Razoring Wilkerson

Danny Haiphong often goes for interviewing the ex-military guys. I don’t know why. But I guess sometimes their geopolitical analysis is useful. They have the most horrific takes on macroeconomics though, complete idiots. They even get BRICS wrong. Don’t they have an Rummy-Scholarship sponsored MMT submodule at Military College? 🤣

Government uses actual Uzi’s to enforce tax liabilities in the military college version. (Don’t dunk on Mosler guys, a metaphor can be funny and still class conscious at the same time.)

Jokes aside, I am not sure if this is serious or not, given the war machine geopolitics tends to over-shadow the monetary macroeconomics. But I dimly think it does matter.

So I try writing to Danny things like this:

Around @10:00 somewhere… one bit of brain rot from Wilkerson (perhaps the only bit) is the “government debt.” He’s got it completely backwards. So is here being a tool for the establishment. The US government debt (accumulation of all historical deficit spending) is all outstanding cash, bonds and demand deposits. It is the non-government sector’s net financial wealth. It is a GOOD thing it goes higher with a growing population, it supports purchases at existing prices (before inflation). It does not cause inflation (look at Japan!!!) The massive problems will occur when the USA government goes into a surplus position ⇒ taxes back more us$ than it injects, which forces households into unsustainable bank debt (credit money). But the real problem is the root cause of this, which is the desire to cause mass unemployment to force the working class into begging for sh1tty jobs.

… hoping some day he’ll read on of my comments and take it to heart. It does you leftiepols no good if you refuse to accept the objective truth about monetary operations just because it conflicts with your anti-government stance which happens to agree with Margaret Thatcher, that great leftist of old, “It’s tax payers money!” lol.

And sometimes I feel the obligation to follow-up:

The problem with the US government debt held in the form of Treasury bonds is not the private wealth it represents, it is that it is highly regressive, since it amounts to nothing but basic income but only for people who already have money and in proportion to how much money they already have. The US government have no need to issue bonds. Bonds do not finance the government, since no one can by a bond in the first place before the government issues the currency by deficit spending — which It can always do, since a fiat currency is — as far as government operations are concerned, not households — nothing but government scorepoints (accounting units).
      The only purpose of bonds other than basic income for the rich, is interest rate maintenance operations, but the natural rate of interest is ZERO (money at par). Trade imbalance is better handled with a floating exchange rate, not by interest rate adjustments (which are never clear in causal effects, owing to interest-usury and interest-income having precisely opposite effects on the rich and the poor).

… as if I’m some sort of underground school teacher. Same as always. The students are never listening. They’ll teach themselves when they are ready… I hope. But a good teacher can still plant a seed. Better teachers than myself, these days I find if anyone not subscribed does read I only seem to be planting grenades which like hot potatoes just get thrown back.