Category Archives: Economics

Since his return to office in January, President Donald Trump has called on Federal Reserve Chairman Jay Powell to cut interest rates which Powell and the Fed’s Board of Governors have refused to do. In typical child-like behavior when he doesn’t get his way, Trump has hurled insults at Powell calling him a “stupid person,” “too late Powell,” and a “numbskull.”

Trump’s juvenile attacks, although misplaced, have been quite humorous and a welcome change in tone to the respect, reverence, and almost deification that previous Presidents, Congressmen, and the financial press heap on Federal Reserve Chairmen.

Unfortunately, as with all his policies, Trump’s megalomania is on display. After the Fed’s June meeting when it once again decided to leave rates unchanged and indicated that there might be only one rate cut in 2025, Trump again slammed Powell and suggested that “Maybe I should go to the Fed. Am I allowed to appoint myself to the Fed.?” *

While Trump’s ridiculing the head of one of the sacred cows of America’s ruling establishment is welcomed, his crazed notion of putting himself, and presumably future presidents, in charge of monetary policy does not offer any viable alternative to the debt crisis that is staring the nation in the face with the U.S. in the hole in excess of now some $37 trillion.

Although Trump’s blasting of Powell has provided some comic relief from the dire economic conditions which confront the U.S., in reality both the president and the Fed Chair are wrong over interest rate policy although, in this case, Powell is less wrong. Like most of Trump’s kooky ideas – taking over Greenland, making Canada the 51^st state – not only is the slashing of interest rates counterproductive, but the idea of giving the executive branch of government control of monetary policy would turn the nation into a complete dictatorship.

Powell, too, has been mistaken in his policy of holding rates steady. Interest rates, in fact, are too low and need to be higher. At current levels, rates are too “accommodative” as price inflation remains above the Fed’s 2% target. Of course, in reality prices are rising at a much briskier pace than official government estimates.

Hiking rates would encourage savings and discourage consumption both of which would put downward pressure on consumer prices. If Trump wants to achieve his goal of a reindustrialized America, there needs to be an increase in savings. Production of goods takes place over time and without savings to fund the construction of factories, the purchase of machines and equipment, and the payment of wages, there can be no economic growth.

Trump wrongly believes that lower rates will spur economic growth. Sustained prosperity can only take place through savings and investment not money creation via credit expansion which the president is a fan of.

More fundamentally, both Trump and Powell are wrong: interest rates should not be set by governments or monetary authorities, but be determined by market forces – the aggregate decision making of individuals on how much to save or how much to consume their income. Concomitant with non-state involvement with the setting of interest rates, a return to a metallic monetary standard would prevent price inflation which would make saving more attractive.

Another reason why Trump wants lower rates is that servicing the mammoth U.S. debt would be somewhat more palatable. His “big, beautiful bill,” working its way through the Senate, will need to be financed. Lower rates would reduce the government’s borrowing costs. This irresponsible argument was also made by former Federal Reserve Chair and later Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen.

Since Donald Trump has no ideological core that shapes his world vision, his outlook and policies are more often than not based on what affects him personally or who strokes his ego or lines his pockets. The proper monetary policy for the nation is not to cut interest rates, but to raise them and reduce the national debt through spending cuts. While there would certainly be short-term pain from such a policy, eventually matters would turn around and economic activity would be placed on a sound footing.

Ultimately, if sound money is ever to return to America and the Western world, its control must be taken away from central banks and the influence of mercurial politicians. The creation of money, its distribution, authenticity, and safe keeping should be left up to a decentralized non-governmental arrangement.

*Tyler Durden, “Trump Slams ‘Stupid’ Powell: ‘I Think He Hates Me. I Call Him Every Name in the Book to Try and Get Him to Cut,’” Zero Hedge, 18 June 2025. https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/trump-slams-stupid-powell-i-think-he-hates-me-i-call-him-every-name-book-try-and-get-him

Antonius Aquinas@AntoniusAquinas

Big Spending Continues Under Trump

2 Replies

While DOGE (the Department of Government Efficiency) has made almost daily headlines pointing out fraud and waste in government, the real battle over federal spending is beginning to take place. From what has been proposed, it looks like it will be business as usual in Washington.

Last week, the full House of Representatives passed the House Budget Committee’s plan (budget resolution) which specifies cuts in both taxes and spending over the next decade. The key phrase here is “over the next decade.”

In a Feb. 13, 2025 Tax Foundation article titled “House Budget Resolution Aims to Balance Tax Cut and Spending Reduction Goals,” William McBride, explains that:

The resolution caps the deficit increase resulting from

tax cuts at $4.5 trillion over the next decade and requires

a minimum of $1.2 trillion in spending cuts. Additionally,

it sets as a goal to reduce mandatory spending by $2 trillion

over the next decade, and, if not accomplished, the cap on

tax cuts would be reduced commensurately. *

The resolution calls for certain committees to implement the cuts:

Energy and Commerce Committee ($880 billion)
Education and Workforce Committee ($330 billion)
Agriculture Committee ($230 billion)

Programs that more than likely face budget reductions include: Medicaid, student loan relief, and the Supplemental Nutrition Program.

Despite Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s call for an 8% yearly cut in defense spending over the next five years, the current House resolution would increase defense spending by $100 billion. There is an additional increase of $230 billion for border control and “deportation plans to be executed” according to Brett Samuels of the political website The Hill, in an article he penned titled “Trump Backs House GOP Reconciliation Bill Over Senate Version.” **

Like Trump and most of his administration, Hegseth has sent conflicting signals on defense spending. While in Germany, the defense secretary said: “I think the US needs to spend more than the Biden administration was willing to, who historically under-invested in the capabilities of our military.”

Hegseth bombastically added that he wants “the biggest most badass military on the planet,” as quoted by Dave DeCamp of news and commentary website Antiwar.com in a Feb 2025 analysis. *** So much for an America first foreign policy.

The House’s estimate for spending and tax cuts are based on a real rate of growth of 2.6%. This optimistic forecast, of course, does not account for any downturn in the economy, war, or continued uptick in price inflation. Any of these, or some exogeneous shock to the economy would lower gross domestic product and tax revenues and jeopardize any long-term projected tax or spending cuts.

In the end, the budget resolution will increase spending, which Trump vowed to curb, as Rep. Thomas Massie (KY), who courageously voted against, succinctly summarized:

If the Republican plan passes under the rosiest

assumptions, which aren’t even true, we’re gonna

add $328 billion to the deficit this year, we’re gonna

add $295 billion to the deficit the year after that, and

$242 billion to the deficit after that. . . . ****

Trump, who enthusiastically supports the budget resolution, fails to realize that without deep and significant spending cuts, the cost of living will continue to escalate. The president blamed the Biden Administration’s policies for the run-up in prices, when, in fact, it was Trump who began the present inflation cycle with the passage of the CARES Act in 2020, expanding the budget an unimaginable $2.2 trillion.

Without spending cuts, the burgeoning federal deficit ($2 trillion) and the interest on the national debt ($1 trillion) will need to be continually financed through borrowing. The borrowing by the federal government is “paid for” through money printing (the real definition of inflation) by the Federal Reserve which buys U.S. debt with money “created out of thin air” which in essence is debt monetization. The new money puts pressure on prices as it filters through the economy increasing the cost of living.

While cuts in spending and reducing the amount of dollars in circulation will lower the cost of living, it will not come without severe economic pain. The fall in prices will pop the bubble that stocks and other financial assets have been in which will result in widespread unemployment and business failures. This is necessary to cleanse the malinvestment caused by the money printing and credit expansion and is necessary if America is to be put on a sound financial footing.

Of course, no politician wants to be blamed for such misery and even though Trump will not be up for re-election, he still does not want to be holding the bag when the economy implodes. Yet, if such a scenario happens, the president should bear much of the blame for his policies ignited the present problem.

If President Trump truly wants to make America great again, cutting government spending must be undertaken no matter how painful.

It appears, however, that he will join the long list of chief executives who have spent the nation into a horrific debt spiral which will inevitably end in economic ruin.

*William McBride, “House Budget Resolution Aims to Balance Tax Cut and Spending Reduction Goals,” Tax Foundation, 13 February 2025. https://taxfoundation.org/blog/house-budget-resolution-tax-cuts-spending/

**Brett Samuels, “Trump backs House GOP reconciliation bill over Senate version,” The Hill, 19 February 2025. https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5152871-trump-endorses-house-gop-strategy/

***Dave DeCamp, “Pentagon Says Hegseth’s Order Will Redirect Spending, Not Make Actual Cuts,” Antiwar.com, 20 February 2025.

****Tyler Durden, “House Republicans Advance Trump Agenda as Final Vote Looms Tonight.” Zero Hedge, 25 February 2025, https://www.zerohedge.com/political/house-republicans-advance-trump-agenda-final-vote-looms-tonight

Antonius Aquinas@AntoniusAquinas

Taxes vs. Tariffs: Which is Fairer?

1 Reply

In the final days of his presidential run, Donald Trump floated the idea of eliminating the income tax and replacing it with tariffs as the means to fund federal spending. He cited the era of U.S. history when the country had no income tax:

When we were a smart country, in the 1890s . .

this is when the country was relatively the

richest it ever was. It had all tariffs. It didn’t

have an income tax.*

While Trump was correct about the prosperity at the time, it is wrong to suggest that tariffs were the reason. While there was no income tax, there was little if any burdensome regulation or government subsidy, and, most importantly, the nation was on a gold standard, which kept increasing the purchasing power of wages, all of which raised living standards to unprecedented heights.

On the surface, the idea of replacing the income tax with tariffs seems equitable. This is why many conservatives, populists, and libertarians have supported the idea.

Under the present political order, the United States is a constitutional republic that is based on the social contract theory. Government is established, in part, to protect the persons and property from external threats and internal unrest. All citizens, in theory at least, are protected by the state. It follows, therefore, that they are obliged to contribute to their defense.

Tariffs, on the other hand, are borne directly by two groups: consumers who buy imported goods, and businesses who sell imported goods and are impacted by a loss of income.

Consumers pay the tax levied on foreign goods. Therefore, those consumers who buy more expensive goods, such as a Mercedes Benz, pay a higher percentage of tax than those who buy trinkets such as Christmas tree ornaments and plastic cutlery from China.

Businesses, too, suffer from tariffs. While it is often said that the tax is “passed on to consumers,” companies will see a reduction in income, since tariffs raise the price of goods. Higher prices will cause a fall in demand, resulting in loss revenue. Moreover, businesses who deal in foreign products have to bear the bureaucratic cost of complying with the government’s ever-changing trade policies while serving as tax collector for the state.

While the income tax under social contract theory is more “equitable” than tariffs, one of its most egregious features cannot be justified. Under current law, American citizens that are living abroad or have relocated permanently are still subjected to the income tax. However, expats are no longer being defended by the U.S. government. Renouncing citizenship (which is quite costly) is the only way to avoid being taxed.

Why should Americans, who are no longer being defended by their government, still be required to pay for it? This would be a clear violation of the “social contract” that citizens have supposedly agreed to.

There are other dangers that have come with government financing through tariffs, or, as some have called for, a national sales tax. Originally, when the income tax was proposed, it was to replace tariffs. Tariffs, like all sales taxes, burden the poor and middle class disproportionately. The income tax, which at first only affected the affluent, was accepted by the public since tariffs were to be eliminated. Unfortunately, the tariffs remained after the two world wars and the income tax was levied on almost everyone.

A similar situation could occur with the expansion of tariffs or the implementation of a national sales tax. Governments rarely relinquish their taxing power.

What is being ignored in the talk about tariffs and the income tax are the exploding government deficits. Fiddling with what source of revenue the government collects is not addressing an impending financial crisis that could bring down the entire U.S. economy.

Of course, runaway debts and deficits are inherent in democratic republics as politicians are not personally responsible for the debt, unlike a monarch or king. This is another flaw in the social contract theory.

Before policy makers change the nation’s tax system, they should carefully consider the ramifications and seek to find the most equitable solution that will not burden only part of the citizenry. Cutting runaway federal spending is a first step.

*https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/26/politics/trump-income-taxes-tariffs/index.html

Economic Collapse May Be the Only Way to Prevent World War III

3 Replies

The tensions between the West and Russia over the Ukraine have escalated over the past few months with an almost daily occurrence of provocations and belligerent talk mostly from members of NATO. In response, Russia sent a naval contingent to the Caribbean in a show of force. Some of the Western provocations include:

Polish President Andrzej Duda’s willingness to place U.S. nuclear weapons on Polish soil;
German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius’ s call for reinstitution of a draft;
A hand-delivered check by Biden to Volodymyr Zelensky as part of the $95 billion U.S. “defense” package for Ukraine
A request by Zelensky for Westerners to train troops on Ukrainian soil; and
US and NATO okaying Ukraine to fire long-range American weapons as much as 12 miles into Russian territory

It is apparent that, until Russian President Vladimir Putin capitulates to Western demands in regard to Ukraine, NATO will continue to push the envelop. In hindsight, analysts such as Paul Craig Roberts have, from the start, urged Putin to swiftly finish off Ukraine militarily and replace the Zelensky regime with one favorable to Russia. A protracted struggle, Roberts warned, would give the West more time to supplement Ukraine: “The conflict dragged on, because having declared the intervention limited, the Kremlin left Kiev to continue the war, thus playing into Western hands as the West gradually widened the war.” *

Unfortunately for Russia, Paul Craig Roberts’s prognostication is now coming to fruition.

The counter argument to a more aggressive Russia is that Putin realizes that the West is run by a pack of sociopaths who would have no qualms launching WWIII, which would include the use of nuclear weapons, or ignite a major military conflagration in the area. The Russian president sees that the West holds a decisive military advantage over Russia even if it allied with China. The U.S. alone spends more than the combined expenditures of the top nine militaries in the world.

The United States has thus the ability and means to operate and intervene in almost any sector of the world. It is able to do so because it has had, for the longest time, an economy which was able to not only produce goods for the domestic market and also for its foreign adventures. It takes wealth to be able to arm, transport, deploy, and maintain men in distant lands.

Because of America’s relatively free economy, it could produce a seemingly endless supply of military hardware for itself, but also to buy off client states and fund proxy wars. In contrast, the Soviet Union could never export communism in any significant way after World War II because it lacked the means to do so. Its economy was a basket case that could barely feed its citizens.

While the U.S. may have the military capability to be the world’s policeman, its actions in the Ukraine are ultimately controlled by ideology. And, for the longest time, U.S. foreign policy has been one of interventionism and war with the ultimate goal of the establishment of a one-world state. Its proxy war in Ukraine is designed to cripple Russia, which stands as a roadblock to this long-desired goal.

Since it is apparent that the principles guiding U.S. foreign policy are not going to change anytime soon, the nation will continue on its bellicose course until it no longer has the means to do so. This would mean a financial crisis, most likely in the form of a dollar collapse, which would ground the economy to a halt.

In such a scenario, the United States would be following the course that Great Britain took after World War II, when its empire could no longer be sustained since the country insanely exhausted itself in the conduct of fighting two world wars.

A similar, earlier historical example was the Western Roman empire, which, through currency debasement, heavy taxation and government largesse, ruined its economy and then could no longer maintain its empire.

The ideology of Great Britain and Rome did not change, however, they simply no longer had the means to sustain and expand their empires.

Despite massive deficits, record-setting inflation, and a recent bank crisis in March, 2023, a financial crisis does not appear to be on the horizon. Although things can change quickly, for the foreseeable future, the U.S. empire is in no danger from internal collapse.

While an economic collapse would mean misery for millions of Americans, it would be, in a sense, retribution for the nation’s murderous and costly foreign policy, which has brought, and still is bringing, untold death and destruction to millions of people.

*Paul Craig Roberts, “Normalizing War with Russia,” PaulCraigRoberts.org, 6 June 2016, https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2024/06/06/normalizing-war-with-russia/

Many Americans Say They Will Never Retire

18 Replies

A recent AARP poll provides further evidence of the deterioration of American living standards, especially for those approaching retirement age. The study contradicts what most policy makers have believed to be a “soft landing” for the economy after two years of rampant inflation.

“More than one quarter of U.S. adults over the age of 59,” the survey found, “say they expect to never retire.” One in four have no retirement savings while one third of “older adults” have credit card debt of more than $10,000 and 12% hold a balance of $20,000 or more.” The Headline of an April 25 Washington Times article by Fatima Hussein says it all: “More Than 25% of U.S. Adults Over 50 Expect Never to Retire.”*

Not surprisingly, the report conducted with the NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, points out that the lack of savings is due to the rising cost of living: “Everyday expenses and housing costs, including rent and mortgage payments, are the biggest reasons why people are unable to save for retirement.”

While AARP zeroed in on rising prices as the culprit for the financial pinch that potential retirees are feeling, it did not delve into who or what was the catalyst for the increase in living costs. Neither has the financial press, which has always been a cheerleader for the Uniparty, been diligent in its duty about the ultimate source for soaring prices.

While the trend of Americans working well into their retirement years has been going on for years, the situation has accelerated under both the Trump and Biden presidencies. In concert with the Federal Reserve, the fiscal policies of the two administrations have been the primary factor for why many Americans cannot retire.

Even before the start of the hyped Covid pandemic, the Trump administration, in just one term, was on pace to become the biggest spender in U.S. history. The astronomical increase in government spending and money printing which took place in response to Covid are now being felt.

The Fed’s balance sheet before the Covid lockdowns in January of 2020 stood at $4.15 trillion. By the end of Trump’s presidency, it had nearly doubled to $7.3 trillion as the government doled out “stimulus checks” to non-working Americans and transferred billions to business favorites and cronies in an unimaginable grab of power and wealth.

Under Biden, the balance sheet had risen to a little short of $9 trillion in mid-2022 and has come down, now standing at $7.4 trillion, according to American Action Forum.**

Expanding the balance sheet means that the Fed issues more dollars it takes and buys assets (mostly government bonds). This is actually debt monetization. The increase in the money supply is the classic – and true – definition of inflation. Rising prices are not inflation, but its consequence.

At first, the new money went into financial assets increasing their nominal values. However, because of the “lag effect,” the inflation the Fed created is now pushing up consumer prices. The Fed has had to do this because of profligate government spending which must be sustained through borrowing, since tax revenues are not enough to meet expenditures.

When asked in his current re-election campaign on what he would do to solve the rising cost of living, Trump said that he would “drill baby drill.” Such a statement demonstrates again that the former president, like the current occupant of the office, does not understand the problem.

Increasing domestic oil production is certainly good in itself, which will create jobs and bring more oil to the market. But it will not address general price inflation which is a monetary phenomenon.

Rising prices can be reversed if the Fed increases interest rates, or better yet, lets rates be set by the market. Higher rates will entice people to save, which will take money out of circulation, thus putting downward pressure on prices.

Just as important, the government needs to cut spending and eliminate departments and programs which will mean less money printing by the Fed. The likelihood of this taking place in a presidential election year is next to zero.

Even if the government and the Fed took the proper steps and began to put the nation on a sound financial footing, it will take years for the damage that has been done to be rectified.

Sadly, the Uniparty has no intention of doing the right thing and as economic conditions worsen, the number of people who must work until they drop will continue to rise.

*Fatima Hussein, “More than 25% of U.S. adults over 50 expect never to retire.” The Washington Times, 25 April 2024, A7. **https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/tracker-the-federal-reserves-balance-sheet/

What the Rising Gold Price Signals

18 Replies

The recent run-up in the gold price has not garnered the attention among the mainstream financial media outlets as it should. Gold has, in part, been overshadowed by the rise in the price of bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.

Naturally, the financial press, which is really an arm of the government and its central bank, wants to ignore, as much as possible, references to gold as protection against the continuing increase in the price level which itself has been deliberately understated by monetary officials. The media and government understand that precious metals are the ultimate security against runaway inflation and economic collapse.

While the increase in the gold price has reached nominal highs, it and the price of silver have not passed their all-time 1980 highs in real terms. Adjusted for inflation, gold would have to rise to about $3590 an ounce while silver would have to surpass $50 an ounce. Both are poised to exceed these watermarks in the not-too-distant future.

Precious metals will continue to escalate unless the Federal Reserve radically changes its interest rate policy to combat inflation as former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker once did. Volcker raised interest rates to double-digit levels which caused gold prices to fall. While Volcker could get away with such actions (because, at the time, the U.S. was still a creditor nation), current Chair Jerome Powell cannot because of the enormity of public and private debt. Double-digit interest rates would collapse the economy and plunge millions of Americans into bankruptcy.

The rising price of gold is anticipating some of the promised policy actions of the Fed. Since the end of last year, the central bank has indicated that it would be cutting interest rates. In addition, Powell is considering ending the Fed’s “Quantitative Tightening” (QT) program. Both are highly inflationary.

While commentators have focused on gold’s spectacular price rise, there is an underlying issue that is also taking place. The record setting gold price is signaling that the present fiat monetary order, which is based on the dollar as the world’s reserve currency, is coming to a financially unpleasant end.

Ever since 1971, when the Nixon Administration closed the “gold window,” refusing to redeem gold for dollars held by foreign central banks, the world has been on a “dollar standard” where bank reserves are held in Greenbacks. If the Fed continues to print dollars to sustain government spending at this rate, the dollar will continue to lose purchasing power and foreigners will no longer want to hold them. Foreign central banks will then turn to gold. In fact, central banks are already increasing their positions in gold which has been a catalyst that has fueled the latest rally.

Not surprisingly, the Fed has not purchased much gold (or is not admitting publicly that it has) since it would be a bad look for the issuer of the world’s reserve currency to be abandoning its own currency for gold.

Besides the severe financial implications if the dollar is dethroned, there will be dramatic geopolitical repercussions from the loss of its hegemony. Just like the British pound was replaced as the dominant world currency after England insanely exhausted itself in fighting WWII and ending its empire, America will face a similar future when the dollar becomes just another money. Many will see it as a “blessing” if and when the U.S. Empire comes to an end.

While it would appear logical and morally sound to replace the present crumbling monetary order with one based on gold and silver, a far worse paradigm than even the present one is, no doubt, being planned. The new system will be one of central bank digital currency (CBDC) which would give governments and bankers the power to monitor and control all aspects of economic and social life.

Some states have passed legislation to counter CBDC, such as Florida in 2023 under Governor Ron DeSantis who said: “The Biden administration’s efforts to inject a Centralized Bank Digital Currency is about surveillance and control. Today’s announcement will protect Florida consumers and businesses from the reckless adoption of a ‘centralized digital dollar’ which will stifle and promote government-sanctioned surveillance. . . .”*

While the press and policy makers have ignored the surge in precious metal prices, it should be a warning to everyone that difficult economic times are still yet to come with the potential of a new draconian monetary order to be installed on the horizon. Observant individuals should heed gold’s signals and take appropriate measures to safeguard their futures.

*https://www.flgov.com/2023/03/20/governor-ron-desantis-announces-legislation-to-protect-floridians-from-a-federally-controlled-central-bank-digital-currency-and-surveillance-state/

Antonius Aquinas@AntoniusAquinas

https://antoniusaquinas.com

The U.S. Is Spending $1 Trillion Every 100 Days On The Deficit

2 Replies

While it made some headlines in the financial press, neither policy makers nor the two presumptive presidential nominees have paid much attention to the fact that the U.S. is adding a mind-boggling $1 trillion to the national debt every 100 days. This amounts to around $3.6 trillion annually.

As law makers remain willfully ignorant of the financial elephant in the room, it is most likely that the only way that the debt will be addressed is through a monetary crisis which will involve the status of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency. Such a scenario would then force authorities to take action.

As if there needed to be more evidence of how impervious Congress and the Biden Administration are to the burgeoning debt spiral, the House and Senate passed two stop-gap funding packages to avoid a government shut down on March 22, 2024. One Senator called it “a pork fest of epic proportions.”*

Despite the ominous prognostications of a dollar collapse by financial doomsayers, the Greenback has remained the best of all competing currencies. Yet, this time could be different, since interest rates – which have been artificially suppressed by the Federal Reserve (Fed) – have risen, making servicing of the national debt more expensive as Moody’s Investors Service noted: “In the context of higher interest rates, without effective fiscal policy measures to reduce government spending or increase revenues Moody’s expects that the US’ fiscal deficits will remain very large, significantly weakening debt affordability.”**

While “King Dollar” has continued its financial hegemony, the running of a staggering national debt – which now stands at over $34 trillion – has had baneful repercussions for the average American. The funding of the debt has led to a resurgence in 1970s-style stagflation with a decline in productive job growth such as manufacturing and near double-digit price inflation. This, of course, has had a deleterious effect on the middle and lower classes’ standards of living since rising prices disproportionately effect these groups harder than the more affluent.

Of course, the simplest approach (although politically unpalatable) to the problem would be to dramatically cut government spending by eliminating agencies and programs. With the Uniparty in charge, however, there is virtually no chance of budget cuts, especially in an election year. Whatever happened to the “deficit hawks” and those calling for a balance budget amendment to the Constitution?

The funding of the debt is the primary factor for the rise in consumer and producer prices. Since federal spending is beyond what the government receives in revenues, it must borrow through the issuance of debt/bonds to make up for the shortfall.

The principal buyer of government debt has been the Fed, which pays for the bonds by the creation of money, “out of thin air.” The printing of money (now done through the stroke of a computer key) bids up prices in the market. Federal Reserve officials have innocuously called this scam “Quantitative Easing” (QE), which is in realty a monetization of the debt.

Since the Fed has begun hiking interest rates, it has been doing “Quantitative Tightening” (QT) where it ostensibly has not been buying U.S. debt, but selling it. This would lead to a contraction of the money supply and a fall in prices. The central bank has not been aggressive enough in its tightening nor has it raised interest rates enough to have any real effect on soaring prices.

It is highly doubtful that the U.S. will escape the fate of other republics who have pursued reckless fiscal and monetary policies. It is almost a mathematical certainty that the nation will default on its debt by either hyperinflating the currency or discounting bonds with massive haircuts to their premiums.

The most likely path is hyperinflation; then the dollar will once again fulfill Voltaire’s dictum that all “paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value – zero.” While there will be massive social misery from a dollar collapse, the one bright spot from its demise is that it will mean an end of the murderous U.S. Empire.

*Tyler Durden, “’A Pork Fest of Epic Proportions:’ Congress Passes Spending Package to Avert Shutdown.” Zero Hedge 8 March 2024. https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/pork-fest-epic-proportions-congress-passes-spending-package-avert-shutdown

**Quoted in Michelle Fox, “The U.S. national debt is rising by $1 trillion about every 100 days,” cnbc.com https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/01/the-us-national-debt-is-rising-by-1-trillion-about-every-100-days.html   Updated, 4 March 2024.

Antonius Aquinas@AntoniusAquinas

https://antoniusaquinas.com