tastes. 

While the failure of the Ryan/Trump/Whatevercare represents a political defeat for the president and GOP leadership, it is probably a net-win for those who oppose socialized healthcare. After all, nothing could be more beneficial to the Bernie Sanders-wing of the Democratic party than for the nominally “free market” Republicans passing its own brand of reform that fails to fix America's insurance market. Much like the 2008 financial crisis, its collapse would absurdly be seen as a defeat for “capitalism” and be used as justification for even more government control.
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Joe Russo
Scoop.it!

What Went Wrong in Wall Street Reform: Obama Versus FDR

What Went Wrong in Wall Street Reform: Obama Versus FDR | Breaking News from S.E.R.C.E | Scoop.it
Following the Wall Street crash of 1929, thousands of banks failed in the United States. More than 3,000 banks went under in 1931 followed by more than 1400 the following year. There was no Federal insurance on bank deposits in those days so both depositors and shareholders were wiped out or received pennies on the dollar when the banks went bust. This deepened the panic and deepened the Great Depression.

Many of the bank failures stemmed from the banks using depositors’ money to speculate in the stock market, sometimes to manipulate the price of their own stock.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt was sworn in as President of the United States on March 4, 1933. Two days later he declared a national banking holiday, meaning that he closed all the banks and sent in the examiners to determine which ones were sound and which ones were insolvent. The banking holiday lasted to March 13. Just three months later, on June 16, 1933, FDR and Congress enacted the Glass-Steagall Act also known as the Banking Act of 1933.

The Glass-Steagall Act created Federal deposit insurance at commercial banks while simultaneously restricting their ability to act as Wall Street casinos and speculate in stocks or risky debt securities. The legislation required that commercial banks had to be separate from investment banks and brokerage firms.

That legislation protected America’s banking system from the hubris of Wall Street traders for the next 66 years until its repeal on November 12, 1999 during the Clinton administration.
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Joe Russo
Scoop.it!

America Has Lost Its Guiding Light, Its Citizens’ Bill of Rights

America Has Lost Its Guiding Light, Its Citizens’ Bill of Rights | Breaking News from S.E.R.C.E | Scoop.it
In 2013 U.S. Federal Court Judge Richard Leon humiliated the Obama administration with a ruling on its Orwellian spy tactics against citizens about whom it did not have the slightest suspicion of wrongdoing. The case was Klayman v. Obama and grew out of the disclosures made by National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower, Edward Snowden.

Judge Leon came down on the side of Larry Klayman and Charles Strange, two of the plaintiffs that filed a lawsuit against the government for its indiscriminate collection of tens of millions of phone records of law abiding citizens, which it had secretly given itself the right to probe and analyze for a period of five years. Judge Leon found the program to be in violation of the Bill of Rights’ Fourth Amendment, writing that he could not “imagine a more ‘indiscriminate’ and ‘arbitrary invasion’ than this systemic and high-tech collection and retention of personal data on every single citizen for purposes of querying and analyzing it without prior judicial approval.”

The Fourth Amendment requires “probable cause” prior to a search as opposed to a vast dragnet more akin to a surveillance state. It reads:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Today, tens of millions of Americans have been seduced through propaganda to believe that their enemy is the other political party. But these egregious abuses to the Bill of Rights and the vast erosion of citizen protections are occurring regardless of which political party is in power in Washington.

Just how long will it take for Americans to wake up to the undeniable reality that there is only one political party now in America and that’s the Moneyed-Interest Party of the One Percent.
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Joe Russo
Scoop.it!

Repeal and Replace Needn't Be Complicated

Repeal and Replace Needn't Be Complicated | Breaking News from S.E.R.C.E | Scoop.it
Let’s hope Congress has the sense to get government out of control of healthcare. Only a consumer controlled market with freedom for provider to compete can work this magic. Together providers and consumers will drive prices down so low that today’s subsidies will in retrospect seem unimaginable.

So far what we have seen from Paul Ryan in the House is not encouraging. He not only keeps a government mandate on what must be covered in an insurance policy ( the kitchen sink), which will make policies unaffordable for most. He even maintains federal subsidies for insurance companies. And he introduces a brand new price fixing scheme.  Ryan has certainly revealed himself to be a foe of free markets and a fan of crony arrangements, notwithstanding his rhetoric to the contrary.
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Joe Russo
Scoop.it!

WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON? (PART THREE) 

WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON? (PART THREE)  | Breaking News from S.E.R.C.E | Scoop.it
We are now seven weeks into the Trump presidency and it seems like seven years with amount of incidents that have occurred before and since his inauguration. When in doubt, Trump’s brain dead, hyperventilating with hate, opponents either blame the Russians or declare him Hitler. The histrionics displayed by the low IQ hypocritical Hollywood elite, corrupt Democratic politicians, fake news liberal media and Soros paid left wing radical terrorists over the last two months has been disgraceful, revolting, childish, and dangerous.


A counter-revolution by the gun owning normal people in the 85% red area of the country that voted for Trump would not be a pleasant experience for the paid protesters, vagina hat wearing feminazis, and the safe space anti-free speech lefties on campuses across the land.
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Joe Russo
Scoop.it!

Arizona Challenges the Fed’s Money Monopoly

Arizona Challenges the Fed’s Money Monopoly | Breaking News from S.E.R.C.E | Scoop.it
History shows that, if individuals have the freedom to choose what to use as money, they will likely opt for gold or silver.

Of course, modern politicians and their Keynesian enablers despise the gold or silver standard. This is because linking a currency to a precious metal limits the ability of central banks to finance the growth of the welfare-warfare state via the inflation tax. This forces politicians to finance big government much more with direct means of taxation.

Despite the hostility toward gold from modern politicians, gold played a role in US monetary policy for sixty years after the creation of the Federal Reserve. Then, in 1971, as concerns over the US government’s increasing deficits led many foreign governments to convert their holdings of US dollars to gold, President Nixon closed the gold window, creating America’s first purely fiat currency.
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Joe Russo
Scoop.it!

Hedge Fund CIO: What Central Banks Have Done Is "Stunning, Unprecedented"

Hedge Fund CIO: What Central Banks Have Done Is "Stunning, Unprecedented" | Breaking News from S.E.R.C.E | Scoop.it
We start a quiet Sunday with a big picture anecdote from Eric Peters' latest weekend note explaining why what central banks are trying to do is impossible, why the trend of inflation over the past 70 years is "stunning and unprecedented" and why "volatility suppression" always eventually fails.

"Anecdote", by Eric Peters of One River Asset Management

“For all of history - prior to 1955 - there was roughly equal probability of inflation or deflation in any given year,” said the economic historian.
 
“But since 1955 we’ve experienced uninterrupted annual inflation. It’s a stunning fact, unprecedented. To an economist in 1955, the coming 60yr inflation would have appeared less probable than a catastrophic meteor impact.”
 
After enduring a series of world wars, and social upheavals, policy makers conducted an experiment, removing the deflationary left-tail of our economic cycles.
 
“We created history’s greatest volatility-suppressing machine, and it delivered breathtaking stability.” Of course, we endured volatile periods since 1955. But life is short. And we thus lack the reference points to compare our minor wobbles to the wild booms and busts of our great grandparents.
 
“Minsky taught us that stability begets instability. And it stands to reason that our volatility-selling machine will break one day. We saw a glimpse of this in 2008-09.”
 
Perhaps the only thing more surprising than the severity of that crisis was the response of our body politic. “In 2007 if you had shown the top 100 economists a list of the extraordinary measures that central banking and economic elites would unleash in the coming decade, not a single one would have believed you.”
 
Politicians hate change. With very few exceptions, they stand for stasis. Our central bankers seek stability. And investors have learned to front-run them all, selling volatility into every spike using ever more complex strategies.
 
“But volatility suppression at the lows is much easier in many ways than at the highs. In a crisis, our central banks simply go full-throttle. At the highs though, they seek the unattainable, which is perfect economic balance in a world that is inherently unstable - they attempt to crystallize the entire ecosystem. Which is as arrogant as it is impossible.”
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Joe Russo
Scoop.it!

Breaking Up the Big Wall Street Banks Is Back in the Headlines

Breaking Up the Big Wall Street Banks Is Back in the Headlines | Breaking News from S.E.R.C.E | Scoop.it
The problem with the newspaper debate today is that almost no one has their facts straight. On April 13, John Authers correctly wrote at the Financial Times that “The continuing yearning for Glass-Steagall shows that the world (not just the US) has not come to terms with the crisis of 2008. Justice has not been seen to be done; remedies to prevent a repeat have not been seen to be applied. Dodd-Frank has failed to instill confidence.” All that is absolutely true. But Authers also bizarrely states that “Bringing back Glass-Steagall would not alter the scale of today’s financial institutions.”

The Financial Times journalist is apparently not aware that the hundreds of trillions of dollars of derivatives sitting on the books of the biggest Wall Street banks would not exist but for the insured deposits providing the ballast and credit rating.

Next came the Washington Post’s Editorial Board on April 19, which went with the headline: “A Depression-era law could get a new life under Trump. Here’s what it should look like.” But the article made the preposterous claim that “The actual causal link between the repeal of Glass-Steagall and the financial crisis is a matter of great dispute…because the investment firms whose failures triggered the panic, Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, had never been subject to the law.”

The multiple errors in the above sentence are symbolic of a general lack of public understanding of the financial crisis. Every Wall Street firm was “subject to the law” until its 1999 repeal. Bear Stearns collapsed in March 2008 – long before the real panic set in during September of that year. Lehman Brothers was not only subject to the Glass-Steagall Act but it benefitted dramatically from its repeal by engaging in insured-deposit banking. As we reported in 2012:

“Lehman Brothers owned two FDIC insured banks, Lehman Brothers Bank, FSB and Lehman Brothers Commercial Bank. Together, they held $17.2 billion in assets as of June 30, 2008, 75 days before Lehman went belly up. Lehman Brothers Banks FSB is where Lehman handled its mortgage loan originations. When the FDIC approved the Lehman Brothers Commercial Bank application in 2005, it specifically noted that the FDIC insured bank ‘anticipates acting as a derivatives intermediary, engaged in matched trading of interest rate products, primarily interest rate swaps, as well as forward purchase agreements and options contracts.’ ”

The New York Times has played a leading role in obfuscating what actually caused the financial crash – first through writer Andrew Ross Sorkin and more recently under the pens of economist Paul Krugman and writer William Cohan.

In a July 2015 column, Cohan ridiculed Senators Elizabeth Warren an
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Joe Russo
Scoop.it!

Alan Greenspan, Sellout

Alan Greenspan, Sellout | Breaking News from S.E.R.C.E | Scoop.it
Once close to the levers of power, matters were different. He wished to become Paul Volcker’s successor as Fed chairman, and he knew that firm opposition to Fed policy would hurt his chances for the job. Going against his earlier analysis, he supported the “largest bank bailout in U.S. history,” the rescue in 1984 of the Continental Illinois National Bank. He admitted the dangers of the bailout, but it was, as Mallaby summarizes his position, “necessary and appalling.” Appalling, one suspects, because of its effects on the free market; but necessary to advance Greenspan’s career. By the time he became Fed Chairman, the transformation was complete. By 1989, his “libertarian rejection of bailouts was long gone; what he wanted above all was the space to fight inflation.”

Greenspan wanted to fight inflation; but the best way to do it was no longer acceptable. A gold standard, he had long ago recognized, would bring with it monetary stability; but to replace the Fed with a commodity standard not subject to control by the government would erode his power. Accordingly the gold standard had to go.

He cast aside the gold standard with a transparent sophism: “A necessary condition of returning to a gold standard is the financial environment which the gold standard itself is presumed to create. ... But, if we restore financial stability, what purpose is then served by a return to a gold standard?” (quoting Greenspan). Why a gold standard cannot help create a stable financial environment, but instead presupposes it, Greenspan left unclear. Even less clear was how the Fed was supposed to preserve stability in the absence of the gold standard. Evidently we were to rely on his supreme powers of judgment in steering the economy.

Greenspan in his long career as Fed chairman gained the power and acclaim he coveted; but the crash of 2008, two years after the end of his tenure in office, led to a sharp decline in his reputation.

In their attitude toward compromise, Greenspan is the polar opposite to Murray Rothbard. Rothbard could have tailored his views to win the favor of Arthur Burns, who was a family friend, but he refused to do so. He never abandoned his principles, and he took the measure of Greenspan. Writing about him in 1987, Rothbard observed: “Greenspan’s real qualification is that he can be trusted never to rock the establishment’s boat. He has long positioned himself in the very middle of the economic spectrum. He is, like most other long-time Republican economists, a conservative Keynesian, which in these days is almost indistinguishable from the liberal Keynesians in the Democratic camp.”

In looking over Greenspan’s fall from free-market grace, the melancholy first lines of Browning’s The Lost Leader, addressed to Wordsworth, come to mind: “Just for a handful of silver he left us,/Just for a ribbon to stick in his coat. ...”
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Joe Russo
Scoop.it!

Shovel Ready: How The Fed Makes Us Dig Our Own Graves

Shovel Ready: How The Fed Makes Us Dig Our Own Graves | Breaking News from S.E.R.C.E | Scoop.it

Observe the classic Keynesian economic system of plugging a power cord into itself which our government has been operating on for over a century.

The Fed’s Land of Make Believe

The fed cannot increase the actual value of the economy, all they can do is change how people react to that reality. When there is actual capital–not dollars but value, production, wealth–then interests rates would naturally go down as money can be risked by lending it out in various forms.

As this money is used for projects and becomes more scarce, interest rates would naturally rise because it would become riskier to lend. It is supply and demand, which the fed ignores, instead opting to create bubbles.

And what the New York Times article ignores is that the government cannot create value out of thin air by taxing and spending, it can only move value, and redistribute wealth. Sure, we can build more roads to employ people, but if there isn’t enough food being produced, full employment won’t stop people from starving.

The broken window fallacy persists. The lie is that a broken window stimulates the economy. What they leave out is that money is spent on a new window instead of being spent on something else. It doesn’t stimulate the economy, it manipulates where wealth is steered.

The fed and the government go around smashing windows pretending it will improve the economy. Of course, when the government is in bed with the window-makers, it helps them out a lot!

And this is why war is so popular among the Keynesian economic system our government uses to destroy wealth. Instead of broken windows, it is tomahawk missiles, jets, and drones. When these things are destroyed, it “stimulates” the economy exactly where the government wants it. The defense industry gets rich, instead of that money being spent on whatever the robbed taxpayers were going to spend it on. Any number of industries suffer because our money is stolen and thrown into the trash-pit-of-destruction that is the defense industry.

At least when welfare recipients take our money they only kill themselves if they spend it on cigarettes, alcohol, and crack. The welfare whores in the military industrial complex spend it on killing others and inflaming international tensions.

What do they care? More war only makes them richer.
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Joe Russo
Scoop.it!

My Strategy For Confronting and Defeating the Status Quo

My Strategy For Confronting and Defeating the Status Quo | Breaking News from S.E.R.C.E | Scoop.it
There’s one main reason the vast majority of Americans continue to lose and suffer, while a very small percentage of people continue to win and prosper, and it can be summed up with one word, unity.

I know this sounds corny and cliché, but that doesn’t make it untrue. There’s a reason a small group of vested parties are able to run this country in their interests alone while the general public gets scraps, and it’s not simply money. A big part of the problem lies in ourselves and our inability to form mass movements that cross political lines on issues of tremendous importance. The “elite” don’t suffer from such divisiveness, which is how they are able to hold on to power despite repeated failures spanning decades.

A perfect example of how the status quo comes together when their collective interests are threatened was on full display during the 2016 election. Many of us stood in shock with our mouths open in horror as corporate Democrats, neoconservative Republicans and the corporate media formed a total alliance in opposition to Donald Trump. Those of us who pay attention to the world knew this had nothing to do with Trump’s comments about Mexicans or Muslims. All of that was merely a smokescreen for what really concerned them. What really got them terrified was the prospect that Trump would reverse course on the reckless late-stage imperial foreign policy that has been relentlessly pursued since the attacks of September 11, 2001.

To see what I mean, watch the following video of General Wesley Clark describing the days after 9/11:
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Joe Russo
Scoop.it!

The Supposed Failure of Economics

The Supposed Failure of Economics | Breaking News from S.E.R.C.E | Scoop.it
The left has always been anti-economics for the simple reason that economics shows the real cost of progressive policy and government meddling in the economy. When this cost is pointed out, socialism in all shapes and forms necessarily appears less appetizing. The financial crisis, rhetorically made out to be a massive "market failure," therefore fueled the anti-economics movement's calls for a different and "more social" (that is, it overlooks some of the costs of progressive policy) economic science.

These calls for a "new economics" are heard from students (who apparently know better than their professors what should be taught) and faculty on university campuses as well as from loudmouths in the media. Post the financial crisis, the argument is simpler than previously: economists failed to predict the financial crisis and thus economics is falsified and must be changed or replaced. 
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Joe Russo
Scoop.it!

What The World Needs Now

What The World Needs Now | Breaking News from S.E.R.C.E | Scoop.it

What good would opening monetary policy do? The “audit the Fed” bill has been passed again, this time out of committee and possibly set for a floor vote in the House. Though questions remain about the Senate, with at least President Trump its prospects are better than at any time it passed before. Proponents of the idea want to make monetary policy an open matter, though it isn’t really clear why. They claim that secrecy is a hindrance or too much power, but in truth I fail to see much if any difference if the discussions were given to the public contemporarily.


After all, we have all the material necessary right now without the audit by which to burn the Fed to the ground. The transcripts from both 2008 and 2011 (as well as a good many in the years before and in between) show without any doubt or reservation that the FOMC has no idea what it is doing. That is true when comes to the economy, but more so and more importantly as it relates to the central bank’s primary task of money. Again, we can state unequivocally right at this very moment that the Fed doesn’t know from money. We can further state the consequences of that very dereliction in the same unambiguous terms, and do so, as I did earlier, using Ben Bernanke’s own words:

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Joe Russo
Scoop.it!

How the Government Ruined US Healthcare — and What Can Be Done

How the Government Ruined US Healthcare — and What Can Be Done | Breaking News from S.E.R.C.E | Scoop.it
Government’s meddling in the healthcare business has been disastrous from the get-go.

Since 1910, when Republican William Taft gave in to the American Medical Association’s lobbying efforts, most administrations have passed new healthcare regulations. With each new law or set of new regulations, restrictions on the healthcare market went further, until at some point in the 1980s, people began to notice the cost of healthcare had skyrocketed.

This is not an accident. It’s by design.
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Joe Russo
Scoop.it!

No Mere Trivia

No Mere Trivia | Breaking News from S.E.R.C.E | Scoop.it

We are at the stage ten years later where it is still necessary to define terms. In every finance and economics textbook, the chapter on monetary policy defines “tight” money as when the Federal Reserve (or whatever central bank) raises its policy rate(s). Conversely, “accommodative” money is where it lowers the rate(s). In the US system, the technical reason given is open market operations, where the FOMC acting through the Open Market Desk of its New York Branch (FRBNY) will buy and sell securities as necessary to achieve the target rate.


From the perspective of the banking system, that means the Fed will, if pushed, provide whatever level of bank reserves necessary to keep the Effective Federal Funds rate sufficiently near the policy rate. When the policy rate is being raised, as it was in the middle 2000’s, it was in theory moving upward because money market participants fully believed that the Fed would sell bonds into the market (if needed) to reduce the level of available reserves – “tightening.”


That policy was instituted at that time because the FOMC felt the change in stance was warranted given an economy that finally appeared to be recovering from the unusually durable after-effects of the unusually mild dot-com recession. The Fed raised the federal funds rate to achieve that “tightening” so as to reduce economic momentum before it became overly inflationary. It is this assumed set of conditions which are used today to characterize the current action of monetary policy.


But on the most basic level, is that what happens? Is raising the federal funds rate truly equivalent to tightening? The answer is emphatically, unequivocally no.

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Joe Russo
Scoop.it!

Bi-Weekly Economic Review

Bi-Weekly Economic Review | Breaking News from S.E.R.C.E | Scoop.it
The Federal Reserve is widely expected to raise interest rates again at their meeting next week. They obviously view the recent cyclical upturn as being durable and the inflation data as pointing to the need for higher rates. Our market based indicators agree somewhat but nominal and real interest rates are still below their mid-December peaks so I don’t think a lot has changed. More interesting will be how the markets react after the Fed does what everyone expects it to do. I suspect we will soon be hearing – again – about the conundrum of long term interest rates. 
The economic data in any case hasn’t really been all that strong. Yes, the first derivative does seem to have turned higher but the incline is still pretty gradual. The jobs report is a good example, where the monthly average has moved up since the election but is still well within the range we’ve seen this entire expansion. President Trump and his supporters have been quick to take credit – I’m pretty sure Joe Kernen fainted on CNBC when the number was announced Friday – but there may be less there than meets the eye. As many others pointed out, February was unusually warm – 7 degrees above average – which probably means there are some seasonal adjustment issues with the headline number. I seriously doubt the economy produced anywhere near 58,000 construction jobs last month. 
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Joe Russo
Scoop.it!

The War on Cash Finds Its General

The War on Cash Finds Its General | Breaking News from S.E.R.C.E | Scoop.it
Kenneth Rogoff would sharply disagree with Peale, a character in the 1915 novel It Pays to Advertise, who said that the most beautiful word in the English language is “cash.” For Rogoff, a distinguished monetary economist (and chess grandmaster) who teaches at Harvard, cash, especially in large denominations, ought to be eliminated.

Rogoff has two main arguments for his proposal; but, before examining them, let us look at exactly what he wishes to do. In his suggested plan, which “can be adapted and tweaked in many directions,” “All paper currency is gradually phased out, beginning with all notes of $50 and above (or foreign equivalent), then next the $20 bill, leaving only $1, $5, and (perhaps) $10 bills. ... The government provides all individuals the option of access to free basic-function debit card/smartphone accounts, either through banks or through a government option. ... Regulatory and legal framework aims to discourage other means of making large-scale payments that can be completely hidden from the government. ... Government helps facilitate ... real-time clearing for most transactions.”

One word reverberates throughout this proposal: “government.” For Rogoff, the government must combat nefarious characters in the “underground economy,” not to mention tax cheats, who transact business in paper money. Think of all the revenue the government has lost, owing to the selfishness of these miscreants!
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Joe Russo
Scoop.it!

Are We Witnessing The Weirdest Moment In Economic History?

Are We Witnessing The Weirdest Moment In Economic History? | Breaking News from S.E.R.C.E | Scoop.it
Perhaps each of these events will result in a “stable” outcome and there is nothing to be concerned about. That said, I don’t believe in chance. Most geopolitical outcomes are influenced by internationalist players, which makes the outcomes of these events predictable. This is what made the Brexit predictable, and it is what made Trump’s victory predictable. Everything about the confluence of political and economic events in 2017 suggests to me a festering crisis atmosphere.

As I have always said, economic collapse is a process, not a singular moment in time. This process lulls the masses into complacency. You can show them warning sign after warning sign, but most of them have no concept of what a collapse is. They are waiting for a cinematic moment of revelation, a financial explosion, when really, the whole disaster is happening in slow motion right under their noses. Economies do not explode, they drown as the water rises one inch at a time.
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Joe Russo
Scoop.it!

Hayek on Fake News

Hayek on Fake News | Breaking News from S.E.R.C.E | Scoop.it
"Fake news" emerged as a dominant theme of the 2016 US presidential election campaign and has been in the public eye ever since. To now-president Trump, the term refers to CNN, the New York Times, and other outlets that portray him unfavorably; to Democrats, it means politically incorrect websites, blogs, and social media accounts. In this context it's not surprising that public trust in the media, in the US and elsewhere, is at an all-time low. (Even Trump appears as more trustworthy in some polls.)

To the libertarian, this is hardly news. The mainstream media has long been part of what Rothbard called the "opinion-molding class," the group of intellectuals, academics, journalists, and public figures whose essential role is to legitimize the administrative state. Journalists don't report the news; they shape public opinion by choosing what to report and how to "spin" the story to fit a particular worldview, or "narrative." This is often deliberate, but can be subconscious, because journalists, like all of us, suffer from confirmation bias, the tendency to interpret ideas and evidence in a way that is consistent with our prior beliefs. 
more...
No comment yet.