Majorityrights News > Category: Law & Order

TruthDig.Org., “The Venezuela Myth Keeping Us From Transforming Our Economy”, 7 Feb 2019:

Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) is getting significant media attention these days, after Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said in an interview that it should “be a larger part of our conversation” when it comes to funding the “Green New Deal.” According to MMT, the government can spend what it needs without worrying about deficits. MMT expert and Bernie Sanders adviser professor Stephanie Kelton says the government actually creates money when it spends. The real limit on spending is not an artificially imposed debt ceiling but a lack of labor and materials to do the work, leading to generalized price inflation. Only when that real ceiling is hit does the money need to be taxed back, but even then it’s not to fund government spending. Instead, it’s needed to shrink the money supply in an economy that has run out of resources to put the extra money to work.

Predictably, critics have been quick to rebut, calling the trend to endorse MMT “disturbing” and “a joke that’s not funny.” In a Feb. 1 post on the Daily Reckoning, Brian Maher darkly envisioned Bernie Sanders getting elected in 2020 and implementing “Quantitative Easing for the People” based on MMT theories. To debunk the notion that governments can just “print the money” to solve their economic problems, he raised the specter of Venezuela, where “money” is everywhere but bare essentials are out of reach for many, the storefronts are empty, unemployment is at 33 percent and inflation is predicted to hit 1 million percent by the end of the year.

Blogger Arnold Kling also pointed to the Venezuelan hyperinflation. He described MMT as “the doctrine that because the government prints money, it can spend whatever it wants . . . until it can’t.” He said:

To me, the hyperinflation in Venezuela exemplifies what happens when a country reaches the “it can’t” point. The country is not at full employment. But the government can’t seem to spend its way out of difficulty. Somebody should ask these MMT rock stars about the Venezuela example.

I’m not an MMT rock star and won’t try to expound on its subtleties. (I would submit that under existing regulations, the government cannot actually create money when it spends, but that it should be able to. In fact, MMTers have acknowledged that problem; but it’s a subject for another article.) What I want to address here is the hyperinflation issue, and why Venezuelan hyperinflation and “QE for the People” are completely different animals.

What Is Different About Venezuela

Venezuela’s problems are not the result of the government issuing money and using it to hire people to build infrastructure, provide essential services and expand economic development. If it were, unemployment would not be at 33 percent and climbing. Venezuela has a problem the U.S. does not, and will never have: It owes massive debts in a currency it cannot print itself, namely, U.S. dollars. When oil (its principal resource) was booming, Venezuela was able to meet its repayment schedule. But when the price of oil plummeted, the government was reduced to printing Venezuelan bolivars and selling them for U.S. dollars on international currency exchanges. As speculators drove up the price of dollars, more and more printing was required by the government, massively deflating the national currency.

It was the same problem suffered by Weimar Germany and Zimbabwe, the two classic examples of hyperinflation typically raised to silence proponents of government expansion of the money supply before Venezuela suffered the same fate. Professor Michael Hudson, an actual economic rock star who supports MMT principles, has studied the hyperinflation question extensively. He confirms that those disasters were not due to governments issuing money to stimulate the economy. Rather, he writes, “Every hyperinflation in history has been caused by foreign debt service collapsing the exchange rate. The problem almost always has resulted from wartime foreign currency strains, not domestic spending.”

Venezuela and other countries that are carrying massive debts in currencies that are not their own are not sovereign. Governments that are sovereign can and have engaged in issuing their own currencies for infrastructure and development quite successfully. I have discussed a number of contemporary and historical examples in my earlier articles, including in Japan, China, Australia and Canada.

Although Venezuela is not technically at war, it is suffering from foreign currency strains triggered by aggressive attacks by a foreign power. U.S. economic sanctions have been going on for years, causing the country at least $20 billion in losses. About $7 billion of its assets are now being held hostage by the U.S., which has waged an undeclared war against Venezuela ever since George W. Bush’s failed military coup against President Hugo Chávez in 2002. Chávez boldly announced the “Bolivarian Revolution,” a series of economic and social reforms that dramatically reduced poverty and illiteracy as well as improved health and living conditions for millions of Venezuelans. The reforms, which included nationalizing key components of the nation’s economy, made Chávez a hero to millions of people and the enemy of Venezuela’s oligarchs.

Nicolás Maduro was elected president following Chávez’s death in 2013 and vowed to continue the Bolivarian Revolution. Recently, as Saddam Hussein and Moammar Gadhafi had done before him, he defiantly announced that Venezuela would not be trading oil in U.S. dollars following sanctions imposed by President Trump.

The notorious Elliott Abrams has now been appointed as special envoy to Venezuela. Considered a war criminal by many for covering up massacres committed by U.S.-backed death squads in Central America, Abrams was among the prominent neocons closely linked to Bush’s failed Venezuelan coup in 2002. National security adviser John Bolton is another key neocon architect advocating regime change in Venezuela. At press conference on Jan. 28, he held a yellow legal pad prominently displaying the words “5,000 troops to Colombia,” a country that shares a border with Venezuela. Clearly, the neocon contingent feels it has unfinished business there.

Bolton does not even pretend that it’s all about restoring “democracy.” He blatantly said on Fox News, “It will make a big difference to the United States economically if we could have American oil companies invest in and produce the oil capabilities in Venezuela.” As President Nixon said of U.S. tactics against Salvador Allende’s government in Chile, the point of sanctions and military threats is to squeeze the country economically.

Killing the Public Banking Revolution in Venezuela

It may be about more than oil, which recently hit record lows in the market. The U.S. hardly needs to invade a country to replenish its supplies. As with Libya and Iraq, another motive may be to suppress the banking revolution initiated by Venezuela’s upstart leaders.

The banking crisis of 2009–10 exposed the corruption and systemic weakness of Venezuelan banks. Some banks were engaged in questionable business practices. Others were seriously undercapitalized. Others still were apparently lending top executives large sums of money. At least one financier could not prove where he got the money to buy the banks he owned.

Rather than bailing out the culprits, as was done in the U.S., in 2009 the government nationalized seven Venezuelan banks, accounting for around 12 percent of the nation’s bank deposits. In 2010, more were taken over. Chávez’s government arrested at least 16 bankers and issued more than 40 corruption-related arrest warrants for others who had fled the country. By the end of March 2011, only 37 banks were left, down from 59 at the end of November 2009. State-owned institutions took a larger role, holding 35 percent of assets as of March 2011, while foreign institutions held just 13.2 percent of assets.

READ MORE...

(((Schultz/Starbucks vulture capitalism - governmental collusion with NGO’s and tribal interests)))

I haven’t visited Morgoth’s for several months, and not for more than a moment in over a year… but having taken a peek today, a fine comment jumped out…

Augur Mayson rendered a fine comment in response to the question of why people hate journalists.

In regard to his example that the (((media))) conveniently promulgated Harold Schultz’ crypsis, referring to him as “a white man”, Augur might have added discussion of which (((Frame Games))) spilled the beans - it is still on line: [url=The Perplexing Case of Starbucks The Perplexing Case of Starbucks) about the scheme that Starbucks is involved in, making deals with black NGO leaders in order to buy-up inner city property on the cheap and then gentrifying it to turn huge profits in sales and rent. ...while these blacks were moved in as block busters to begin with by tribal elders who benefited by driving out Whites, taking advantage of driving down property values and welfare slum lording.

A Starbucks in your neighborhood means this racket is coming to your city.

One wonders, given Starbucks property vulturism, if Trump and his cronies don’t figure into the Schultz deal - as Kumiko surmised, they are mostly about a second tier of wealth, based on real estate investment, particularly U.S., and their concerns as such.

* I took the liberty to correct the malapopriative term, “left”, for him and replaced it with what it should be - “liberal”

Augur Mayson • 6 days ago

Because journalists enhance Jewish racial crypsis, is my current reason. They’re statists posing as rebels. The major media outlets either through commingling with the state or via self-interested owners of a certain ((( race ))) typically parrot whatever ridiculous claims are coming out of the government, either about domestic social issues or correctness of foreign policy. They are not some unelected but real check against government abuses. They are attack dogs. They are megaphones for the rich and the state. They are overwhelmingly leftists liberals* and disproportionately Jewish.

For example, in America now the presidential election in 2020 is shaping up as follows: Trump for the Republicans, because it’s unprecedented for a party to not run an incumbent, unknown candidate for the Democrats, maybe Mrs. Clinton, maybe Joe Biden, maybe someone else, they have a young gay guy they’re trying to talk up now. And the only big independent as yet talked about in the media is former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz, who’s a Jew, who has used Starbucks to push progressive social policies. For example a few Blacks got thrown out of a Starbucks for presumed loitering; media uproar ensued, Schultz declared to do the exact opposite in future, now they have beggars out front, heroin needles in one bathroom and people giving birth in the other.

So this article in the Judenpresse in America talks up Schultz and says point blank he’s a White man.

“And at 65, he’d have to do that as an older white man who’s never run for office before and has zero national name recognition.” https://www.theatlantic.com...

False, as a CEO of a major corporation he had major exposure and name recognition only second to say Hollywood stars and politicians and media. So the journalist paints Schultz as an unknown (read: underdog, as in, a fetching backstory) and says he’s White when he’s really a Jew.

This is why I hate journalists. Plus if you have a Jewish war you’d like to wage in the desert for no good reason you can always count on the likes of CNN or the BBC to carry the load of b.s. you’re pushing.

NEW YORK: Starbucks Chairman Howard Schultz, credited with taking the company from small beginnings to an international behemoth, is stepping down as CEO to focus on new high-end coffee shops, handing the reins to Chief Operating Officer Kevin Johnson.

Schultz, 63, will continue to serve as chairman of the Board and will be appointed executive chairman effective April next year. He handpicked 56-year-old Johnson, the company’s president, chief operating officer and a 7-year member of the Starbucks Board of Directors, to serve as the new CEO.

The Seattle-based company said in his new role, Schultz will focus on the “next wave of retail innovation”, design and development of Starbucks Reserve Roasteries around the world, expansion of the Starbucks Reserve retail store format and the company’s social impact initiatives.

“I will remain Starbucks executive chairman, focusing full-time on the incredible growth opportunities we have in expanding Roasteries and building out our portfolio of Reserve stores and on Starbucks social impact agenda which will be a significant part of the focus going forward,” Schultz said in an investor and media conference call yesterday.

Schultz, who was named by Fortune magazine this month in its list of Businessperson of Year is credited with doubling the company’s revenues since he returned for his second stint in 2008, surpassing USD 20 billion for the first time over the past 12 months

Read more at:
//economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/55746311.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst

Related at Majorityrights:

(((Frame Games))) Hardens-Up and Greg Johnson Presents His Right-Wing Rear For Entryism (as does JF)

(((Frame Games))) on ethnic component of 2008 crisis & why you need to care about identity politics

Test Your Capacity To See Through Jewish Crypsis: Which ones are Jewish?

Related:

The Perplexing Case of Starbucks: Frame Games discusses Starbucks with Gariepy

UK: More than Half under 18s in Jail Nonwhite, Quarter are Muslim

New Observer, 29 Jan 2019:

A photograph taken inside the prison at HMP Feltham “Young Offenders Institute,” during an abortive attempt to teach the inmates “entrepeneurship” skills.

More than half of all the under 18s currently in jail in Britain are nonwhite, and a quarter are Muslim, despite nonwhites allegedly only making up 13 percent of the population, new official figures from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons has revealed.

According to the report titled “Children in Custody 2017–18 An analysis of 12–18-year-olds’ perceptions of their experiences in secure training centres and young offender institutions,” more than half the under-18s held in young offender institutions in 2017–18 were from a “black or minority ethnic background” (BME).

This figure is a three percent increase on the previous year, when it stood at 48 percent. The figure has been growing steadily ever since the HM Inspectorate of Prisons began carrying out the analysis in 2001—a figure which is perfectly explicable by the growth in the nonwhite population.

6.5164_HMIP_Children-in-Custody-2017-18_A4_v3

The report’s key findings include:

In relation to [secure training centers] STCs, our survey findings during 2017–18 show that:

– 42% of all children in STCs identified as being from a black or other minority ethnic background;

– 8% of children identified as female;

– one in eight (13%) children identified as Muslim;

– the proportion who said they were from a Gypsy, Romany or Traveller background was 11%, which compares with estimates of 0.01% in the population as a whole;

In relation to [young offender institutions] YOIs, our survey findings during 2017–18 show that:

– over half (51%) of boys identified as being from a black or minority ethnic background, the highest rate recorded through our surveys in the secure estate;

– the proportion of boys who had experienced local authority care was 39%;

– nearly a quarter (23%) of boys identified as Muslim;

– almost one-fifth (19%) of boys reported having a disability;

– fewer than one boy in 10 (6%) identified themselves as being from a Gypsy, Romany or Traveller background.

In addition, half of the “children” (50%) “reported that they had been physically restrained in their establishment”—in other words, were so violent that they could not be left unshackled.

It took no time at all for whites to be blamed—as usual—for the nonwhite crime statistics. A report in the Daily Mail quoted black Member of Parliament David Lammy as saying that “We are not only failing to make progress to address these racial inequalities; things are getting significantly worse. From childhood right through to courts and adult prisons, our justice system entrenches and exacerbates the divides in our society.”

In other words, it is not the nonwhites’ fault that they commit more crime, but rather it is the “fault” of white society in general. This is the standard excuse use whenever statistics show that nonwhites commit more crime than whites: it is never their fault that they get arrested more, it is always “racist police,”; and it is never their fault that they get sent to prison in larger numbers, it is always the “racist judicial system.”

This is the same sort of logic that claims that nonwhites do poorly academically because of “racist teachers”—and similar excuses heard ad infinitum all over Europe, America, and Australia.

This endless “blame whitey” is, of course, founded on the essential problem of race-denial by the liberal establishment. Until that issue is resolved, and race is acknowledged as a biological reality and is taken into account in the structuring of states, the current situation will continue.

Donald Trump is President of The United States because he vowed to overturn the Iran Deal for Israel. Overturning the deal was not in the interest of most of the world, except for Israel, Saudi Arabia and The Russian Federation. By contrast, the rest of the world was served by the deal in its business resource interests and more - while the focus on commerce and modernization served not only practical and humanitarian ends but also contributed to a gradual process of liberalizing Iran away from Islam.

Britain, France and Germany are taking steps in their rational interests to skirt the sanctions:

Skirting U.S. sanctions, Europeans launch trade mechanism for Iran

PARIS/BERLIN (Reuters), 31 Jan 2019: France, Germany and Britain have set up a mechanism for non-dollar trade with Iran to avert U.S. sanctions, although diplomats acknowledge it is unlikely to free up the big transactions that Tehran says it needs to keep a nuclear deal afloat.

Related at Majorityrights: Iran protest, organic grievances real, but tactless Trump endorsement abets reactionary entrenchment

      Unite the Oxymorons

        At Affirmative Right, Matt Parrott writes:

A few hours ago, President Trump capitulated on the government shutdown, handing Schulosi and the open borders lobby a historic victory. He did so after it became clear that the GOP leadership were planning to override him. A few days before that, Rep. Steve King was stripped of all of his committee assignments by the GOP for speaking up on behalf of “Western Civilization.”

At every turn, it’s the GOP which proves to be our true opposition, with the Democrats and the Jewish community cashing in on the concessions, compromises, and capitulations of the nominal “white guy party.” Alex Linder explained this in his essay, “Attack the Conservatives”:

“The rise of nationalism is almost a mathematical function of the decline of conservatism.”

George Lincoln Rockwell put it even more pointedly:

“To hell with the right wing!”

I have lived this myself. Back in 2010, I orchestrated a statewide robocall campaign, set up a plausibly deniable front group, and hustled the hell out of dozens of state legislators to pass Senate Bill 590, an illegal immigration bill. It took a tremendous amount of effort to get the GOP majority to even bring it to a vote. They didn’t want to. Then after it passed, the GOP governor, Mitch Daniels, vetoed it. I pumped thousands of my own money into an even greater putsch to override the veto. And we achieved it; then the Secretary of State, also GOP, declared it unconstitutional, shelved it.

So what does Parrott conclude? More “unite the right against ‘the left’ is needed”....

Ibid.
Charlottesville was a mistake because it was too deep into enemy territory, but the mistake wasn’t street activism. In Pikeville, we had several locals join us, both before, during, and after the event. At the end of the event, even the locals who came out to oppose us turned on the antifa, chasing them back into their charter buses with “Blue Lives Matter!” chants.

[...]

Say what you want about the lawsuits and arrests, the combined forces of America’s east coast left all joined together in one place to physically destroy us, and were decisively defeated. We only lost Charlottesville after they ran home to their attorneys and politicians, a setback which we could be confronting head on instead of with our backs turned.

How were they decisively defeated? More casualties?

Ibid.

Mentorship

       
        Mike Enoch at Pikeville ...

Those Whites who know what’s good for them and their people will really say to hell with the right, stop leading with their chin, uniting line formation with motley anti-social idiots and provocateurs and walking into enemy traps and fire. So long as you want to unite the right, you will be uniting with nuts and infiltrators who are fixated in what should be provisional a-social perspectives.

Unite the right = unite the anti-social = oxymoronic

‘Complete, total surrender’: Why Trump waved the white flag

Politico, 25 Jan 2019:

The sudden erosion of support from Senate Republicans ultimately forced Trump’s hand. “President Donald Trump touted GOP unity for 33 days of a partial government shutdown. But by the 34th day, it was clearly gone — and so was the shutdown by the end of the 35th.

Senate Republicans had finally had it and were struggling to continue to defend the president’s position and heap blame on the Democrats. Perhaps no one illustrated that dynamic more than Sen. Rob Portman.

The Ohio Republican, along with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), had spent more than two weeks pushing to reopen the government and then negotiate on border security, only to face repeated rejection by the president and Vice President Mike Pence. So when two votes came before the Senate this week, one on Trump’s plan, the other on a stopgap with no new guaranteed wall money, Portman nearly made a rare break with his party.

“I considered it, yes,” he said on Friday after the president finally caved on his position that the government would only reopen with a down payment on his wall.

Portman and most Republicans ultimately stuck with Trump after Pence’s pleas for unity. A sustained rebellion against Trump on Thursday, Portman argued, would mean the government “would not be open right now,“ because Trump would simply veto a Democrat-backed bill. “It would have been a real problem.” …”

Occidental Observer’s Hunter Wallace laments:

So, the partial government shutdown is finally coming to an end.

Trump has been humiliated by Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer. Senate Republicans caved and that forced Trump to cave. He isn’t getting any funding for his wall. The whole episode was nothing but a waste of time to look like he was fighting for the wall funding after two years of avoiding the issue.

I increasingly think it is a waste of time to sit here, day after day, following the news cycle to document the ongoing failure of Trump and American conservatism. It just discourages me from writing. I’ve been doing it for two years now and have grown tired of it. I will probably end up pivoting to history for a while.

Propertarianism is an idea for a system of government devised and promoted by Doolittle and Mark to secure the interests of peoples where the U.S. Constitution has left vagueries to be exploited by the parasitic.

From what I’ve heard so far, most of it can be consonant with an ethnonational Left, White or otherwise.

The platform claims that it will be able to gain the adherence of Whites who do not heavily identify as White, either don’t care much, or emphatically do not want to be identified as racist. They maintain that as the rules-based platform provides the only guarantee of their interests that it will follow that a large percentage of these Whites will fall into the same camp as Whites whose main interest is maintaining their genetic kind. More, that this program will facilitate a groundswell to allow for revolutionary victory for racialists as it forces the right identifying elements among the military, police and citizenry to stand down when called upon to take arms against their own kind; and rather join with them.

Here is where the parasite may be rubbing its hands together unbeknownst to their “foolproof” anti-parasitism.

1) They insist on identifying as “The Right”, just as king parasite wants them to do at this point, now that it has vacuumed up all the money and assets that it possibly can.

2) With that, encourages misdefinitions of “Left/Right” as Mark promotes - “The Left is irrational, a creature that can’t be talked to.”

Or is it that they don’t want you to talk to me? Try me.

Try me. You won’t because your Jewish masters and fellow parasites told you not to.

.. “it seeks social justice… how laughable! ... has compassion for marginals - how quaint and effeminate .. the left is trying to deny us our nature as assholes.”

Who told you the Left is womanly and irrational?

The same people who pander to White girl’s puerile predilection and incitement; who want your legacy to become Mulatto so you can be more “manly”, hyper-assertive, non-reflective and unreasonable like a black?

How is it irrational to analogize national and group boundaries to unionization? Where does this unionization and accountability (of elites, marginals, rank and file) toward the end of social justice and group homeostasis need to say that “equality” is the goal and not symbiosis and homeostasis?; or that self interest is necessarily at odds if accountability to group interests exists as well? Does not accountability address the issue of “parasitism?”

Who told you that the left represents parasitism whereas the right does not?

Most people would say that capitalism, mega-wealth, investment beyond need, interest bearing loans, rent, etc, are right wing - no?

Who told you that social constuctionism does not deal with reality?

According to its tenets, you are free to come here in comments and help to construct our platform - help us deal with “reality” - in fact, that is the radical reality of how knowledge is generated.

Who told you to stay away? To see the “Left” as such a word that would have you running like a cockroach from the light?

Who supplied you with these stereotyped characterizations of an anthropmorphized “left” that is just so irrational that it can’t understand why Jews and these sociopathic Whites (that you want to get on your side on the sly), who’ve sold-out their race for their own selfish interests, are on top.

Who prevented you from joining me in this moribund White Left ethnonational position - seeing it as an opportunity to define it for ourselves, not as your masters see fit?

Such that it can provide for private property, wealth and a great deal of individual liberty, while maintaining accountability to our interests, bounds and borders?

Who told you that social constructonism was phony baloney?

I’m going to pretend for a moment that you will do the normal thing and join me as I watch this video; we’ll see what we can use, what may be off the mark - you will help in that corrective process, won’t you? Or will you refuse joint construction because your (((masters))) told you how to define what this left ethnonational platform is about and because those Whites who’ve bought their (((definitional package for right and left))) are too committed to their deal?

You see, there are all kinds of solutions to bring about borders and systems to run once borders are instituted. I never claimed to have all details figured out and in fact, am given to the reality of social constructionism, that that is simply not how knowledge is generated and disseminated - if people think, as Bowery apparently does, that I should come up with a system of “operationalization” or be ignored, then that is not reasonable. Someone else, if not him, is welcome to propose adjustments. These libertarians say to me, “that may be what should happen, but what do people actually do?

Well, I don’t know, what did the Jews tell you about how the right deals with reality, Stoicism, Jesus and all? That it provides the promise of perfect union with god after life….

Stoicism, it shows the way (doesn’t cause us to blunt our sensible interests) whereas Epicureanism’s “materialism’... oh, you don’t want that pursuit of pleasure, you don’t want that…there’s nothing after your material life, except maybe your children and kinfolk’s genetics…

Pleasure?! Ha ha ha! Don’t you know that shit has a divine place in the universe? Makes us perfect shit eaters, while your Epicurean palate, it pretends that it will get off, find the highest pleasure in figuring out how life is best conducted….

“The Stoic acceptance was an attempt to transubstantiate even the repugnant aspects of existence, the excremental, into the essentially divine.” - Kenneth Burke

In fact, Epicureanism promotes a hierarchicization of “pleasures” (contemplation being highest).... and our inextricable involvement in empirical reality which provides for accountability, e.g., to the materiality of our forebears and genetic legacy.

Ok, so I’ll watch this in my material reality; maybe you’ll join me in reflection upon it, probably you won’t… your gawd told you not to.