Full Transcript of Bishop Michael Curry’s Wedding Sermon and HD Video ( Truth to Power love from the 99%) AMEN!

Truth to power Bishop Curry’s sermon, and Prometheus’ Cragg by Ted Hughes. Best wishes to the Newly Weds and Good Luck.
“And now in the name of our loving liberating and life giving god, father, son, and holy spirit, amen. From the song of Solomon in the bible, set me as a seal upon your heart, as a seal upon your arm, for love is as strong as death, passion, fears as the its flashes are flashes of fire, a raging flame. Many waters cannot quench love, neither can floods. Drown it out.
The late Dr. Martin Luther king once said and I quote, ‘We must discover the power of love, the redemptive power of love, and when we do that, we will make of this old world a new world.’
Love is the only way. There’s power in love. Don’t underestimate it. Don’t even over sentimentalize it. There’s power, power in love. If you don’t believe me, think about a time when you first fell in love. The whole world seemed to center around you and your beloved. Well, there’s power, power in love, not just in its romantic forms, but any form, any shape of love.
There’s a certain sense in which when you are loved and you know it, when someone cares for you and you know it, when you love and you show it, it actually feels right. There’s something right about it. And there’s a reason for it. The reason has to do with the source. We were made by a power of love and our lives were meant and are meant to be lived in that love. That’s why we are here. Ultimately the source of love is god himself. The source of all of our lives.
There’s an old medieval poem that says, where true love is found, god himself is there. The new testament says it this way, beloved, let us love one another because love is of god and those who love are born of god and know god, those who do not love do not know god, why? For god is love. There’s power in love. There’s power in love to help and heal when nothing else can. There’s power in love, to lift up and liberate when nothing else will. There’s power in love to show us the way to live. Set me as a seal on your heart. A seal on your arm. For love, it is strong.
But love is not only about a young couple. Now the power of love is demonstrated by the fact that we’re all here. Two young people fell in love and we all showed up. But it’s not just for and about a young couple who we rejoice with. It’s more than that. Jesus of Nazareth on one occasion was asked by a lawyer the sum of the essence of the teachings of Moses and he went back and reached back into the Hebrew scriptures and Jesus said, ‘you shall love the lord, your god, with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind and all your strength. This is the first and great commandment.’
And the second is like it. Love your neighbor as yourself. And then in Matthews’ version, he added, he said on these two, love of god and love of neighbor, hang all the law, all the prophets, everything that Moses wrote, everything in the holy prophets, everything in the scriptures, everything that god has been trying to tell the world, love god. Love your neighbors. And while you’re at it, love yourself.
Someone once said that Jesus began most revolutionary movement in all of human history, a movement grounded in the unconditional love of god for the world. And a movement mandating people to live that love. And in so doing, to change not only their lives but the very life of the world itself. I’m talking about some power, real power, power to change the world.
If you don’t believe me, well, there were some old slaves in America’s antebellum south who explained the dynamic power of love and why it has the power, they explained it this way, they sang a spiritual, even in the midst of their captivity, something that can make things right, to make the wounded whole.
“There is a balm in Gilead to heal the soul. They said if you cannot preach like Peter and you cannot pray like Paul, you just tell the love of Jesus how he died to save us all. Oh, that’s the balm in Gilead.”
He didn’t die for anything he could get out of it. Jesus did not get an honorary doctorate for dying. He didn’t—he wasn’t getting anything out of it. He gave up his life. He sacrificed his life for the good of others, for the good of the other, for the well-being of the world, for us.
That’s what love is. Love is not selfish and self-centered. Love can be sacrificial, and in so doing, becomes redemptive. And that way of unselfish sacrificial redemptive love, changes lives and it can change this world.
If you don’t believe me, just stop and think and imagine, think and imagine, well, think and imagine a world where love is the way. Imagine our homes and families when love is the way. Imagine neighborhoods and communities where love is the way. Imagine governments and nations where love is the way. Imagine business and commerce when love is the way. Imagine this tired old world when love is the way.
When love is the way, unselfish, sacrificial, redemptive, when love is the way, then no child will go to bed hungry in this world ever again. When love is the way, we will let justice roll down like a mighty stream and righteousness like an ever-flowing brook. When love is the way, poverty will become history. When love is the way, the Earth will be a sanctuary. When love is the way, we will lay down our swords and shields, down by the riverside, to study war no more. When love is the way, there’s plenty good room, plenty good room, for all of god’s children because when love is the way, we actually treat each other well, like we are actually family. When love is the way, we know that god is the source of us all and we are brothers and sisters, children of god. My brothers and sisters, that’s a new heaven, a new Earth, a new world, a new human family.
And let me tell you something, old Solomon was right in the Old Testament, there’s fire. With this I will sit down. We got to get you all married. The French Jesuit was one of the great minds and spirits of the 20th century, a Roman Catholic priest, scientist, a scholar, a mystic, in some of his writings he said from his scientific background as well as his theological one, some of his writings, he said, as others have, that the discovery or invention or harnessing of fire was one of the great, one of the great scientific and technological discoveries in all of human history.
Fire, to a great extent, made human civilization possible. Fire, made it possible to cook food and to provide sanitary ways of eating, which reduced the spread of disease in its time. Fire made it possible to heat warm environments and thereby made human migration around the world a possibility, even into colder climates. Fire made it possible—there is no—there was no Bronze Age without fire. No Iron Age without fire. No Industrial Revolution without fire. The advances of science and technology are greatly dependent on the human ability and capacity to take fire and use it for human good.
Anybody get here in a car today? An automobile? Nod your heads if you did. I’m guessing—I know there were some carriages. But those of us who came in cars, fire, the controlled harnessed fire, made that possible. Now that the Bible says and I believe that Jesus walked on the water, but I have to tell you, I didn’t walk across the Atlantic Ocean to get here. Controlled fire in that plane got me here. Fire makes it possible for us to text and tweet and e-mail and Instagram and Facebook and socially be dysfunctional with each other. Fire makes all of that possible.
And he said, fire was one of the greatest discoveries in all of human history. He then went on to say, if humanity ever harnesses the energy of fire again, if humanity ever captures the energy of love, it will be the second time in history that we have discovered fire.
Dr. King was right. We must discover love. The redemptive power of love and when we do that, we will make of this old world a new world. My brother, my sister, god love you, god bless you, and my god hold us all in those all mighty hands of love.”
“We will remember for Prometheus and use his gift of fire we´ll burn our paper chains of debt, a massive funeral pyre.”

Power Flows from the people.

Roger January 19, 2016 at 8:45 am # 
Government power ultimately comes from the people even in an autocracy this was taught to the Swedish Royal Family in this episode.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_of_1756 The Coup against the Government was lead by the Queen against Parliament, her punishment was a severe telling off part of which reinforce what had already been made explicit in Swedish government that Power comes from the People represented by the 4 estates.
The point about Power and also about the instruments of bureaucracy that power administers, including money is that they have to be accepted by the people who ultimately are of course self-interested. Regardless of what category Crypto Currencies are prescribed by law what people choose to accept in payment is what people choose.It’ss a false argument to define money as that which is acceptable to Government for payment of taxes. A lot of circular reasoning can go on here but do remember one of the things which Thomas Paine gives a good account of in Common Sense is there can be no taxation without representation m the aspects of colonial Scrip also did not escape Paine’s interest either. The politics of Numismatics in what might be called Political numismatics should not be ignored.
    • Roger January 26, 2016 at 10:07 am # 
      The Fear of Knowledge
      Prometheus’ tales inherently include the Gods’ fear that regular people will learn the secrets of the Gods and priests
      More from the Peoples poet, that sensitive quiet youth ( Farts)
      We will remember for prometheus and use his gift of fire
      we´ll burn our paper chains of debt, a massive funeral pyre.
      Oh, Burn those paper chains throw them in the fire
      own the sweat for your own sweet love
      Don´t listen to those liars
      This is the most personal song I have ever written, In fact I have pretty much hung up my Axe since I roughed out the fianl arrangement. My Freind Ken committed suicide I see his death at his own hands the inevitable cosequence of StructuraL violence …?
    • Wesley and Prometheus February 9, 2016 at 3:46 am # 
      Paper burns. Fraudulently created, thin-air paper burns rapidly. Money does not burn.
      And a lotta’ thin air Paper is burning rapidly, all around us right at this very moment… Prometheus will have his revenge! 😉 The battle with the banks will be won by the people.
  1. Roger January 26, 2016 at 8:20 am # 
    On a completely different Tack I watched this movie yesterday which is about the Enquiry into intelligent design as a scientific endevour regarding Origins of cellular structure ( Building Blocks of life.
    The film highlights the US education departments pursuing academics who teach creationism instead of Darwinian Evolution theory and also Research academics who lose tenure for publishing on intelligent design which is conflated with creationism.
    In terms of re defining dissent it seems to me that other avenues of debate are also being plugged up in many fields. Climate Science, Molecular Biology, Economics, Physics, Maths
    The point was tackled in a documentary series called heretics of science some years back.
    heres a clip regarding Blombergs book cool it.
    Heres one with Svensmark regarding clouds and Cosmic rays.
    list of heretics of science episodes.
    I do wonder how often I block out certain thoughts and refuse to express them simply as the fuss that voicing an opposition view will cause.

Meet Damon Vrabel. JohnG doesn’t like him, Be like Damon Vrabel, not like JohnG


  • http://www.tfmetalsreport.com/forum/debunking-money-series-damon-vrabel-6-part-series/498
  • Roger February 4, 2016 at 10:30 am #
    Damon has had two fairly different lives—one as an overachiever serving the financial empire, and another as a hopeful advocate for the victims of the empire: local community, indigenous population, the American republic, and the individual heart. He graduated from the United States Military Academy, served as an officer in the US Army, then graduated from Harvard Business School, took a short detour on Wall Street, and had a career in Silicon Valley in several leadership positions in technology corporations. Since leaving empire service, he became a mountaineer, attended Mars Hill Graduate School, and now works toward redemption as a writer and post-neoclassical economic philosopher.
    Damon can be reached at: strabes23@gmail.com
    This series of posts in comments to Keens article are interesting I believe the commentor is probably the author of the Videos Damon Vrabel. linked to the first of which is above.
    All Risk No Reward 10 months ago
    Hi Steve,
    While the question you set out to answer is a common misconception, there is a much simpler way to explain the reality of the mechanism at play.
    Simply put, the bank accrues the interest on all new money (created from nothing) as an asset as the borrower accrues the interest liability. The interest is created, but it is **controlled** by the bank.
    Using your example as a guide, there is the Bank, the Firm, and the Workers. The Bank is the lender, The Firm is the borrow and the Workers work for the borrower. The Bank lends $100 million at 5% interest to the Firm (the only loan in this system). Double entry bookkeeping demands that an interest liability ($5 million in the first year) is accrued by the Firm and an interest asset is accrued by the Bank. Therefore, after one year, there monetary assets and liabilities balance at $105 million… the interest is absolutely create – AS AN ASSET ON THE BANK’S BALANCE SHEET.
    After 1 year, there is $95 million in the Firm / Worker system and $5 million in the Banker system.
    Now, in your scenario, you assumed something totally unrealistic – and Susana brought this out. The Banks don’t spend all their money back into society. They retain earnings (both the shareholders and the banking company itself.
    Since you assume this reality out of existence, your conclusion is incredibly misleading.
    Assuming the banks only spend half their $5 million back into the economy (leaving $2.5 million as retained earnings for the company and its shareholders), in 40 years there is exactly $0 money left in the economy ($2.5 million *40 = $100 million in Bank and Banker retained earnings).
    Now, how do you propose that the Firm in this economy, given this much more realistic basic scenario where reality isn’t assumed away, can generate profits greater than their $5 million in accrued interest liability when $0 is available in the economy and $100 million is controlled by Banks and Bankers… or is that Banksters.
    This is the prima facia fraud inherent in debt-money systems and you give the appearance that this very real mechanism is a myth. It is only a myth if the arguer assumes reality out of existence.
    The truth is actually very simple. Debt-money is a zero sum game. Money is effectively a debt receipt and only debt receipts can pay back the debt-money debts. One person’s net positive debt-money receipt position is someone else’s, or some other group’s, inextinguishable debt.
    This little video does an excellent job explaining this very simple to comprehend aspect of debt-money systems…
    Poverty – Debt is Not a Choice https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juQc0rLdB-E
    My next post will address this issue from a different angle, and one that contains 1/100 the conplexity of your example without losing the essence of truth.
    Top Comment
    All Risk No Reward
    All Risk No Reward 10 months ago
    Hi Steve,
    In order to make this issue as simple as possible, assume two segments of society: 1) The Money Lenders and 2) The Money Borrowers.
    The Money Lenders lend the Money Borrowers $100 million at 5% interest. In one year, the Money Borrowers owe $105 million due to double entry bookkeeping adjustments that add a $5 million interest expense to their balance sheet and a $5 million interest asset to the Money Lender balance sheet.
    How can the Money Borrowers pay the $105 million debt when they only have access to $100 million and the lender to whom they owe the money controls the only $5 million available to pay back the debt? WHO has the POWER in this scenario – the private Money Lender or the government, business (ex-banking), and citizenry Money Borrower? WHO finances the political apparatus?
    “When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes. Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain.” ― Napoléon Bonaparte (Napoleon was a bad man, but he was no dummy! He took Sun Tzu’s advice and learned to know his enemy!)
    There are only two ways the debt can be paid after one year. Make the unrealistic assumption that the Money Lender voluntarily gave all $5 million (not keeping back one red cent!) back to the borrower because Mr. Lender is so charitable (really? Really?? Really???) OR CREATE MORE DEBT MAKING THE PREVIOUS DEBT PAYABLE.
    Now, you claim to have debunked this claim, but you haven’t until you can rationally address the issue above. Since the Money Lenders retain earnings (personally, through their corporate banking fronts, through their multinational corporate fronts, through their foundation fronts, etc…), society, by definition, doesn’t have access to the money required to pay their debts.
    It is true that I have assumed 100% retained earnings by the Money Lender. But I don’t need to. As I said, if they hold back even 1 cent, that loan can’t be paid back in full… it will be 1 cent short and the default assured. No matter how you slice it ALL POWER is in the hands of a privately operated banking cartel and in the hands of the Money Borrower (in reality, that is government, business outside the money creating banking cartel, and the every day citizen).
    By definition, the retained and closely held monetary wealth of the Bankers and their “club” are the INEXTINGUISHABLE DEBTS OF EVERYONE ELSE!
    Now, given the reality of Banker controlled retained monetary assets into the trillions, how do they manage the unpayable debts?
    They issue new debt in a closely controlled exponential manner. There very thing you claim to debunk is the very thing they actually do in order to keep the inextinguishable debts from collapsing Main Street before their “chosen time.”
    As you, the Bankers, and I well know, exponential debt growth is unsustainable. So the Bankers aren’t growing debt-money exponentially to “save the system,” rather, they are blowing the world’s biggest debt-money bubble in anticipation of eventually bankrupting and seizing the assets of others to the maximum extent possible.
    In closing, I’d like to share a clear insight the essence of a “bailout” with you and your audience.
    Continuing with the $100 million example, a “bailout” is when $100 in debt-money is created by the Big Banks out of thin air, the proceeds of which are stuffed into the pockets of the Banking corporate fronts, and the $100 million debt obligation is offloaded onto the general public even though they never received the $100 million in debt-money proceeds.
    Read that as many times as necessary to comprehend the Machiavellian evil that underlies “bailouts.”
    They are doing this in Europe, too. The Big Banks made bad loans to Greece, but the Big Banks want to get paid out. So they “bailout” Greece with money guaranteed by German and other pension funds and pay off the private Big Banks that made the bad loans in full, or at least nearly so.
    In essence, the Big Banks stole the pension funds of Germans and others, the Germans just haven’t figured it out yet. But they will.
    This stuff really isn’t that complex.”
    The basic objection I have to MMT is that it accepts that Governments are actually sovereign, I do not believe that that is the case. Governments should assert sovereignty and then if one then accepts that the debt based system can become benign with the primary objective of a job guarantee, then a case may be possible except that it does not address the questions related to infinite growth in a finite system these are aspects of the question which lietaer summarises here. http://www.lietaer.com/2010/09/effects-of-interest-based-currencies/
    re watching this at the moment
    “Princes of the Yen: Central Banks and the Transformation of the Economy” reveals how Japanese society was transformed to suit the agenda and desire of powerful interest groups, and how citizens were kept entirely in the dark about this.
    Based on a book by Professor Richard Werner, a visiting researcher at the Bank of Japan during the 90s crash, during which the stock market dropped by 80% and house prices by up to 84%. The film uncovers the real cause of this extraordinary period in recent Japanese history.
    Making extensive use of archival footage and TV appearances of Richard Werner from the time, the viewer is guided to a new understanding of what makes the world tick. And discovers that what happened in Japan almost 25 years ago is again repeating itself in Europe. To understand how, why and by whom, watch this film.
    “Princes of the Yen” is an unprecedented challenge to today’s dominant ideological belief system, and the control levers that underpin it. Piece by piece, reality is deconstructed to reveal the world as it is, not as those in power would like us to believe that it is.
    “Because only power that is hidden is power that endures.”
    A film by Michael Oswald
  • JohnG February 4, 2016 at 10:51 am #
    I know who Damon Vrabel is. Although it isn’t his real name.
    He’s a spook.
    And it’s just really bad accounting.Interest payments to banks aren’t bank assets.
    They’re income.
    And yet again, sovereign currency issuers don’t borrow their money from banks.
          • Roger February 4, 2016 at 12:31 pm #
            Generalisations do not cut it with specifics Johng,
            ”If you wish to attack ideas that is fine but then you have to provide an argument and engage with the discussion. Simply saying: “what are you on?”; “this is a mass generalisation”; “you f**kwit”, “this site sucks” etc are not engaging in discussion”’ Bill Mitchell
            Roger January 30, 2016 at 4:40 pm #
            Bill Mitchells Comments policy.
        • Wesley – Balanced! February 9, 2016 at 7:12 am #
          Vrabel’s balance sheet explanations are clean and simple. Very sensible indeed! His insights are useful. Thanks!
    1. Roger February 4, 2016 at 11:34 am #
      ”I know who Damon Vrabel is. Although it isn’t his real name.
      He’s a spook.
      And it’s just really bad accounting.Interest payments to banks aren’t bank assets.
      They’re income.
      And yet again, sovereign currency issuers don’t borrow their money from banks.””
      John g,
      Saying someone is a spook does not address the substance of their argument, even calling someone an idiot and proving that they are an idiot does not address the substance of their argument.
      The possibly fictitious alleged spook Damon is not the only one that challenges Steve Keens article , it is interesting that Steve does not respond to the posts made in the name All Risk No Reward.( who I allege is the alleged spook whose name Damon Vrabel also allegedly false) Who´s on first base? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbJwwJ33TEI
      Even should one concede the ”spooks´´arguments there are also the point’s raised by Leitaer and his 11th round parable and 3 effects of money at interest. ”
      ”Three consequences of interest as a built-in feature of our monetary system are that (1) it encourages systematic competition among the participants in the system; (2) it continually fuels the need for endless economic growth; and (3) it concentrates wealth by transferring money from the vast majority to a small minority.”
      If one reads the 11th round parable, which ends with this concluding paragraph
      ´´In the current national currency paradigm, one reason why so much attention is paid to central bank decisions is that increased interest rates necessitate more bankruptcies in the future. The economic pie must grow that much faster just to break even. The monetary system obliges us to incur debt and compete with others in order to perform exchanges and pay the resulting interest to the banks or lenders. No wonder “it is a tough world out there,” and that those who live within a competitive monetary system so readily accept Darwin’s supposed “survival of the fittest.”
      One has to ask in answer to the question ´´What functional finance advocates first and foremost is that policy be based on an understanding of the monetary and financial system in which we live, and not some idealized vision of some other system, or some system that may have existed at some other time. ´
      The system we have now is decidedly not one founded on the monetary sovereignty of Nation States see ; ´´Princes of the Yen: Central Bank Truth Documentary 『円の支配者』’
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5Ac7ap_MAY .”’, For details .
      examining your two statements further
      1. ´´And it’s just really bad accounting.Interest payments to banks aren’t bank assets.
      They’re income.”
      is it? http://www.double-entry-bookkeeping.com/accounts-receivable/accounts-receivable-journal-entries/
      sorry formatting will not trasfer its easier to see at the link.
      A credit note is issued to a customer Account Debit Credit
      Revenue XXX
      Accounts receivable XXX
      To write off an accounts receivable as a bad debt Account Debit Credit
      Bad debt expense XXX
      Accounts receivable XXX
      To set up an allowance for doubtful debts Account Debit Credit
      Bad debt expense XXX
      Allowance for doubtful debts XXX
      To use the allowance for doubtful debts to write off an accounts receivable Account Debit Credit
      Allowance for doubtful debts XXX
      Accounts receivable XXX
      To record cash received after an accounts receivable has been written off Account Debit Credit
      Cash XXX
      Accounts receivable XXX
      Accounts receivable XXX
      Allowance for doubtful debts XXX
      This exchange can tell us a lot about accounting conventions.
      2. ”And yet again, sovereign currency issuers don’t borrow their money from banks.”
      Under the current system this is an arguable point. There are two questions here,
      2.1.Should Governments re-assert sovereign control ?Indeed can they without being invaded?
      2.2. If Governments assert sovereign control is an interest based debt money the most democratic and sustainable currency solution.
      • JohnG February 4, 2016 at 11:58 am #
        You’re just being played, dude.
        You’re just too stupid to realise it.
        When people come along and point it out you yell at them.
        You’re your own worst enemy.
    2. JohnG February 4, 2016 at 1:29 pm #
      How can someone who claims to understand Minsky then turn around and promote Vrabel’s view?
      It’s nuts.
      Roger is insane.
    3. Roger February 4, 2016 at 1:55 pm #
      John G,
      Which aspect of Vrabels story are ficticous? All of it clearly is not.
      If one looks at Werenrs story regarding ´´Princess Yen´´one would argue , I would contend convincingly, that Vrabel has the dynamic between Government and Banking sector about right as regards which hand is on top. Who bails out who if one follows the money.
      fitzy103 said…
      I think this is the cirlce of debt…
      1. “Spain is not Greece.”Elena Salgado, Spanish Finance minister, Feb. 2010
      2. “Portugal is not Greece.” The Economist, 22nd April 2010.
      3. “Ireland is not in ‘Greek Territory.’”Irish Finance Minister Brian Lenihan.
      4. “Greece is not Ireland.”George Papaconstantinou, Greek Finance minister, 8th November, 2010.
      5. “Spain is neither Ireland nor Portugal.”Elena Salgado, Spanish Finance minister, 16 November 2010.
      6. “Neither Spain nor Portugal is Ireland.”Angel Gurria, Secretary-general OECD, 18th November, 2010
      If you understand this lot, you havent been paying attention…
      31 May 2011 18:49
      First Fitzy I am chuckling away even as I write this that’s a slam dunk very very funny.
      Here is Davids original blog called a peoples debt jubilee
      If Governements were not happy to maintain a subservient position as Vrabel Claims why were the banks bailed out both with Tarp in US and with the UK nationalisations and the conversion of the whole thing into a ´´Soverieghn Debt Crisis´´. There are surely a lot of smoke and mirrors in all of this I think Vrabels explanation of a sort of soft fascism morphing into a more overt hard fascism is very credible actually.
      Consider this.
      I mention Umberto Ecos UR Fascism earlier as well also a blog I did called Narcissism of small differences is related to this http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/2012/11/the-narcissism-of-small-differences-in.html
      Johng I think it is you that presents a fictitious view of the Monetary system the empirical evidence as to what it is and more importantly what it does is doing and has done tends to throw up too many questions to accept the Government is in the driving seat.
      • Roger February 4, 2016 at 5:20 pm #
        Richard Werner
        First empirical test in 5000 years of banking on whether each individual bank can create money out of nothing is out http://ac.els-cdn.com/S1057521914001070/1-s2.0-S1057521914001070-main.pdf?_tid=781b835e-8880-11e4-8cf9-00000aacb35f&acdnat=1419104788_bcaee65302916a2bab37a5cf7f63c992 …
        Since the tenets of this theory are never stated in Eatwell et al. (1989), the chapter on ‘Cranks’ ends up being a litany of ad hominem denigration, defamation and character assassination, liberally distributing labels such as ‘cranks’, ‘phrase-mongers’, ‘agitators’, ‘populists’, and even ‘conspiracy theorists’ that believe in ‘miracles’ and engage in wishful thinking, ultimately deceiving their readers by trying to “impress their peers with their apparent understanding of economics, even though they had no formal training in the discipline” (p. 214). All that we learn about their actual theories is that, somehow, these ill-fated authors are “opposed to private banks and the ‘Money Power’ without their opposition leading to more sophisticated political analysis” (p. 215). Any reading of the highly sophisticated Soddy (1934) quickly reveals such labels as unfounded defamation.
        To the contrary, the empirical evidence presented in this paper has revealed that the many supporters of the financial intermediation theory and also the adherents of the fractional reserve theory are flat-earthers that believe in what is empirically proven to be wrong and which should have been recognisable as being impossible upon deeper consideration of the accounting requirements. Whether the authors in Eatwell et al. (1989) did in fact know better is an open question that deserves attention in future research. Certainly the unscientific treatment of the credit creation theory and its supporters by such authors as Keynes, who strongly endorsed the theory only a few years before authoring tirades against its supporters, or by the authors in Eatwell et al. (1989), raises this possibility.
        5.4.2. Implications for government policy
        There are other, far-reaching ramifications of the finding that banks individually create credit and money when they do what is called ‘lending money’. It is readily seen that this fact is important not only for monetary policy, but also for fiscal policy, and needs to be reflected in economic theories. Policies concerning the avoidance of banking crises, or dealing with the aftermath of crises require a different shape once the reality of the credit creation theory is recognised. They call for a whole new paradigm in monetary economics, macroeconomics, finance and banking (for details, see for instance Werner, 1997, Werner, 2005, Werner, 2012, Werner, 2013a, Werner, 2013a and Werner, 2013b) that is based on the reality of banks as creators of the money supply. It has potentially important implications for other disciplines, such as accounting, economic and business history, economic geography, politics, sociology and law.
        5.4.3. Implications for bank regulation
        The implications are far-reaching for bank regulation and the design of official policies. As mentioned in the Introduction, modern national and international banking regulation is predicated on the assumption that the financial intermediation theory is correct. Since in fact banks are able to create money out of nothing, imposing higher capital requirements on banks will not necessarily enable the prevention of boom–bust cycles and banking crises, since even with higher capital requirements, banks could still continue to expand the money supply, thereby fuelling asset prices, whereby some of this newly created money can be used to increase bank capital. Based on the recognition of this, some economists have argued for more direct intervention by the central bank in the credit market, for instance via quantitative credit guidance ( Werner, 2002, Werner, 2003b and Werner, 2005).
        The view of the author, based on more than twenty-three years of research on this topic, is that it is the safest bet to ensure that the awesome power to create money is returned directly to those to whom it belongs: ordinary people, not technocrats. This can be ensured by the introduction of a network of small, not-for-profit local banks across the nation. Most countries do not currently possess such a system. However, it is at the heart of the successful German economic performance in the past 200 years. It is the very Raiffeisen, Volksbank or Sparkasse banks – the smaller the better – that were helpful in the implementation of this empirical study that should serve as the role model for future policies concerning our monetary system. In addition, one can complement such local public bank money with money issued by local authorities that is accepted to pay local taxes, namely a local public money that has not come about by creating debt, but that is created for services rendered to local authorities or the community. Both forms of local money creation together would create a decentralised and more accountable monetary system that should perform better (based on the empirical evidence from Germany) than the unholy alliance of central banks and big banks, which have done much to create unsustainable asset bubbles and banking crises (Werner, 2013a and Werner, 2013b).


Appolonian Priciness and its collapse into Dionysian Madness. Bernard Lietaer and the Integral Analysis of Money.

    • Wesley February 2, 2016 at 10:53 am # 
      This guy is quite sensible…
      Bravo! Bernard Lietaer – Why money needs to change now! –Published on Nov 29, 2014
      The current monopoly of conventional money is a main source for unsustainable behaviors. New currency designs – among which crypto-currencies, but not only crypto-currencies ! – can contribute to make the necessary shifts more smoothly.
      Discusses: inherent monetary instability; how the world’s economies are steaming straight for a wall. Mentions specifically the mathematical compulsory necessity of growth (will you accept the proposition from HIM, JohnG???); and the systematic redirection and concentration of wealth.
      • Roger February 2, 2016 at 1:15 pm # 
        This question and answer is an essential insight I think.
        • Roger February 2, 2016 at 1:26 pm # 
          This question and answer is an essential insight I think.
          Particulalry in the supplementary question and answer at 1.02.30 when Lietar says the Maoist, Soviet and Western systems of creating money was the same as debt at interest the only difference in the ownership of the banks..
    • JohnG February 2, 2016 at 9:24 pm # 
      “Academically MMT has not been challenged. And from what I study on it, they are right!”
      Shame he didn’t study MMT before he was involved in the disaster that is the euro.
      He’ll never wash that blood off his hands.
  1. Roger February 2, 2016 at 12:59 pm # 
    Thanks chaps for the introduction to Bernard Lietaer. Very clearly expressed vison of the problem and the directions to diversify into.
    • JohnG February 3, 2016 at 9:44 am # 
      Yeah, the problem isn’t unemployment and poverty. It’s all about rich, old, lazy, fat, musically talentless, white men preserving their unearned wealth at the expense of others.
      The reality is that crypto currencies are at best ponzi schemes and largely exist to facilitate tax evasion and promote illicit drug and arms trafficking and human sex slave trafficking.
      There’s your anti-democracy rationale right there.
      • Roger February 3, 2016 at 10:16 am # 
        MMT auto bot, programmed default response.3
        • JohnG February 3, 2016 at 10:34 am # 
          Does David know that you’ve linked your defamatory, and possibly libelous nonsense to his blog?
          Not too bright are you?
          • Roger February 3, 2016 at 10:48 am # 
            MMT auto bot, programmed default response.4
          • JohnG February 3, 2016 at 11:01 am # 
            What an utterly pathetic excuse for a human being you are.
            Yet more evidence that thee block chainers are easy marks for the security services.
            Anarchists my arse.
  2. Roger February 3, 2016 at 11:22 am # 
    MMT auto bot, programmed default response.5
    The examined life is not worth living.
    “It takes more courage to examine the dark corners of your own soul than it does for a soldier to fight on a battlefield”
    ― W.B. Yeats
    Original track written and produced by Roger Lewis, featuring Cornel Wests amazing dialogue from the Movie the Examined Life.
    I discovered Prof. West through a Joint Interview with Simon Critchley and Cornel West on how to love.
    Verse 3 (Paranoid):
    We in the middle of a war and got a mission
    Exposing these ho’s as controlled opposition
    Listen, I ain’t hating or dissin
    I’m just trying to expand your vision (for real)
    It’s sickening the conditions we live in
    They’re trying to transform the planet to a prison
    Now most of these sheep, is half way asleep
    Sitting in their living rooms, watching their television (yea)
    But some of us is different
    We read the newspapers thinking who the fuck they kidding?
    We hate these politicians and it doesn’t really matter
    If their last name is Bush, Obama or Clinton
    We saw the twin towers and we thought – DEMOLITION!
    The powers that be said – BOY YOU GOTTA GET EM!
    You can tell em anything to make em feel like victims
    So long as Jesuits and Zionists are never mentioned
    Check it out!
    I revolve around science.
    What are we talking about here?
    Do your math
    One.. t-t-two.. three, four James Brown
    What are we talking about here?
    • Roger February 3, 2016 at 12:32 pm # 
      The Anarchist Turn – Simon Critchley
      Democracy 2011
      Pontificate, Certificate, Defecate.
      Agitate, Aggregate,, Obviscate.
      Repudiate, Obviate,Opiate,
      Satiate Fascist Hate
      Pontious Pilate, Judas Kiss
      Politics of envy, Divide and Rule
      3 legged Milking Stool
      Mushroom Clouded vision
      Dark Room
      No Hope
      Fed Shite
      Ponzi State, Economic Bubble
      Death of Ethics, No Spiritual Revolution
      Satanic Absolution, Hypocritical Contortion.
      Legalised Extortion.
      Keep in Unstable , Wear your skin like Sable
      3 legged stools and uphill tables
      Tables turned and loyalties spurned
      Dark Room, No hope , Fed SHITE!
  3. Wesley – with Clint Ballinger February 3, 2016 at 4:24 pm # 
    Dissent – it’s a funny thing! Imagine focusing on ASSENT!
    Imagine focusing one’s attentions on areas of positive overlap! Imagine – MMT and Positive Money together, both now detox’d from their respective Kool-Aids having a cuppa’ together! Imagine, finding out that the most common criticisms of the PM propositions (by MMTers) are indicative of MMTers’ inability to read! Imagine, critiques of MMT (the horror!), also clearly originating from a lack of understanding (Krugman-style) of the actual reality of fraudulent, endogenous credit-creation in the private banking system! (PMers DO know how the system works, JohnG – no need to worry about any fractional-reserving money-multipliers over there!)
    Ballinger also notes that both MMT and Positive Money are often unfairly criticized:
    “Many of the concerns with the PM proposal I have seen brought up are actually discussed in some detail in the PM literature…and it often seems that critics of the plan simply do not closely read PM explanations of the details of the plan.”
    “There are plenty of critiques of MMT – most of which are completely misguided and due to fundamental misunderstandings of the economy due to orthodox economic blinders.”
    Subsequently, concerns regarding both approaches are laid out. For Positive Money, Ballinger asks:
    “Would the new system of exclusively state money be able to create a fair system for large business loans? How would that system differ from the current system?”
    And for Post-Keynesians and MMTers, Ballinger asks:
    “Does the fact that endogenously created private credit-money dwarfs state money restrict the ability of the government to act in the public purpose in the way MMT believes?
    “Does this render MMT ideas on the role of the state in the economy unworkable? Does the inherent instability and pro-cyclical nature of endogenous money have too many social costs? Does the endogenous money system stealthily but inexorably lead to regulatory capture? …Lead to unsustainable levels of private debt? To highly inequitable wealth distributions?”
    Imagine – having a civilized conversation without waving a chain-saw around…
    • Wesley – Not waving a chainsaw! February 3, 2016 at 4:50 pm # 
      I’ve just noticed that Mr. Balliger has “approved” of the analysis as being clear and thoughtful… Funny, no comments from the MMT world, with or without chainsaws!
      From the comments to that same link:
      Clint Ballinger • 7 months ago
      Just now ran across this – excellent article, thank you for breaking my article down in a clear and thoughtful way. I may have a few responses when I have some time.
      I guess my main one would be that I agree that the purpose of PM reforms is not to create a loanable funds system per se (PM goals are about power, dependency and accountability as you say). But the effect, in a language MMT and Circuit Theorists will understand (as well as even orthodox ‘economists’), is to create a loanable funds system, and my intent on highlighting this term is to unify/clarify the dialogue between the various groups involved. The result of changing to a loanable funds system in the way PM proposes would be to return the power to create new money to an accountable body in the public interest & to remove the dependency on debt-fuelled growth.
      Cheers, Clint
      Hmmmm? Dangerous thoughts eh?!! Removing the ability of the banking system to create debt-based fiduciary media from thin air. Thoughts like that can lead to revolutionary new paradigms. OMG!
      • Roger February 3, 2016 at 6:14 pm # 
        not this
        Verse 2: (Payday Monsanto)
        Aye yo Chris,
        I can feel ya like a hundred and twenty percent
        Haters and infiltrators are hell bent
        I wanna tie them up and make them repent
        And then find out by whooom they were sent
        These days they seem all out
        And if you know Payday, you know he’s balls out
        Alex Jones, he can’t stand criticism
        And I don’t trust him as far as I can spit it at em
        That’s the way it’s gotta be
        Until we know the details of the Council For National Policy
        I can only take a stab at it
        But what I do know is their agenda is very elaborate
        So who the fuck can we trust?
        When it comes down to the grizzle my nizzle
        I’m ready to bust
        Til the clip is empty
        These days I don’t even trust Gerald Celente
        Cointel Pro
        This is a famous interview Chomsky gave inthe UK, this Cointelpro part goes with the Chris geo track the whole Marr Chomsky interview is worth watching.
    • JohnG February 3, 2016 at 8:49 pm # 
      I tried to have a civilised conversation with you. All I got in return was a tsunami of insults, strawmen and incoherent bullshit.
      Clint Ballinger and PM aren’t saying anything that chimes with your ideological stance.
      Quite the opposite. The only thing you have in common with PM is that they criticise MMT. And that fits in with your crusade.
      But then you, like PM don’t understand the monetary system. They are probably less confused than you. But confused they are.
      I’ve tried to explain to you and Roger where they and you both are going wrong but neither of you has acknowledged the point.
      I suspect because it’s inconvenient to your faux moral outrage.
      You’ve all ‘discovered’ that banks create credit out of thin air.
      That’s great. But there’s much more that you seemingly refuse to entertain so you fall back into your neoclassical mythology (and totally manufactured history) and end up with an entirely incoherent, muddled view.
      PM sees the symptoms but misdiagnoses the problem because their basic understanding of the system is false. So they’re trying to treat the wrong illness with quackery.
      And they, like ‘libertarians’ are being led by oligarchs. Funny that.
      Revolutions led by oligarchs probably aren’t going to go the way the followers think.

An Integral View on Money and Financial CrashesBy Bernard LietaerOctober 2005 


2. The more hyper-rational a market, the more likely it is to get caught in a mania.Mythologically, as shown in the Bacchae, it is the Apollonian ruler, not those whoembrace the “messiness” of the Dionysian space, who end up being dismembered.In other words, the more we defend ourselves against the Dionysian uncertainty, the morelikely that we attract his “madness.” This could explain why the most sophisticatedmarkets are the ones who get caught in manias. It is because of their very sophisticationthat the illusion of control is most prevailing. The more tools we accumulate to ensure apermanent Apollonian certainty, the more likely it is that we will attract a Dionysianoutburst. 

MMT and other hetrodox economic positions discussed, without spitting out of dummies.

        • JohnG February 1, 2016 at 9:01 am # 
          Why are you cluttering up the comments with comments from other blogs?
          I commented on a specific point as per the quoted text.
          Are you always this obtuse?
          You and Wesley haven’t done much bar ad hominem, so heal thyself, you self unaware old goat.
          Yes I have read the articles and yes, as per the comments the writer misunderstands PM’s position.
          I note that, as always, you have not actually responded to my point.
          So don’t be trying to teach me manners you rude ignorant fool.
          You’re as bad as your extremist right wing mate at dissembling and ill mannered intellectual dishonesty.
          • Roger February 1, 2016 at 9:17 am # 
            The comments from the other blogs demonstrate that plenty of other people have discussed MMT and other hetrodox economic positions without spitting out their dummies.
            JohnG there are links to very good analysis of MMT and the various factions around the central position.your interjections are frankly useless.
            You continue to claim that my positions are obtuse or that I am engaging in personal attacks on you personally this is simply not the case.
            I am now at the end of my patience with you John G and this is a personal statement to you. I have nothing further to say to you.
            JohnG February 1, 2016 at 8:03 am #
            returning the power to create new money to an accountable body working in the public interest
            In other words, they’re idiots who, like Roger and Wesley, cannot understand the distinct difference between government money and bank credit.
            These loons think that currency issuing governments borrow their money from banks.
            Why would an anarchist who wants to banish state money and central control promote this undemocratic government and central control by technocrats?
            Loons. Utter loons.
            Your comment
            ”I commented on a specific point as per the quoted text.´´
            Are you always this obtuse?
            Do you seriously expect anyone to engage with that?
            Johng you have lost any respect I could possibly have for your position I am done with you.
          • JohnG February 1, 2016 at 9:30 am # 
            The comments form the other blog demonstrate that plenty of other people have discussed MMT and other hetrodox economic positions wothout spitting out their dummies.
            Yes but they’re not occurring with people like you two are they? You’re not discussing anything.
            Trying to discuss anything with you is like trying to nail jelly to a wall but a lot less fun.
            And yes Roger, it’s damned rude.
            If you’re not being deliberately obtuse, then you must be as thick as mince.
  1. Roger February 1, 2016 at 7:28 pm # 
    A visit to the the new deans office finds a new zeal for MMT, an innocent question or two leads to a diagnosis of opposition defiance disorder blasphemy and dick waddery.
    MMT causes siome strong reactions who would have known?

Neil Wilson , A voice of reason in the MMT pack.Within the notation system you use and the limitation of accounting perhaps. But that is a static notation, not a dynamic one.

Roger January 31, 2016 at 9:41 am # 
JohnG January 31, 2016 at 2:29 am #
Cullen Roche is a disaffected former MMTer.
He appears to hate the idea of full employment.
CUllen ROche responded in the comments to Randall Wrays article.
· 111 weeks ago
For not knowing who I am, you sure do seem certain of my political beliefs and monetary understandings. Next time you decide to attack us so personally, you could start by at least getting the name of our approach right (it’s just MR – Monetary Realism). It might bolster your argument.
Phil, I never said that. I said the the “printing press is not more powerful than the private production line”. After all, money has no value if there is no output for it to be used to purchase. I don’t think this is “austrian” or even that controversial….
Bod/Dismayed, I never said govt has no role in the economy. In fact, I’ve been in favor of greater govt regulation, deficits, and I am not even against the JG (despite MMT’s misinterpretations otherwise). You regularly read my work and comment at PC so I know you’re aware of this.
Is this what MMT has resorted to now? Petty blog posts, personal attacks and blatant misrepresentations and personal defamation? I sure hope not. I am sorry I disagree with some of your positions, but calling people “retarded”, “anal” and telling them to “get a life” in your blog post is not helping your cause. Feel free to call me all sorts of names now and misrepresent everything I say….
– See more at: http://www.economonitor.com/lrwray/2013/12/11/mmt-often-imitated-never-duplicated/#sthash.XL70Yhgc.dpuf
  • Roger January 31, 2016 at 12:17 pm # 
    This exchange is key Neilw´s blog is well worth a read ( http://www.3spoken.co.uk/search/label/mct ) I think his point regarding the emergent properties expressed as a vector being more rich in meaning than a backwards looking balance sheet are very acute. Neil w has made some very insightful and intelligent contributions to a lot of discussions on MMT I have found on the Web.
    · 111 weeks ago
    I = I + (S – I)
    is straightforward if you think in computer code.
    It’s X = X + 1
    What they are saying is that you have to offset last year’s excess savings of the private sector with more private investment this year.
    It’s nothing sophisticated and is exactly what Steve Keen has been saying in his dynamic equations for years.
    It’s *not* a mathematical equation. It’s a time progression.
    11 replies · active 110 weeks ago
    0 Vote up Vote down
    L. Randall Wray’s avatar
    L. Randall Wray · 111 weeks ago
    Neil: logically impossible. Saving is the accounting record of Investment (plus Def+NX). There’s no excess to be used.It is all “used up”. Saving in the next period will be the accounting record of Investment in the next period (plus Def+NX).
    0 Vote up Vote down
    NeilW’s avatar – Go to profile
    NeilW 37p · 111 weeks ago
    “Neil: logically impossible.”
    Within the notation system you use and the limitation of accounting perhaps. But that is a static notation, not a dynamic one.
    X = X + 1 is similarly logically impossible, but I execute it all the time on a computer – because it is actually a statement of the state change from one time instant to the next.
    0 Vote up Vote down
    PhilippeJames’s avatar – Go to profile
    PhilippeJames 12p · 111 weeks ago
    not sure what you mean. That’s not what they are saying.
    S = I + (G – T) + (X – M)
    (G – T) + (X – M) = S – I
    S = I + (S – I)
    It’s just a rearrangement of the sectoral balances equation that tells you nothing in particular.
    It’s simply a rhetorical device used to say something like ‘private saving mainly equals private investment plus a little bit extra on top which is the net saving part’. The idea is to try to rhetorically reverse the MMT position, which presents ‘net saving’ as central to private saving.
    0 Vote up Vote down
    NeilW’s avatar – Go to profile
    NeilW 37p · 111 weeks ago
    Yes, I know its an attempt to quantify a belief in some sort of different causality using fairly lame and incorrect mathematics.
    However causality always has a time element. For something to be before something else it has to precede it in time.
    It would be so much more understandable if the time elements were made specific. Then perhaps everybody would be able to determine what the underlying beliefs actually are and be able to analyse them.
    0 Vote up Vote down
    L. Randall Wray’s avatar
    L. Randall Wray · 111 weeks ago
    Neil sorry neither of those explanations work. (Not blaming you, of course). From the 1950s, some mainstream Keynesians tried to make their simple models “dynamic” along these lines. They fail logic and accounting. Don’t forget that identities are identities. Always. Every point in time and over time.
    0 Vote up Vote down
    NeilW’s avatar – Go to profile
    NeilW 37p · 111 weeks ago
    The equation is stupid. Let’s get that straight. It’s an attempt to be really clever that falls flat on its face (hence X=X+1 which similar is completely understandable by me but nobody else has a clue what I’m on about. The difference is I will drop that device now because it didn’t work).
    But balance sheet accounting has limitations in that it is a historic snapshot, and is based on policies, and it doesn’t show the causation from one snapshot to the next very easily.
    And it holds all the time because of the logic of double entry that makes sure it does – tortuously sometimes!
    It’s really the delta from one snapshot to the next that is interesting, and then coming up with a way of expressing why that change occurred.
    0 Vote up Vote down
    L. Randall Wray’s avatar
    L. Randall Wray · 111 weeks ago
    Neil and of course the Keynesians did use proper notation, putting in time subscripts. But then the equations don’t hold. In any event, investment is forward looking, not backward looking to what saving was last year. I expect a couple of years of college economics would help straighten all this out for them.
    0 Vote up Vote down
    NeilW’s avatar – Go to profile
    NeilW 37p · 111 weeks ago
    “In any event, investment is forward looking, not backward looking to what saving was last year”
    It it outside the balance sheet within the causality structure. Within the balance sheet what you call investment relates precisely to what you call saving within that balance sheet. And that’s because if you call expenditure on something investment it instantly creates the equal and opposite saving – because that’s what double entry requires.
    The whole problem with the S=I+(S-I) approach is torturing residuals to try and express something that would be better expressed in a different way.
    If you say capitalists are dirty profit hoarders and that’s why things never clear, then there is something to go on. Probably pointing out that the capital debates established that about 40 years ago, and are (I presume) implicit in the MMT analysis.
    0 Vote up Vote down
    L. Randall Wray’s avatar
    L. Randall Wray · 111 weeks ago
    Neil I pretty much agree but you can get both the flows and stocks in the accounting, as shown in the original Ritter piece (which I am pretty sure is what Wynne originally used to derive his approach). There is an identity for both flows and stocks, obviously. Again, so much time would have been saved if instead of trying to derive the silly and flawed equation, the developer would have taken a couple of economics classes.
    – See more at: http://www.economonitor.com/lrwray/2013/12/11/mmt-often-imitated-never-duplicated/#sthash.XL70Yhgc.dpuf

#MMT Making Rain, The Mystery of the Quotient-

  1. Roger January 29, 2016 at 9:11 am # 
    John G.
    And from the same blog, this may help with some of your misconceptions.
    ”There is thus no conflict between the statements “Recorded income equals recorded expenditure” and “Expenditure equals income plus the change in debt”. But there is a very big difference between a macroeconomic theory which begins from the proposition that “Aggregate demand equals aggregate income” and one that commences from “Aggregate demand equals income plus the change in debt”. The former is only true in a Loanable Funds model of lending; the latter is true in the endogenous money world in which we actually live—as Schumpeter, Minsky, and (arguably) Keynes have asserted before us.”
    Steve Keen.
    this moves on from your link where Bill Mitchell and Steve Keen are clearly considering each others view point. Wesley has it seems also looked at this and might find Steve Keens quote above interesting. I read this yesterday but couldn’t find the link until I looked again this morning.
    • JohnG January 29, 2016 at 9:30 am # 
      ”There is thus no conflict between the statements “Recorded income equals recorded expenditure” and “Expenditure equals income plus the change in debt”. But there is a very big difference between a macroeconomic theory which begins from the proposition that “Aggregate demand equals aggregate income” and one that commences from “Aggregate demand equals income plus the change in debt”. The former is only true in a Loanable Funds model of lending; the latter is true in the endogenous money world in which we actually live—as Schumpeter, Minsky, and (arguably) Keynes have asserted before us.”

      Steve Keen.
      Which, in the context of private sector income means, that the private domestic sector is running a deficit i.e. taking on debt.
      But aggregate demand could rise absent increased debt if the combination of government net spending and foreign sector spending were in deficit.
      Spending equals income.
      (I – S) + (G – T) + (X – M) = 0
      If he wants to talk about loanable funds theory, he should resume his little cat fight with Krugman. It’s nothing to do with MMT.
      • Roger January 29, 2016 at 10:38 am # 
        From Michael Hudsons Blog on a platform with Stephanie Kelton.
        Does Stephanies definition accord with your approved view John G and Is Michael Hudson also a safe pair of hands free of thought crime?
        I have heard a number of Michael Hudsons speeches and lectures and really do agree with most of what he says, The same goes for Steve Keen. I also have nothing against You or Bill Mitchell Full employment is better than unemployment as a general principle (definitions of the particulars not withstanding). It seems we have very different world views , is that so surprising Australia is a very different place to Sweden or indeed the UK. I am not an academic, I presume that you are. I have always been self employed since i became professionally qualified.I assume you do not run and own your own academic institution. I undoubtedly fit the definition of oppositional defiance disorder, I’m wondering if you feel that you do too?
        Krugman and Keen will no doubt in due course either find an accommodation or agree to disagree ´´little Cat Fight´´ seems a weak metaphor for their quarrel.
        As I have said before thanks for the links and substantive points you have made they have been helpful to broadening my understanding of MMT.
        Michael Hidson on Max Kaiser
        Our Host on Max Kaiser
        • JohnG January 29, 2016 at 8:33 pm # 
          What a load of ad hominem and drivel. You’re way off the mark.
          The difference between our world views has nought to do with geography.
          You clearly don’t understand MMT at the basic level. You haven’t got your head around the macro at all.
          You’re muddled yourself up with complexities and you’ve obscured the basic premise. So you are seeing conflicts where there are none.
  2. Roger January 29, 2016 at 9:14 am # 
    ” JohnG January 29, 2016 at 8:30 am #
    It’s still not any kind of intellectual response to my post but it’s at least in better taste than links to your appalling musical efforts.
    What will the kids do when you’re gone, oh people’s poet?
    I can’t grasp that one’s self worth and willful intellectual dishonesty can go together.”
    Cheer up Johng, life is fun and variety they say is the spice of it.

Steve Keen on Sectoral Balances MMT and Monetary Circuit Theory Minsky and Schumpeter.

  1. Roger January 21, 2016 at 5:19 pm # 
    Steve Keen on Sectoral Balances MMT and Monetary Circuit Theory Minsky and Schumpeter.
    Keen draws the important distinction between Post Ante and Ex ante measurement of Aggregate incomes.
    My presentation at the UMKC Post Keynesian conference in 2012 where I prove that, given endogenous money, effective demand is income plus the change in debt, and show that this is compatible with sectoral balances.
    Keens Program minsky is fun to play with. What I would add with this is this is all Economics it is definitely not rocket science, frankly this is all pretty basic stuff the maths is not difficult. Its the Politics and the Ethics that make any of this controversial because they are the motivations behind the economic choices behind monetary policy and the resultant effects on wealth distribution.
    • Roger January 21, 2016 at 5:42 pm # 
      Steve keen is I think quite kind to MMT and the the sectoral balance approach
      On the other hand, the process from integral/primitive function x(t) to derivative Dx(t), is ill-posed and unstable, in the sense that small perturbations in x(t) may give rise to large perturbations in the derivative, because
      at 21.22 mins keen says measured income is time looking backwards,
      Following through Claes and his ill posed point, where a Small change in input can have a large change in output the derivative is ill posed .
      it is this instability that Minsky articulated and which Keen shows so well in his Minsky modelling it is however the sort of Instability that leads Technocrats to allow themselves to be fooled by random and unstable events which are simply not predictable.
      • Roger January 21, 2016 at 6:02 pm # 
        here is the same observation related to climate modelling. This is all very similar to one of my fields of study which is Sound Modelling mathematically which uses all of the same functions applied of course to different curves..
        • Roger January 21, 2016 at 8:04 pm # 
          Just to wrap up this line of reasoning and to propose a more realistic treatment of the economy I would venture the Fast Fourier Transform which is used in this example to demonstrate Time domain and frequency domain components in a Sound Signal.
          An economy is clearly not a linear phenomena and neither is Sound when one wishes to model subtleties such as Timbre in a sound one finds that Timbre actually lives in the frequency and not the time domain the FFT allows one to relate the two although there are trade offs in accuracy in technical modeling questions such as windowing for that I am linking to a second video entitled why precision matters.
          This should open at 3.49 mins and describes the FFT and its real and imaginary components
          Now with respect to Precision here is my Friend Katta with her incredible explaination of a very deep concept.
          Anyway economic modelling is really no different to Sound or climate modelling the maths , geometries, complexities and dynamics all use the same mathematical and computing tools.
          This is here as a note to self as much as anything when I collate all the information gathered here which will probably find its way into a blog post.
          My practice in participating in on line discussions is to use them as a sort of seminar to gather together reading from diverse areas of interest and that leads to not begrudging any amount of time it takes to read posts watch links and re read posts.
          I never expect anyone to read my own posts or indeed t read my poems , listen to mysongs or music . I think out loud in writing effectively occasionally some pennies drop for me sometimes not.
          “Never forget that justice is what love looks like in public”
          ― Cornel West
          I would venture that Economists tend to trivialize the subtleties required in the application of these tools in their rush to reduce the economy which is embedded into society and social relations into Economic variables which they also forget are driven by their own policy inputs.
      • JohnG January 23, 2016 at 5:49 am # 
        Just to be clear here, Roger, you are completely misinterpreting what Steve Keen is saying.
        And to further clarify your muddle headedness on this particular subject, Circuit Theory and MMT are entirely compatible. And even further Circuit Theory models of endogenous money creation fit perfectly within sectoral balance accounting and MMT.
        In fact, the Circuit Theorists thinking is accepted as established by the MMT school. The maths fits one side of the equation.
        You haven’t been listening to Steve very well it turns out.
        Macro isn’t just the sum of all micro.
        It has nothing to do with any musical red herrings or anything else you care to muddy the waters with.
  2. JohnG January 21, 2016 at 10:26 pm # 
    The Truth About Poverty In Britain Is Much Worse Than You Think
    The deficit terrorists are winning.

#MMT Commissars and Thought Police.

JohnG January 21, 2016 at 2:03 pm # 

The whole of the intercourse between all of the actors in Civil Society can not be reduced to a balance sheet expressed only in Monetary terms,a governments and a states success can not be expressed as a mathematical function proving that all of the terms sum to zero.
It’s not hard to understand.
The government is on one side of the balance sheet and the non-government is on the other.
Pretty simple stuff that seems to elude ‘educated’ western people.
Makes you wonder whether western people are being misedumacated.
  • Roger January 21, 2016 at 2:47 pm # 
    Civil Society
    can not be expressed as a mathematical function proving that all of the terms sum to zero.
    In stock/flow terms (I – S) + (G – T) + (X – M) = 0.”
    The private domestic balance (I — S) …
    The Budget Deficit (G — T) …
    The Current Account balance (X — M)
    Where in this balance sheet ( Function) or (Identity) do we find a Spirit Level component or a Gross national Happiness level? Balance sheets do often include an entry for Goodwill in the business which isn´t really the same thing and in any case society is not a business and other metrics are necessary.
    Confusing the description or depiction of a thing for the thing itself is a silly mistake in music as in art as in life politics and economics it is not so much what you see or play or put in as much as it is what you don’t see what you don’t play and what you leave out.
    The concepts of opportunity cost and Potential are missing from a reduction to a balance sheet.Where is the love in this technocratic MMT balance sheet?
    Guido perhaps gives a clue in the Italian governements. ” need to continually torture the GDP figure to the extent where in Italy and France for example, they now add the black economy (prostitution and drugs) in the calculation of GDP in order to maintain the veneer of growth thus investment rating.”
    • JohnG January 21, 2016 at 9:39 pm # 
      Where is the love in this technocratic MMT balance sheet?
      How much more ridiculous can you get?
      It’s a starting point. Understand it before you go on.
      One would have hoped that it may get you thinking about income as a flow.
      Instead you engage in more hand waving.
      • Roger January 22, 2016 at 8:55 am # 
        See Keens analysis below of MMT and Monetary Circuit Theory.
        I have been an avid student of Keens since around 2010 so in 6 years I have enjoyed the first use of Minsky when it became available and I have it on my computer tool bar. I am also a qualified Chartered Surveyor the branch I belong to is the Valuation branch My business I was in business seriously , was all about income flows John G.
        If you were interested enough to follow keens lecture, it is 20 minutes long you will see he gets into the mathmatics of the Mathmatical Identity you posted earlier, representing your sectoral balances approach.
        The Post Ante Nature of your summed flows is a weakness which I have explained due to the ill posed nature of a derivative that can experience large Changes as a result of small increases in inputs. This is a particular problem for Ex Post models like the Balance sheet identity represented by MMT theory in Sectoral balances.
        Moving form linear systems thinking to complex non linear systems is always necessary after demonstrating first principles with simplified proofs of concept. In reality all other things never remain equal or stationary and this is what will always vex the less than dedicated mathematical modeler
        Fast Fourier Transformation is actually a very good way of thinking of ´´The Love´´in the economy, The Love denoting the in expressable frustration that comes from Herding Cats or Commanding the seas to recede as the tide comes in. What FFT does is alows one to seperate out Time boud variable from frequency bound variabbles the frequecy bound variablesare the Cats, the tidesor the love if you will, they are in a sense random as thier actions arise out of infinite possible outcomes. This is the tradfe of in precision and prediction, over shorter time frames we have better odds or rather smaller potential errors in our prediction of frequency variable.
        Hopefully form this you will see what I meen By where is the Love? but also you will see very clearlyI feel the flow and realise that one has to a certain extent have to go with it.
        I get it all right but I aint down wid Dat. No Can Do.
        • Wesley – Complex and Dynamic! January 22, 2016 at 6:55 pm # 
          Quite right! This is precisely the effect that I attempted to convey in my Butterfly wings-tempest analogy… It’s also why the Socialists do not have an answer to the “calculation” problem mentioned in Spartacus’ 9 interview questions…
          Wesley – from Airstrip One January 18, 2016 at 10:41 pm Man’s economy is a complex, dynamic system that defies these (and all previous nightmarish) attempts at centrally planned control… I’m sorry – but the flapping of a housewife’s butterfly wings in St. Louis buying some bread has not yet been well connected (by MMT computers) to the raging tempests of inflations occurring in the rest of the world as a result of our fiat-dollar hegemony.
        • JohnG January 22, 2016 at 8:17 pm # 
          This is a particular problem for Ex Post models like the Balance sheet identity represented by MMT theory in Sectoral balances.
          No it isn’t. You’ve misunderstood both the accounting and Steve Keen. Ot you are being disingenuous again.
          It isn’t a model you very silly person. It’s an accounting statement.
          I find it very difficult to believe you’ve been following Steve at all.

MMT’s Snipers for Slavery. MMT advocates of debt slavery?

 Sniper fire reported at the Golem XIV Blog.

          • Roger January 21, 2016 at 10:11 am # 
            Blew all together.” [894]
            Thus interest rolls on interest as wave upon wave, and he that is involved in debt struggles against the load that bears him down, but cannot swim away and escape, but sinks to the bottom, and carries with him to ruin his friends that have gone security for him. But Crates the Theban, though he had neither duns nor debts, and was only disgusted at the distracting cares of housekeeping, gave up a property worth eight talents, and assumed the philosopher’s threadbare cloak and wallet, and took refuge in philosophy and poverty. ,,And Anaxagoras left his sheep-farm. But why need I mention these? since the lyric poet Philoxenus, obtaining by lot in a Sicilian colony much substance and a house abounding in every kind of comfort, but finding that luxury and pleasure and absence of refinement was the fashion there, said, “By the gods these comforts shall not undo me, I will give them up,” and he left his lot to others, and sailed home again. But debtors have to put up with being dunned, subjected to tribute, suffering slavery, passing debased coin, and like Phineus, feeding certain winged Harpies, who carry off and lay violent hands on their food, not at the proper season, for they get possession of their debtors’ corn before it is sown, and they traffic for oil before the olives are ripe; and the money-lender says, “I have wine at such and such a price,” and takes a bond for it, when the grapes are yet on the vine waiting for Arcturus to ripen them.”
            [894] “Odyssey,” v. 291-295.
            The domain that this blog is published on has expired. The domain actually now redirects to a porn hub of the same name. This particular blog has much as anything else I have read in the last 4 years has been profoundly influential on my thinking. I recommend it highly.
          • JohnG January 21, 2016 at 10:30 am # 
            Total non-government debt to total non-government credit = 0
            Total government (net) debt = total non-government (financial) assets
            Ergo government debt = non-government savings.
            In stock/flow terms (I – S) + (G – T) + (X – M) = 0.
            • Roger January 21, 2016 at 11:22 am # 
              the questions of Economics and its accounting mechanisms and sums as it were are one thing what is the wider concern to me is the Political aspects of Economic necessities. The Capitalistic control of Money creation is anti democratic that is unacceptable to me. Replacing the Capitalistic method of banking control by substituting the State or a proxy for the state in the intermediary role is also unacceptable to me, my objection could be summed up as ´´no intermediation without representation´´
              ”The present time, likewise, is that peculiar time, which never happens to a nation but once, viz. the time of forming itself into a government. Most nations have let slip the opportunity, and by that means have been compelled to receive laws from their conquerors, instead of making laws for themselves. First, they had a king, and then a form of government; whereas, the articles or charter of government, should be formed first, and men delegated to execute them afterwards: but from the errors of other nations, let us learn wisdom, and lay hold of the present opportunity—To begin government at the right end.” http://www.bartleby.com/133/4.htmlThomasPaine (1737–1809). Common Sense. 1776.
              Of the present ability of America, with some miscellaneous reflexions.s.IV para20.
              The whole of the intercourse between all of the actors in Civil Society can not be reduced to a balance sheet expressed only in Monetary terms,a governments and a states success can not be expressed as a mathematical function proving that all of the terms sum to zero.
              That a complex dynamic system can not be expressed in a function without induction is what Tarski shows , there is plenty of writing which grapples with the conflicts of idealism and materialism, I like Graebers Parmenidese vs Hereclitus
              ”philosophy, after all, really begins with the quarrel between Heraclitus and Parmenides; a quarrel that Parmenides won.´´
              I also like Steve Keens Economist Quipp ”Thats all well and good in reality but does it work in Theory´´
              Roger January 17, 2016 at 2:15 pm #
              Yes really JohnG, What she says regarding the Expelled are very pertinent , Sociologists, Psychologists and Antropoligists have a lot to add to Economic Thought the orthodoxies of which have become so bogged down in their own dogmas.
              ”A wit once defined an economist as someone who, when shown that something works in practice, replies “Ah! But does it work in theory?”
              Steve Keen Quoted here today http://www.globalresearch.ca/a-loophole-allows-banks-but-not-other-companies-to-create-money-out-of-thin-air/5501623
              Quines Two Dogmas of empiricism gives many insights to the limitations of technocratic faith systems.
              ´´ As an empiricist I continue to think of the conceptual scheme of science as a tool, ultimately, for predicting future experience in the light of past experience. Physical objects are conceptually imported into the situation as convenient intermediaries — not by definition in terms of experience, but simply as irreducible posits18b comparable, epistemologically, to the gods of Homer. Let me interject that for my part I do, qua lay physicist, believe in physical objects and not in Homer’s gods; and I consider it a scientific error to believe otherwise.´´
              Most of all I like Rupert Sheldrakes, ” 6 mins 50 quoting Thomas Mc Kenna he says
              ”Give us one free miracle and we´ll explain the rest”
              And the Pragmatist in me inspired by C S Pierce my favorite modern philosopher and one of the finest logicians that has come down to us says this.
              CHARLES SANDERS PEIRCE: In order to
              reason well …. it is absolutely necessary to possess … such virtues
              as intellectual honesty and sincerity a
              nd a real love of truth (2.82). The cause [of the success of scientific
              inquirers] has been that the motive which has carried them
              to the laboratory and the field has been a craving to
              know how things really were … (1-34).
              [Genuine inquiry consists I in diligent inquiry into truth for truth’s sake
              (1.44), … in actually drawing the bow upon truth with in
              tentness in the eye, with energy in the arm (1.235).
              [When] it is no longer the reasoning which determines wh
              at the conclusion shall be, but … the conclusion which
              determines what the reasoning shall be … this is sham
              reasoning…. The effect of this shamming is that men
              come to look upon reasoning as mainly decorative….
              • JohnG January 21, 2016 at 11:54 am # 
                Roger, please don’t clutter up my comments with your drivel anymore.
                I don’t care who you quote (that’s just a blind for not being able to think for yourself). Nor do I care what you think money ought to be.
                Money is virtual. That’s it. Get over it.
                I reject your analysis totally.And I reject your motivations i.e. personal profit.
                You’re not a dissenter, Roger. You’re a UI for the status quo. Like your mate Wesley.Albeit he is a higher fuctioning I.
                The banksters are playing 3 dimensional chess while you and Wesley are coming to grips with Drafts. Maybe Wesley has mastered Drafts.
                • Roger January 21, 2016 at 12:10 pm # 
                  John G,
                  It’s a shame you are unable to discuss views that differ from your own.
                  All the Best
                  • JohnG January 21, 2016 at 12:20 pm # 
                    It’s a shame that you don’t get it.
                    When I’m presented with different facts, I change my mind.
                    Clearly you don’t.
                    But 2+2=4 in my world. And more aptly -2 + 2 = 0.
                    And you nuts are arguing with that.
                  • JohnG January 21, 2016 at 12:44 pm # 
                    And if you genuinely think that what you and your mate here have done is engage in discussion, you’re an even bigger idiot than I thought.
                    Bulls On Parade”
                    Come wit it now!
                    Come wit it now!
                    The microphone explodes, shattering the molds
                    Either drop tha hits like de la O or get tha fuck off tha commode
                    Wit tha sure shot, sure ta make tha bodies drop
                    Drop an don’t copy yo, don’t call this a co-op
                    Terror rains drenchin’, quenchin’ tha thirst of tha power dons
                    That five sided fist-a-gon
                    Tha rotten sore on tha face of mother earth gets bigger
                    Tha triggers cold empty ya purse
                    Rally round tha family! With a pocket full of shells
                    They rally round tha family! With a pocket full of shells
                    They rally round tha family! With a pocket full of shells
                    They rally round tha family! With a pocket full of shells
                    Weapons not food, not homes, not shoes
                    Not need, just feed the war cannibal animal
                    I walk tha corner to tha rubble that used to be a library
                    Line up to tha mind cemetary now
                    What we don’t know keeps tha contracts alive an movin’
                    They don’t gotta burn tha books they just remove ’em
                    While arms warehouses fill as quick as tha cells
                    Rally round tha family, pockets full of shells
                    Rally round tha family! With a pocket full of shells
                    They rally round tha family! With a pocket full of shells
                    They rally round tha family! With a pocket full of shells
                    They rally round tha family! With a pocket full of shells
                    Bulls on parade
                    Come wit it now!
                    Come wit it now!
                    Bulls on parade!
                    Bulls on parade!
                    Bulls on parade!
                    Bulls on parade!
                    Bulls on parade!
                  • Roger January 21, 2016 at 1:00 pm # 
                    But 2+2=4 in my world. And more aptly -2 + 2 = 0.
                    Who is arguing with your sums John G, I am not arguing with the arithmetic you have just put forward it is consistent within a clearly defined and ordered system , it is neither complex or dynamic and should anyone wish to propose a change in the meaning of any of the terms they could do that and make others aware of the proposed change in value of any of the terms.
                    Get it? I take it form this that you are saying that I do not get that MMT is the only answer we need to bother ourselves with.
                    My not getting MMT extends to the transparency and accountability of the intermediary institution. No Intermediation without representation meaning who’s aims are served or prioritised and what are the boundaries.This is seeking a clarification and that clarification requires political disclosure regarding which feedbacks will be prioritised in meeting the wishes of those’ who are supposed to be represented.
                    Tony Benn once said this
                    “The House will forgive me for quoting five democratic questions that I have developed during my life. If one meets a powerful person–Rupert Murdoch, perhaps, or Joe Stalin or Hitler–one can ask five questions: what power do you have; where did you get it; in whose interests do you exercise it; to whom are you accountable; and, how can we get rid of you? Anyone who cannot answer the last of those questions does not live in a democratic system.”
                    Tony Benn Commons Hansard [16 Nov 1998: Column 685] Volume 319 Debate on: European Parliamentary Elections Bill , from 7.20 pm
                    Regarding Facts changing and Minds changing
                    Keynes is always ready to contradict not only his colleagues but also himself whenever circumstances make this seem appropriate. So far from feeling guilty about such reversals of position, he utilizes them as pretexts for rebukes to the less nimble-minded. Legend says that while conferring with Roosevelt at Quebec, Churchill sent Keynes a cable reading, “Am coming around to your point of view.” His Lordship replied, “Sorry to hear it. Have started to change my mind.”
                    Facts actually do not change and the pedant in me which comes out when I am irritated so I will point it out. Our understanding of facts change given different contexts and when interpreted in the light of other evidence. I did recommend some Ken Wilber earlier John G. Worth taking a look at that , everybody whose views you find challenging of your own is not an idiot, I may well be an idiot but do consider that I am not statistically significant sample. I should also add that Facts are sometimes demoted to mistakes. When a Fact is found to be mistaken in is obviously no longer a fact. Even things that are facts and accepted as such might fall out of favour distinctions between Belief, Truth and Knowledge are important here which is very basic philosophy.

#MMT, are they Gatekeepers of Usury or merely Infiltrated?

I am presently having a re-cap of my full research before finishing the Final Chapters of Conquest of Dough.
Revisiting this whole discussion here which started it all with Usury Hells Fuel Mans Oppressor.

Also, @RichardMurphy has recently got in on the JohnG and Mike Hall Act, Mike Hall strangely showed up in the Richard Murphy dummy spitting a few weeks back see the reading list thread.




  1. Mike Hall February 7, 2016 at 4:29 pm # 
    Haha.. I popped by first time in ages, to see what’s happening here.. (nice to be remembered Stevie!)
    Many thanks and kudos for the sheer patience and tenacity in responding to the sophistry and verbal diarrhoea on steroids of the mentally disturbed Wesley and Roger.
    Great clarity and succinctly made points from yourself – quite useful to me, as I continue to write (as best I can) from an MMT paradigm pov. 🙂
    David (Golem)
    Much as I appreciated John’s posts, Roger and Wesley’s posts could do with some serious moderating effort. I guess you haven’t much time, but I would suggest deleting them when they can’t keep them down in size and at least vaguely relevant to what they are ostensibly debating. You’ll note I’m not mentioning Spartacus Rex’s equally nutjob posts, because he at least keeps them short enough to be tolerably skipped over. But Roger and Wesley should really be told to go and start their own blogs, not clog yours up, if they continue to monopolise it.
    I’m afraid I still think your talents in program making (vs party political endeavours) would be far better utilised toward production of some mass education videos aimed at exposing the mainstream intellectual fraud in macro and monetary economics. We badly need something pitched at the introductory level, but with enough detail to show the kind of possibilities that MMT understanding gives us. (I do wish somebody would make a decent (audible!) version of Wray and Mitchell’s brilliant ‘buckaroos’ lecture. That was a light bulb monent for me understanding modern money.)
    Anyhow, love your sciencey/philosophy programs 🙂
    • Roger February 7, 2016 at 4:51 pm # 
      Sent to Davids private e mail.
      Hi David,
      I hope you are having a pleasant weekend.
      Mike Hall has now pitched in on the Golem Blog cajoling for heavy moderation and deletion of my posts and those of Wesley, I find this rather rich given the abuse which Johng has been hurling around and also given Mikes censorious past efforts.
      I have begun to wonder if MMT is some sort of controlled opposition gatekeeping effort I see that Toby Russel ran into similar tendencies in the MMT crowd back in 2011 I can only assume they have got rather worse. I fully expect that Welsey and SParitcus Rex will take Mike to Task
      I am in two minds whether or not to bother responding as his comment is pure puffery. I do find the censorship he is advocating offensive though.
      I am sure you are very busy and do hope we can catch up as we thought we might be able to do on Skype later,
      All the best
    • Wesley w Mike Haller February 8, 2016 at 2:11 am # 
      Mike Hall: Your remark may be seen to step well over the line into the region of slander.
      Your contribution to this fine entry is devoid of merit or substance! Are you in politics? Or a paid-shill of the MMT collective/hive? Both? Or are you really JohnG, talking to yourself, and in disguise?
      While correlation does not equal causation, it would seem my premise concerning the inability of MMTers to read is indeed true! Or, perhaps it’s something in the Kool-Aid that automatically filters all dissenting views to the MMT gospel…
      BTW JohnG: Another day has passed. Have you yet given David your affirmative consent and urged him to remove your profane utterances above? Perhaps with an apology. They still seem to whet the air with the sickly smell of distemper… If you have, send us all some positive vibes – and I’ll write-off their continued soiling of these pages to an understandable lack of time on the part of the host to attend to such unfortunate time wasters.