Tag Archives: Economics

Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” and the Ultimate Demise of the Dollar

Taxes vs. Tariffs: Which is Fairer?

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

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

“Don’t Buy Government Bonds”

2 Replies

As another farcical “debt-ceiling raising” saga unfolds, conducted by the two indistinguishable political parties hell-bent on driving America into economic ruin, it would be instructive to look at how some earlier conservative/libertarian thinkers viewed public debt. Unlike the present generation – with the notable exception of Ron Paul – these intellectuals asked fundamental questions about such matters as debt, taxation, central banking, and foreign policy.

One of the leading lights of what was known as the “Old Right” of the 1950’s, which opposed the Cold-War globalism of the likes of William Buckley and domestically sought to overturn the New Deal, was Frank Chodorov (1887-1966). In his books and essays, Chodorov challenged the pillars which social democracy rested and sought to return America to small government, free trade, and “isolationism.”

In one of his provocative essays, Chodorov pervasively argued that those who purchase public debt are complicit in the enhancement of state power. Unlike many present-day economists who only see the baneful economic effects of profligate government borrowing, he makes a moral case against debt financing.*

He points out that public borrowing burdens future generations for the benefit of the present. Despite reasons often given for the necessity of borrowing – war, natural disaster, infrastructure, etc., – Chodorov contends that the practice of shifting the cost to later generations, whatever the reason, is unjust:

This is exactly what you do when you
cooperate with the State’s borrowing
program. You are loading on your children
and your children’s children an obligation to
pay for something they had no voice in, and
for which they may not care at all. Your
‘investment for posterity’ may earn you
nothing but the curses of posterity.

Chodorov understood, as most commentators do not today, that a gold-backed currency restrained State largesse: “When money was redeemable in gold, the inherent profligacy of government was somewhat retrained; for, if the citizen lost faith in his money, or his bond, he could demand gold in exchange, and since the government did not have enough gold on hand to meet the demand, it had to curtail its spending proclivity accordingly.”

It was Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s despicable and criminal act of taking the U.S. off the gold standard domestically that led to the expansion of the public debt as Chodorov describes: “. . . Mr. Roosevelt removed this shackle and thus opened the flood gates. The only limit to the inclination of every politician to spend money, in order to acquire power, is the refusal of the public to lend its money to the government. . . . the government can then resort to printing of money, to make money out of nothing. . . .”

Not realized at the time, but the ability of the American government to expand its revenue base fit nicely into FDR’s later nefarious foreign policy objectives.

Chodorov’s viewpoint on public debt can also easily be applied to FDR’s decision to eradicate the gold standard through which the U.S. currency could be redeemed for precious metals. FDR’s act, however, was a “violation of contract” with American citizens since the U.S. government defaulted on its obligations.

In Orwellian fashion, the verbiage used with most government operations is often misused to legitimize State functions. “Investment” is one such term that has been corrupted in relations to spending and debt.

In promoting their spending schemes, politicians will often use the term investment, “investment in education,” “investment in infrastructure,” etc. This is deliberate, since it tries to equate government spending with a vital component of the market process.

In a market economy, investment means the lending of savings, which is used to expand and/or start an enterprise. In return, the lender receives a stock or a bond. If the business is successful, the lender’s investment will receive a return – dividends from a stock or interest from a bond. Business investment is, therefore, a necessary aspect of capitalism which results in economic growth and increased living standards.

As Chodorov incisively points out, however, government investment is the antithesis of what takes place in the marketplace:

The State, however, does not put your money into production. The State spends it – that is all the State is capable of doing – and your savings disappear. The interest you get comes out of the tax fund, to which you contribute your share, and your share is increased by the cost of servicing your bond.

Chodorov’s solution to deficit financing was not to buy government bonds. While this would certainly be a step in the right direction, a more radical approach is needed since the problem has now become so immense.

Simply put: there should be a prohibition on government borrowing of any kind. State revenues should only come through tax receipts and fees paid by those in the present. This would completely eliminate the “moral hazard” of debt financing and drastically reduce the size and scope of government over society.

For those who seek to put an end to the current debt-ceiling charade and rectify the immoral practice of burdening future generations by the irresponsibility of the present, the works of Frank Chodorov are essential.

* “Don’t Buy Government Bonds,” The Mises Institute, 13 January 2011. https://cdn.mises.org/Out%20of%20Step_4.pdf

Antonius Aquinas@AntoniusAquinas

https://antoniusaquinas.com

Trump’s Inflation

4 Replies

Former President Donald Trump attends a rally in support of Arizona GOP candidates, Prescott, Ariz., on July 22, 2022. (Mario Tama/Getty Images)

Once again, former president Donald Trump criticized the Biden Administration for the record consumer price increases that Americans are now paying. His remarks followed up on his July 4^th speech in Wyoming where he lamented about the state of the nation: “I know it’s not looking good for our Country right now, with a major War raging out of control in Europe, the Highest Inflation in memory, the worst 6 month Stock Market in History, the highest energy prices ever.”*

In his most recent campaign rally for GOP hopeful Kari Lake, Trump lambasted President Biden for creating the “worst inflation in 47 years”** and for his “war on American energy” which Trump believes has contributed to the record hike in fuel prices.

The former president boasted that had he been re-elected “none of these terrible events would have happened.” He reassured his audience “not to worry” and that “we will make America great again.”

As with all of his post-presidential rallies, Trump’s criticism of the Biden regime comes with touting his own accomplishments as chief executive. Most of these claims are so outrageous they damage or totally negate his critique of Biden’s policies and make Trump sound like a fool.

Take, for instance, his rally in Arizona for Kari Lake, where he had the audacity to say that under his watch the country “had the greatest economy in the history of the world with no inflation.” [!] Such nonsense needs no comment.

Like his boasts about the economy, the former president deftly left out his Administration’s role in the drastic rise in prices which Americans are currently suffering from.

First, however, the meaning of “inflation” should be explained.

Inflation, properly defined, as it was understood until the present era, meant an expansion of the money supply. “Deflation,” its opposite is a decrease in the money supply. The rise or fall in prices – usually a rise in producer and consumer prices – is a consequence of the expansion or contraction of the money supply. Once understood, the rampant rise in prices in America and throughout the world has been the result of the increase in the money supply not only by the Federal Reserve, but all central banks.

Another important tenet of monetary theory long since forgotten has been the notion of a “lagging indicator.” Between the expansion of the money supply – inflation – and the resultant increase in prices, there is often a lag which could take months or years to appear.

The increase in consumer and producer prices is due to the dramatic explosion of money and credit which took place during the Trump Administration not only in response to the scamdemic, but in the years leading up to it. In fact, the plandemic was a convenient excuse to inject massive liquidity into a system that began to hemorrhage in September, 2019. In the early months of 2020, the markets began to implode before the unnecessary lockdowns as the air began to come out of the financial bubble. This has been ignored by the financial press and Trump himself.

Prior to the covid hysteria, Trump had repeatedly lobbied for “cheap” money, calling for a renewal of quantitative easing, reduction in interest rates, and he even spoke about “negative” rates. The former president threatened to fire Jerome Powell, whom he had picked to head the Federal Reserve, for not reducing interest rates far enough. Trump complained that President Obama benefited from the Fed’s accommodative monetary policy and wanted similar treatment so as to keep the financial bubble going.

Trump’s fiscal policy was also highly inflationary as he ran record deficits long before covid. His tax cuts and failure to cut government spending led to greater government borrowing which the Fed was forced to monetize. Trump was on pace, well before the 2020 lockdowns, to spend more money in four years than Obama spent in his two terms. By 2019, the deficit had grown to $1 trillion dollars, up $205 billion, 26 percent from 2018.*** Again, all before covid had begun.

It was the Trump Administration’s wrongheaded response to the corona virus which is largely responsible for the rising prices of today. If the lockdowns were necessary (which a growing number of officials now admit they were not), the proper policy would have been to reduce the money supply (and government spending in general) since the lockdowns reduced production meaning less goods and employment. The massive increase in the Fed’s balance sheet from $4 trillion to some $9 trillion meant more money “chasing fewer goods” causing the prices of the available goods to increase – some dramatically.

What was needed was a reduction in consumer spending since there was less goods being produced with the lockdowns. Less demand would have offset the reduction in supply and would have kept prices from spiraling.

Instead, Trump – as did his successor – following the doctrines of Lord Keynes, attempted to maintain aggregate demand at pre-covid levels and sent out stimulus checks even to those still employed. While the money given out to American workers pales in comparison to the massive transfer of wealth to politically-favorite corporations, big business, and the expansion of the government itself, the propping up of aggregate demand led to supply chain shortages.

Trump is not alone in his ignorance of economics. His handlers, economic advisors, and the vast majority of his loyal supporters do not understand what took place under his administration. The current financial mess can be laid at his – and the Federal Reserve’s – feet. To be fair, his predecessor, Barrack Obama, is also liable.

The “inflation,” and now recession, which the country is suffering through cannot be fully attributed to the Biden Administration although it too has added to the crisis with more profligate spending.

The remedy for the current mess is not the re-election of a very flawed former president who does not understand the problem at hand and throughout his term was constantly outfoxed by the Swap which he was elected to drain. The solution is a return to sound money, the abolition of central banking, and the allowance for the necessary cleansing of the financial bubble. Until a presidential contender speaks in these terms, America’s financial woes will continue.

*https://www.zerohedge.com/political/heres-what-trump-says-inflation-would-be-if-he-were-still-president

**https://www.zerohedge.com/political/trump-blasts-biden-over-soaring-prices-says-true-inflation-rate-much-much-higher-91

***https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/10/25/us-deficit-hit-billion-marking-nearly-percent-increase-during-trump-era/

Antonius Aquinas@AntoniusAquinas

https://antoniusaquinas.com

America’s Trade Deficit: An Enormous Concern

30 Replies

Another milestone (or more accurately millstone) was recently passed by the U.S. economy as the January trade deficit surged to an all-time record high of $107.6 billion, up some $26 billion from December’s $80.7 billion imbalance.*

Like the gigantic federal budget deficit, the trade imbalance is no longer talked about by the financial press. There has been little criticism of President Biden on either matter nor are Administration officials questioned about how things can be reversed. In fact, some commentators bizarrely contend that trade deficits show how robust an economy actually is!

The trade deficit was supposed to be alleviated by former President Trump who vowed throughout the 2016 campaign that he would rectify the situation and repeatedly ridiculed U.S. trade negotiators for their lack of financial acumen. He touted that his “friendship” with world leaders, most notably Chinese President Xi Jinping, would result in favorable trade deals for the country.

Trade hawks got on board with Trump’s economic nationalism believing that he would not only fix imbalances, but create an American industrial renaissance. Optimism ran high after his unexpected win in 2016.

As president, after a couple of contentious years of on-again, off-again negotiations a first phase of an agreement with China was signed in early 2018. During the negotiations, he boasted:

When a country (USA) is losing many billions of dollars

on trade with virtually every country it does business with,

trade wars are good and easy to win.**

In actuality, nothing significant was agreed upon with China despite the Trump Administration bragging that it was the first phase of a more comprehensive deal to come. Despite all of the hoopla, the trade imbalance continued to grow and no deal was ever finalized.

Besides the initial agreement with China, the next biggest trade policy act was the scrapping of NAFTA and its replacement with a new treaty, “The U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement” (USMCA). The new agreement was little different than the original treaty.

Thus, by the time he left office in 2020, the U.S.’s trade gap ($68.2 billion) was greater than during his predecessor, Barrack Obama’s term, who Trump lambasted for his ruinous trade policy.***

Trump wisely spoke little about trade during his unsuccessful 2020 re-election bid and, surprisingly, his opponents, despite the president’s miserable failure, steered clear of the issue. Of course, the Democrats were limited in what they could do with an obvious feeble, senile, and vile candidate at the top of their ticket.

Like the Democrats, Trump’s trade-hawk cheerleaders have remained reticent about the escalating trade numbers and like the former president they too, are now discredited when it comes to trade. If America could not overcome its trade gap with an economic nationalist as president for four years, then there must be a problem with their thinking.

The reason why Trump failed – as will Biden – is that he, his negotiators, and the trade hawks who supported him are ignorant of basic economics. The burgeoning trade deficits are not the result of bad trade deals or that of ineffective tariff policies, but are the result of a deteriorating U.S. economy which is no longer one of production, but of consumption and debt. A growing economy creates trade surpluses not deficits; it produces more than it consume.

Because of decades of anti-capitalistic economic legislation – confiscatory taxation, regulatory burdens, inflationary monetary policy, “crowding out” budget deficits, unemployment subsidies, minimum wage laws, and an overemphasis by the Establishment on higher education – the U.S. is no longer an industrial power and not a conducive environment for economic growth.

Because it possesses the world’s reserve currency, the U.S. has been able to offset its trade imbalances by importing goods in exchange for dollars. Even with this advantage, however, trade deficits have continued to grow. It appears that even its status as the possessor of the world’s reserve currency may be coming to an end as the dollar’s preeminence will fall with the surge in price inflation. This will have a devastating effect not only for the domestic economy but its foreign trade as well as the country will not be able to export dollars for goods in the future.

The burgeoning trade deficit is a far more accurate indicator of the health of an economy than GDP, unemployment figures, or the government’s “official” rate of price inflation. All these statistics are so manipulated that they do not come close to showing what is actually happening in the real world. The trade deficit is a more reflective gauge of an economy’s productive capacity.

That Trump posted the largest trade deficit in history also explodes his claim that under his watch, the U.S. had the greatest economy ever! How he calculated and supported such nonsense (which was not challenged by the financial press) is hard to maintain with trade deficits in the stratosphere.

When America’s economy was at its zenith, it was a creditor nation with trade surpluses and producing goods which were sold the world over. It had a high savings rate, a low inflationary environment, little public debt, and respect for private property, particularly the right for entrepreneurs to hire and fire whom they pleased. All socio-economic groups prospered from the free market and free trade, not just the 1%.

The trade deficit can be turned around, but not through bureaucratic state orchestrated deals which favor big business and multi-national corporations at the expense of American consumers. The proper trade policy is no policy at all, except the freeing of the economy from government intervention.

*https://www.reuters.com/business/us-goods-trade-deficit-hits-record-high-january-2022-02-28/

**https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-trump/trump-tweets-trade-wars-are-good-and-easy-to-win-idUSKCN1GE1E9

***https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/05/us-trade-deficit-january-2021.html

Antonius Aquinas@AntoniusAquinas

https://antoniusaquinas.com

“Inflation,” Properly Defined

9 Replies

What Is Inflation in Economics? Definition, Causes ...

The use or rather misuse of language has always been an effective tool of politicians to enact their agendas. George Orwell’s “Politics and the English Language” brilliantly showed, in his day, how language was being manipulated for all sorts of totalitarian measures:

Political language — and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists — is designed to make lies sound truthful
and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. One cannot change this all in a moment, but one can at least change one’s own habits, and from time to time one can even, if one jeers loudly enough, send some worn-out and useless phrase — some jackboot, Achilles’ heel, hotbed, melting pot, acid test, veritable inferno, or other lump of verbal refuse — into the dustbin, where it belongs.*

Since its publication in 1946, matters have only gotten worse. For example, in today’s parlance words such as “racism,” “discrimination,” “fascism” have lost all meaning and are usually used by the Left to smear its political opponents.

In the sphere of economics, examples abound of the misuse of terms and concepts all of which advance the interests of the politically-connected elites, technocrats, governments, and the banking establishment at the expense of everyone else. One of the most glaring examples which, after the financial collapse in 2020, has now become more prominent in daily life, has been the meaning of the word “inflation.”

Inflation, at one time, and properly understood meant an increase in the money supply; it did not mean an increase in prices. A rise in prices was and still is, the result of inflation.

The meaning of inflation, however, has been deftly misused by the world’s monetary lords to cover their own nefarious machinations. By deliberately changing the term it deflects the focus of their activities which can thus be blamed on others – greedy businessmen, oil cartels, workers demanding higher wages, etc.

Since central banks have complete control of the money supplies of the world, when inflation is properly understood its cause can be directly traced to them, which may lead to some inconvenient – for the banksters at least– inquires such as: “How did they attain such power and privilege?”

Redefining inflation has been done to disguise and shift focus away from the actual cause of what America and many economies of the Western world are now experiencing in the startling rise in both producer and consumer prices. This is the result of the central banks’ expansion of the money supply to mind-boggling proportions purportedly to fight the corona plandemic, but in reality it has been done to offset the financial implosion which began in late February/March of 2020 before the unnecessary and destructive lockdowns began. The lockdowns and closing of the economies gave cover for the Federal Reserve and central banks to create vast amounts of money and credit to salvage, and then re-inflate a bubble in the stock and asset markets.

An accurate account of the matter will show that the financial collapse of the system really began in the fall of 2019 as the “repo” market began to meltdown, causing the Fed to intervene with injections of “liquidity” to keep interest rates from spiking. However, just like the meaning of inflation has been corrupted, so has the narrative of the financial collapse of 2020 been purposely skewed.

As a separate discipline, economics developed in large part in reaction to British Mercantilism of the 18^th century. Economic theory was used by authors such as Adam Smith in his Wealth of Nations to debunk the system of regulations, taxes and subsidies that the British government imposed. Such economists, as did later schools of thought, most notably the Austrians, used economic thinking and its terms to expose the baneful effects of government intervention, fiat money, and the benefits of free trade.

Over time, however, most economists became corrupted and instead of acting as a check on state power, became champions of regulation, central banking, and all sorts of social engineering schemes. Economists were paid for their sell out with cushy positions and jobs in the state apparatus to manipulate language and doctrines.

Today, an inflation rate of 2% is regarded by Fed officials as good for the economy and something monetary policy should try to achieve. Previously, a rise in prices of 2% was seen for what it was – a loss of purchasing power hurting the middle and lower classes the worst while benefiting the wealthy.

For those who seek to rid economics or, for that matter, all the social sciences of deliberately misleading language and terms, George Orwell’s works are indispensable. It is, therefore, incumbent for truth seekers of all persuasions to do so not only for their own benefit, but to maintain the sage author’s legacy.

*https://libcom.org/files/Politics%20and%20the%20English%20Language%20-%20George%20Orwell.pdf

Antonius Aquinas@AntoniusAquinas

https://antoniusaquinas.com

On the 75th Anniversary of V-E Day and the Coronavirus Scamdemic

6 Replies

The iconic Champs-Élysées and its Arc de Triomphe stand eerily empty before V-E Day ceremonies Friday in Paris.

This month (May 8th) marks the 75^th anniversary of “V-E Day” when German forces unconditionally surrendered to the “Allies.” Numerous articles, essays, and monographs have appeared commemorating the anniversary and while all are mostly laudatory, some have acknowledged that the outcome had its “drawbacks.”

By any objective rendering, for Western Civilization WWII was an unmitigated catastrophe whose reverberations continue to this day. Forty-three million troops were senselessly killed between American, British and Continental forces while 38 million civilians perished. Europe’s current demographic nightmare had its unfruitful seeds cut down with the depopulation of the Continent’s finest for the maniacal aims of the world’s power elites. Not only the loss of life, but the destruction of property and the cultures upon which they were built have been incalculable. Although the US emerged in the post-war world as the dominant economic and political power (as its mainland remained unscathed from wartime destruction), its participation in the conflict was a titanic geopolitical blunder.

The defeat of Germany and Japan, which would have not come about without US military might, left vast power vacuums in Eastern Europe and the Far East that Soviet Russia and Red China ruthlessly filled. Half of Europe would fall behind the Iron Curtain, subjected to fierce political repression and debilitating socialistic economic planning. In Asia, Communist regimes sprang up with the assistance of China and the Soviet Union which America attempted to counter in Korea and Vietnam at a staggering cost to its domestic economy and social tranquility.

Even after the fall of Soviet Communism, the US’s supposed lethal enemy, America maintained its empire as its “defense” spending continued to escalate beyond all reasonable levels which has led, in part, to the decline of domestic living standards of nearly all except, of course, for the politically well-connected. Not only has military adventurism bankrupted the country, but there is now “blowback” from the countless enemies either real, imagined, or contrived – created by US overseas meddling. Moreover, the nation’s military-industrial and security complex has turned on its own citizens with spying, surveillance, and data gathering that would be the envy of Stalin’s Cheka. Yet, it was US participation in WWII which cemented the nation on its ruinous course as global policeman. This was predicted and feared by “isolationists” at the time which is why they so courageously fought to keep the country neutral.

While the peoples of the world suffered from the Apocalyptic-like destruction of the war, certain groups did gain. The benefactors were obvious – Stalin and the Soviet state which was given free reign in Eastern Europe; the US military and security industrial complex which had a world empire to police; Chinese Communists, with Imperial Japan decimated, it left little opposition for them to gain control in China and beyond. For almost everyone else, even the so called “victors,” WWII was a Pyrrhic victory at best.

For the remainder of 20^th century American history, US entry into the Second World War proved to be the catalyst which led to the immense cultural, economic, and political changes, which many conservatives, libertarians, and traditional-minded people at the time and afterwards opposed. Yet, it was US participation in the war which meant that all of those changes would become permanent. Harry Elmer Barnes, who was a keen social theorist and wrote extensively in sociology, clearly understood the effects of US entry into the war:

Drastic changes in the domestic realm can also be attributed to the impact of our

entry into the second World War. The old rural society that had dominated

humanity for millennia was already disintegrating rapidly as the result of

urbanization and technological advances, but the latter failed to supply adequate

new institutions and agencies to control and direct an urban civilization. This

situation faced the American public before 1941 but the momentous transformation

was given intensified rapidity and scope as a result of the extensive dislocations

produced by years of warfare and recovery.*

Harry Elmer Barnes

While every sector of American life was unalterably changed, the most ominous took place in the political order. Although the federal government had begun to expand during the Progressive Era, its scope and involvement in society drastically accelerated during and after the war. Barnes, holding many libertarian beliefs, observed the totalitarian features of the post-war nation:

The complex and cumulative aftermath of [WWII] has played the dominant role in

producing the menacing military pattern and political impasse of our time, and the

military-industrial-political Establishment that controls this country and has sought

to determine world policy.**

The rise of America to world power status diverted attention and scarce resources away from the domestic front, which further exacerbated social and economic changes. The societal strife would become more and more acute as the nation’s overseas commitments mushroomed, as Barnes incisively explains:

The social problems of an urban age were enlarged and intensified, crime increased

and took on new forms that became ever more difficult to combat, juvenile

disorganization became rampant, racial problems increased beyond precedent, and

the difficulties of dealing with this unprecedented and complicated mass of domestic

issues were both parried and intensified by giving primary but evasive

consideration to foreign affairs in our national policy and operations.***

While domestic problems received less attention as the American empire expanded, foreign lands which held different patterns of social order or had non “democratic” forms of government, were targeted for “regime change,” even if they had taken no hostile action toward the US:

. . . the results of [WWII] already indicate that this produced drastic and possibly

ominous changes in the pattern of American relations to the rest of the world. We

voluntarily and arbitrarily assumed unprecedented burdens in feeding and

financing a world badly disrupted by war. . . . The United States sought to police the

world and extend the rule of law on a planetary basis, which actually meant

imposing the ideology of our eastern seaboard Establishment throughout the world,

by force, if necessary. . . .****

Had the US remained neutral as the isolationists and American First supporters had pleaded, the world today would be markedly different – undoubtedly freer, more prosperous, and likely more peaceful. Since every society is governed, in part, by its understanding of the past, the post-WWII world is built on a lie. The lie, of course, was that the attack on Pearl Harbor was unprovoked and that the Roosevelt Administration had negotiated in good faith with the Japanese in the months and years leading up to it.

While not recognized at the time and even today the outcome of WWII ushered in the totalitarian nation state which would become a permanent and intimate fixture in the lives of its citizens. There was no appeal to its dictates and as the decades rolled on it accrued unthinkable power over the society and economy. It attempted to solve every social and economic problem or inequality (most of which it created) and in each action enhanced its power and control dramatically.

The corona scamdemic may be the state’s greatest power grab yet. Besides the infringement of civil liberties, the shut down has been adroitly used to cover for the titanic economic collapse which began in the weeks prior to the draconian response measures. Actually, the financial breakdown began last September with the Fed’s “repo” operations.

All of this has been quietly and deliberately forgotten by the financial press and under the cover of fighting the virus, the Fed and the rest of the world’s central banks have expanded their power and control of financial markets to unprecedented levels, making a mockery that the economy is in any sense “capitalistic.”

The adage that “history is written by the victors” has never been more apparent than in regard to V-E Day, however, the coronavirus scam has shown once again that the consequences of the day and the war which it commemorates are now being ominously fulfilled.

*Harry Elmer Barnes, “Pearl Harbor After a Quarter of a Century.” In Left and Right: A Journal of Libertarian Thought. Vol. IV, 1968, p. 11.

**Ibid., pp. 9-10.

***Ibid., p. 11.

****Ibid., pp. 10-11.

Antonius Aquinas@AntoniusAquinas

https://antoniusaquinas.com

Memo to The Donald: Cut Tariffs NOT Rates

12 Replies

So far, President Trump’s economic response to a potential coronavirus outbreak and a further stock market sell off has been expected – calls for more interest rate cuts and an additional round of monetary stimulus. For the stock market, economy, and the virus itself, neither measure will have their desired effect and, in fact, may exacerbate things.

Further rate cuts and more money printing will not alleviate the situation since it has been the Federal Reserve’s recent “repo operations” which has pushed the market to its unsustainable highs. For President Trump’s re-election hopes, the current “correction” better be short lived since he has repeatedly boasted about the stock market and has tied its success with the supposed health of the economy. He will pay a political price if the market continues to tank and brings the economy down with it.

While President Trump and economic nationalists have bashed China for its trade practices, they are now going to see first hand how dependent the US and the West are on Chinese exports, as supply chains are disrupted over the coronavirus.

A Bloomberg article describes China’s weakest factory activity ever recorded:

The manufacturing purchasing managers’ index plunged to 35.7 in

February form 50 the previous month, according to data received by the

National bureau Statistics on Saturday, much lower than the median

estimate of economists. Both were well below 50, which denotes

contraction.*

The expected reduction of Chinese goods will mean higher US domestic prices, however, the increase in prices can be offset somewhat not by rate cuts, but by tariff reductions, or, better still, elimination of duties on imports. Increasing the money supply or cutting interest rates, which is what Trump, the market, and 95% of economists favor, will only mean higher prices for dwindling imports as greater amounts of money will chase fewer goods.

In the President’s comments on the coronavirus and the stock market plunge, he has repeatedly cited other nations’ (Japan, Germany) – lower interest rates as a policy that the Fed should pursue. Apparently, the President is not aware that recent data out of Japan has shown that the economy shrank at an annualized rate of 6.3% for the fourth quarter of 2019 while the German economy only grew at 0.6% last year.** Low rates have not helped either economy or anywhere else where they have been foolishly tried.

What President Trump, world policy makers, and central bankers do not understand, whether deliberately or from willful ignorance, is that the artificial suppression of interest rates and money printing does not lead to economic growth. Instead, prosperity can only come about by the arduous process of saving (abstention from consumption), which provides the means for capital formation, which leads to production. Employment, wage growth, and income are also ultimately tied to savings. For the creation of wealth, there is no way around this elementary economic principle – one that few profession economists comprehend.

For saving and investment to have their most efficacious impact and for individuals to engage in such sacrificial behavior, a sound monetary order must be in place. Unfortunately, ever since the US went off the gold standard internationally in 1971, its monetary system has grown increasingly unstable.

If the Trump Administration would eliminate, or at least reduce significantly, tariffs, it would more than likely induce China to do the same. The benefits of lower import prices for the millions of out of work Chinese due to the coronavirus shut downs would be a tremendous help and would also boost America’s export industries. Such action would show to those who elected him that Donald Trump was not a typical politician, but one who thought outside the box.

While it did not cause the Great Depression, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930 contributed to its severity. If the recent sell-off is indeed the beginning of the long anticipated bust, following a supposed decade long expansion, then policy makers should do all in their power to alleviate the coming suffering. The reduction of tariffs not only on Chinese goods, but those the world over would be a step in the right direction.

Let us hope that someone will convince Donald Trump that tariff reduction and not rate cuts will help Americans better deal with the troublesome and potentially economic and socially devastating coronavirus.

*China Posts Weakest Factory Activity on Record,” Bloomberg News, 29 February 2020. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-29/china-feb-manufacturing-pmi-at-35-7-est-45-0

**Megumi Fujikawa, “Japan’s Economy Shrinks Faster Than Expected.” Market Watch. 16 February 2020. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/japans-economy-shrinks-faster-than-expected-2020-02-16; “German Economy Stagnates as Eurozone Growth Hits Seven-Year-Low,” The Guardian, 14 February 2020, https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2020/feb/14/german-economy-stagnates-growth-eurozone-gdp-business-live

Antonius Aquinas@AntoniusAquinas

https://antoniusaquinas.com

Pope Francis the Taxman

25 Replies

Bergoglio Marxist

On the heels of calling for a Marxist economic conference this coming March (“Economy of Francesco”), Jorge Bergoglio (a.k.a. “Pope Francis”) has once again opined on financial matters. The purported head of the Catholic Church has now designated “tax cuts” as sinful behavior on a par, apparently, with stealing, lying, and adultery:

Today’s structures of sin include repeated tax cuts for the richest people,

often justified in the name of investment and development.*

Bergoglio did not mention what category of sin advocacy for tax cuts falls under – venial or mortal. Maybe the details of how such a policy ranks in offending Divine Justice will be hammered out at the upcoming Economy of Francesco Commie confab!

In Bergoglio’s collectivist mind, those who try and keep their wealth from the ravenous demands of the State are somehow denying the poor their just due:

Every year hundreds of billions of dollars, which should be paid in taxes to

fund health care and education accumulate in tax haven accounts, thus

impeding the possibility of the dignified and sustained development of all

social agents.

What Bergoglio and his fellow socialists do not understand is that tax cuts lead to economic growth, whether they are for higher or lower income groups. The less wealth that the State confiscates, the more is available to be used for saving and investment – two keys to economic growth. The rich do not horde their money but expand and create businesses which leads to more and better paying jobs for lower income groups who supposedly Bergoglio wants to help.

The poor will only be uplifted by greater production where more goods and services are available at lower prices. Redistribution of income via taxation does not create new wealth, but simply transfers existing wealth from the productive class. Moreover, taxation has the deleterious effect of making individuals produce less since their efforts are siphoned off at the point of a gun. More taxation means less production and, thus, less and more expensive goods for the poor.

Of course, this is basic economic theory that any sane person can understand unless one has matriculated to a Western university or college or pays attention to economic ignoramuses like Jorge Bergoglio!

Bergoglio’s constant attention to the plight of the poor along with other social issues (“climate change,” the environment, immigration) does not align with the vision that the Entity, which created the office that Bergoglio currently holds, had in mind. On at least two occasions, He counseled His followers to focus their attention on spreading the “good news” instead of earthly concerns:

For the poor you have always with you: but me you have not always. [Mt. 26:11]

Let the dead bury their dead, but go thou, and preach the kingdom of

God. [Lk. 9: 60]

While the Church has always sought to protect and help the poor, widows, orphans, and the downtrodden, its primary mission is to preach the Gospel. Since the time of the Second Vatican Anti-Council, 1962-65, and especially during the “reign” of Pope Francis, evangelization has been condemned and, like tax cuts, is now considered sinful activity.

Bergoglio’s criticism of tax reduction is, no doubt, aimed at the Trump Administration’s plan for an additional round of tax cuts. Tax reduction, however, without cuts in government spending will further explode budget deficits which are now even beyond sustainable.

Without corresponding spending reduction, tax cuts will mean that the Federal Reserve will have to make up for the short fall with further money printing. One cannot have Big Government and tax cuts simultaneously. The inevitable monetary crisis will, unfortunately, be blamed on tax cuts and will play into the hands of Bergoglio and his fellow travelers.

That Bergoglio spends most of his time as a social justice warrior instead of the supposed “vicar of Christ” on earth shows the state of the modern Church. Worse, when he does speak on matters of faith, his words and actions are riddled with heresy.

For all those concerned, it is best that “Pope Francis” should be ignored not only for the falsehoods he spreads about Christianity, but also as a social theorist. His pronouncements on the latter will only lead to further impoverishment of the poor and the rest of society while inciting class conflict between those who seek to keep their wealth and those who want to confiscate more of it.

*https://www.teaparty.org/tax-the-rich-pope-francis-calls-for-global-wealth-redistribution-427517/

Antonius Aquinas@AntoniusAquinas

https://antoniusaquinas.com