THE SUNDAY ESSAY: dissent or deny, care or cry, devolve or die

ALmost 10 years ago in February 2009 , I participated in a discussion on the Motely Fool ( Love Mony) web site about House prices and so forth.

A couple of years later I made my first comment on the Golem XIV Blog.

RogerGLewis May 18, 2011 at 5:16 am #

Hi Golem and hello to all the other excellent contributors of comments to this blog, there is a lot of reading to do here with the links which are also posted and I will get through it “one grain of sand at a time”.
I was directed here by a comment posted in Sturdy Blog

I was speaking to David on Skype the other day, David is writing a couple of books at the money one of which I have just given him some feedback on it’s about Artificial Intelligence. The politics of AI, not the science.
Your First Blog here in 2010.

History of the last thirty years for Daily Mail readers: Tory social policies + New Labour economic policies = disaster.
History of the last thirty years for Guardian readers: Tory economic policies + New Labour social policies = disaster.
History of the last thirty years for Independent readers: Tory built-environment policies + New Labour single-parent policies = disaster.
History of the last thirty years for Sun readers: Tory Major sleaze policies + New Labour nutter immigration policies = disaster.
History of the last thirty years for Daily Telegraph readers: Tory welfare policies + New Labour pension policies = disaster.

If you too get the feeling that we need a new media set and a new political line-up, stay tuned to this site….and tell me what you think.

China sells US Debt. WHO BUYS?
by Golem XIV on FEBRUARY 18, 2010 in UNCATEGORIZED
China openly sells a record amount ($34B) of its US debt.

Why? It could be because China feels restive about the level of US debt. Or it could be to smack Washington’s nose for having defied the Chinese over US arms sales to Taiwan. Either way, it is a using debt as a BIG political stick. Welcome to the new politics.

Two further questions: Will China sell more, and Who is buying?

Experts opine that China can’t afford to sell too much too quickly as it would collapse the value of the rest of its $1T plus of US Debt it has bought. True. But they can sell as much as they want provided they do it slowly. Say they sell $34B next month also. Will the rest of the market panic, sell, and screw themselves? No. The Chinese can sell so long as they ‘boil the frog’ slowly.

Who is buying. The US has to sell a Trillion in new debt in the next two years. It also has to roll over or re-sell short term debt that will come back on to the market. The Japanese have to sell hundreds of billions of Dollars worth of their own debt and so do we and so does the EU. So who out of all these debtors has spare cash to buy US debt?

Answer , we do. This last month the UK bought £24B worth of US debt. That is, WE bought everything the Chinese sold and MORE! And we did this in the same month that public sector borrowed a record level of £3.34B.

WHY? Why buy their debt when we are sinking into debt ourselves? Will this help you and your family at all, in any way whatsoever?


Think about it.

The Slog.

win_20190127_120025 In the coming months and years, there are three decisions for every thinking and able-bodied human on Earth to make: will I speak out or simply stay in my stockade, remaining in ideological denial mode? Will I accept the social need for civic compassion – or laugh at the idea and wind up on the list of those left behind? And will I work to devolve power back down to thriving communities and take responsibility in that social context? The Slog examines why those decisions will make a difference to our very survival.


This may seem like an unkind start, but I am glad that Owen Jones is highly unlikely to have children. I get this feeling whenever I hear the “thoughts” of people like Stephen Kinnock, Hilary Benn, Mark Thatcher and Lily Allen.

There are those who end up being proved wrong through ignorance, bad luck, force majeur…

View original post 2,145 more words


Protests in France and Venezuela – Spot the Difference

Reblogged this excellent column. The double standards are Staggering.!/v/tonefreqhz/grch43y0
Once as farce and then as History and then as farce again.
There is a terrible ground hog day feeling, protests against iraq war etc. and WTO protests back in 1999

Covert Geopolitics

The ‘Yellow Vest’ anti-government protests in France is growing, but have received limited coverage in Western media and what coverage there has been has been quite hostile to the protestors.

View original post 855 more words

More MMT. Memory Hole Post in Search of St Bill Of Mitchell and St Richard of Murphy. Steve Keens Guide for the Perplexed. #MMT #CircuitTheory #DoublePenetrationGateKeeping #NeilWilson @neilwilson

too big to jail gif-downsized




Bill Mitchell has a new post “A surplus of trade discussions” responding to some of the criticisms of the MMT position on trade deficits (though he didn’t link to any of them, including my post “Some Preliminary Questions for MMT”). He opens with the proposition that “exports are a cost and imports are a benefit”, and reaches the following conclusion:

When it comes to trade, MMT focuses, initially on the real layer of the analysis.

Thus it is undeniable (and I am surprised to read all those who are torturing themselves trying to deny it) – exports are a cost and imports are a benefit.

Giving some real thing away is a cost. Getting some real thing is a benefit.

That doesn’t equate, as I have been reading the last few weeks, in a conclusion that MMT’s preference is for a nation to have a current account deficit.

It just states the obvious fact that exports, by definition, involve sacrificing real resources and depriving a nation of their use.

Imports on the other hand clearly involve receiving final goods and services where the real resource sacrifice has been made by the exporting nation.

In a world where we produce to consume – not for its own sake – then receiving goods and services is better (real terms) than sending them elsewhere. worth a read Under principles of Chartalism, foreign capital serves no useful domestic purpose outside of an imperialistic agenda. Dollar hegemony essentially taxes away the ability of the trading partners of the US to finance their own domestic development in their own currencies, and forces them to seek foreign loans and investment denominated in dollars, which the US, and only the US, can print at will with relative immunity. The Mundell-Fleming thesis, for which Robert Mundell won the 1999 Nobel Prize, states that in international finance, a government has the choice among (1) stable exchange rates, (2) international capital mobility and (3) domestic policy autonomy (full employment, interest rate policies, counter-cyclical fiscal spending, etc). With unregulated global financial markets, a government can have only two of the three options. Through dollar hegemony, the United States is the only country that can defy the Mundell-Fleming thesis. For more than a decade since the end of the Cold War, the US has kept the fiat dollar significantly above its real economic value, attracted capital account surpluses and exercised unilateral policy autonomy within a globalized financial system dictated by dollar hegemony. The reasons for this are complex but the single most important reason is that all major commodities, most notably oil, are denominated in dollars, mostly as an extension of superpower geopolitics. This fact is the anchor for dollar hegemony which makes possible US finance hegemony, which makes possible US exceptionalism and unilateralism.
The UK, attracting international capital flows to the CIty of London via its tax haven dependencies has also maintained a currency way above what its value would be and should be. Should be? Should be if you want an economy maximising production of real world products, running at full employment and one in which consumption of these real world products is shared according to work done rather than being claimed by rentier income.

A Double Entry View on the Keen Circuit Model

Over the last few months I’ve enjoyed Steve Keen’s lecture series on You Tube, which are definitely recommended for anybody wanting a solid understanding of why neo-classical macroeconomics is complete bunkum.

In there is an iteration of Steve’s horizontal money circuit and the tables and equations he uses to build that model. He’s rejigged those models in response to a challenge by Scott Fullwiler to fit the model into double entry bookkeeping tables.

Now Steve is a great speaker, a good writer and formidable mathematician. But I’m afraid he would get a fail in a bookkeeping exam. For something to be consistent with double entry there has to be at least two entries in the journal and the journal must sum to zero. To abuse Minsky’s words: a double entry model with a single entry in it isn’t a double entry model.

So its easy to see why the presentation of this particular model causes a few fireworks in schools of thought who are more fastidious in their bookkeeping.

My background is in Information System design and architecture, with a dose of accountancy thrown in for good measure, and I’ve worked in and around the Free Software movement for over twenty years. So my natural tendency is to look at ways of re-integrating ‘forks’. I believe all the issues commonly complained about in this model can be reconciled by making the tables double entry complaint and extending the model slightly. I hope this will show to all sides that they are talking about the same thing.

And by doing so I am almost certain to upset everybody. Such is life.

First the current tables. This is a copy of table 14.1 in Debunking Economics (similar to table 1 on this post at Steve’s site):

Neil Wilsons Blog on Internet Waybackmachine.!/v/tonefreqhz/tozmrn0l
vrabel d tube

Cullen Roche and a critique of MMT.




some money filmsselection_145


texts money!/v/tonefreqhz/ah5vxtf1