Do Interest Rate Hikes Really Fight Inflation?

Short answer:  In a word, NO.

Long answer:  It's a very nuanced and complicated issue, but in practice, hiking interest rates generally does more harm than good, and at best is really not very effective in fighting inflation. 

Interest rate hikes, far from being a "razor-sharp, double-edged sword" (as we at the TSAP used to say) in theory, they are in practice just as blunt of an instrument as tax hikes are.  And they only "work" insofar as they cause a recession, as history has shown.  When the FERAL Reserve raises interest rates, it is "pushing on a a string" when they raise them insufficiently to cause a recession, and "blunt force trauma" to the economy when they raise them enough to do so.  And when they cut rates, it is even more so like "pushing on a string", as the damage is usually already done by that point, and of course they cannot cross the "zero lower-bound" into negative rates without inherently turning the world of finance upside-down.  There seems to be no "Goldilocks zone" for interest rate policy during times of high inflation, and the "therapeutic window" is generally closed.

Knowledge says that choking the economy until it goes limp and then choking it some more technically reduces inflation by killing demand for goods and services.  But wisdom says that one could hardly call that a success.

Not only are interest rate hikes inherently recessionary, they can also paradoxically increase one of the two types of inflation, "cost-push inflation", even as they tamp down the other type, "demand-pull inflation."  Both types are two sides of the same coin, so it can easily result in (or exacerbate) chronic stagflation, for which the only "cure" is to hike the rates so extremely high to cause a deep recession or depression, followed by cutting rates very quickly, at the cost of massive collateral damage.  A "cure" that is worse than the disease.

And the fallout falls not on the rich, who are largely insulated from the consequences, but overwhelmingly on the poor and working class, and also the middle class as well.

Cutting the money supply, whether fiscally via austerity or monetarily via quantitative tightening, is also similarly recessionary and damaging as well.  Both forms of tightening, along with interest rate hikes, are at best "break glass in case of emergency" measures that should almost never be used, period.

In other words, if you "burn the village to save it", the village will eventually return the favor.  You reap what you sow.  That's literally how karma works.

Even Rodger Malcolm Mitchell himself has recently turned against the idea of interest rate hikes, a policy he once strongly supported.  That really says something indeed.  Ellen Brown would agree as well.

So what works instead?  According to Mitchell, the root cause of ALL inflations is shortages.  Whether it's oil, gas, energy in general, food, labor, or otherwise, shortages are the common denominator.  To cure inflation, we must cure the shortages.  Now that is often a lot easier said than done, but governments who issue their own currency can help resolve shortages by fiscally incentivizing more production of such scarce goods and services.  And, of course, to also refrain from creating shortages in the first place with things like price controls or other artificial restrictions by fiat that are known to backfire. 

Oil, gas, or energy shortage?  Incentivize more domestic oil/gas production in the short term, followed by renewable energy production in the medium to long term as well.  Buy oil/gas or energy at at premium and resell it or give it away at a loss.  Food shortage?  Buy food at a premium and resell it or give it away at a loss.  Computer chip shortage?  Incentivize domestic chip factories.  Labor shortage?  Implement a "reverse payroll tax" like the EITC but simpler and more straightforward, to boost the paychecks of workers without increasing costs for employers.  Or the government can hire the most in-demand workers directly at a premium.  And consider replacing all or some means-tested social welfare programs with an unconditional Universal Basic Income (UBI) that does not perversely penalize people for working.  And so on.  That's the power of creating one's own currency via Monetary Sovereignty. 

QED.  Case closed, at least until we find even more compelling evidence otherwise. Therefore, the TSAP's new position in interest rates shall supersede everything we have said in the past about the topic.

UPDATE:  So what is the ideal interest rate then?  Should we do what MMT advocates, and just park it at zero and leave it there? There is a good case to be made for that, and the answer probably depends on a number of factors.  But negative interest rates are really not a wise idea for a national currency (too negative and people just hoard cash under the mattress, while not negative enough is really no better than zero).  For complementary and alternative local currencies, negative interest (aka demurrage) can perhaps make sense, like the Austrian town of Worgl famously did during the Great Depression, but the benefits of such likely do not scale up very well.  Thus for national currencies, zero is the practical lower bound.  And if zero interest (i.e. being able to borrow money for free) is still not stimulative enough, then do "QE for the People" by printing more money and giving it directly to everyone, rather than the banks in "regular" QE.  Problem solved. 

James Gailbraith makes a great case for low interest rates overall.

Thus, like MMT, the natural interest rate should be assumed to be zero by default, but unlike MMT, we should still not tie our hands and take higher rates off the table completely as a "break glass in case of emergency" measure.  Nor should Treasury bond sales be completely discontinued either, as those help stabilize the financial system in times of instability.

But what about speculative bubbles?  Don't low interest rates encourage those?  Yes to some extent, but only if Wall Street is deregulated like the Wild West (like now).  Therefore, better regulation of the big banks and shadow banking system, and a financial transactions tax, are a better idea to rein in reckless speculation than high interest rates. 

TL;DR version:  In a nutshell, raising interest rates has a tendency to backfire and generally does more harm than good, once all the jargon and accoutrements are stripped away. Occam's Razor would say that deliberately making everything effectively more expensive across the board (by making money itself harder and costlier to get) to engineer a recession is a terrible way to fight inflation, and can only encourage a perpetual quagmire of stagflation.

What about the Canadian experience in the 1980s?  Well, their inflation and unemployment were even worse than the USA despite (or more likely because) they kept their interest rates higher for longer.  And that disparity persisted well into the 1990s, until they devalued their overvalued currency, and then cut interest rates, which seemed to solve the problem.

Dear FERAL Reserve: Cut Interest Rates NOW!

With inflation falling to 3% per the latest report, which is within the normal range for a growing economy, we can safely conclude that the war on inflation has been won.  The dragon may not have been slain, but it has largely gone back to sleep for the foreseeable future.  Supply chains seem to have long since fully recovered for the most part, while most of the inflation since then has been wanton "greedflation" by mega-corporations consolidating and rigging the game (and thus interest rates are the wrong tool for the job).  And potential recession and even deflation clouds seem to be gathering on the horizon as we speak.  Even if there is no recession, keeping interest rates too high for too long can paradoxically increase inflation in the long run, or one could get the two for one special, as Canada unfortunately learned the hard way in the 1980s.

So the FERAL Reserve really needs to stand down, stop raising rates, and start cutting rates yesterday.  Or at least no later than their next meeting. 

UPDATE:  The FERAL Reserve just raised rates again by 0.25%.  Mr. Powell seems to be really begging for a recession (or worse) with his tempting of fate!

No Longer Any Doubt That SCOTUS Is Corrupt

The recent rulings of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), along with the suspicious "gifts" that some justices (particularly Thomas and Alito, and likely others too) had apparently accepted from influential "donors", leaves no doubt about just how crooked and corrupt the largely right-wing justices are.  From unceremoniously overturning Roe v. Wade (after literally promising not to do so!) to the striking down of Biden's student loan relief, and many other things in between, it is now painfully obvious that the SCOTUS is no longer even remotely fit for purpose.  And they are just getting started, it seems.

Biden of course needs to pack the court with more decent justices, FDR-style.  And the SCOTUS needs a major overhaul in general, not least in regards to their ethics rules. Yesterday is not soon enough!

How To Create A Deadly Plandemic In Five Easy Steps

The ever-insightful Joel Smalley of Metatron posted an excellent Substack titled, "How to Create a Deadly Pandemic in Five Easy Steps", complete with charts/graphs.  It was a classic "Problem, Reaction, Solution" (often incorrectly called "Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis" or "Hegelian Dialectic") scheme per the MO of the psychopathic oligarchs in charge.  To paraphrase Smalley as follows:

1. "Accidentally" release a fairly ordinary virus (ordinary because one's GOF abilities were quite inferior), that can only be detected with a special test (that is conveniently easy to manipulate), and then blame it on the Chinese (even if it was probably a joint venture).
2. Euthanize old folks, typically done with midazolam, and blame it on the virus.
3. Deny regular early treatment with antibiotics and corticosteroids, for those who one cannot easily euthanize.
4. Introduce a "cure" in the form of a novel and experimental "vaccine", which (oops!) turns out to be deadly in itself, and then have the GALL to blame it on the unvaccinated. 
5. Slowly and quietly re-allow the use of various antivirals and such that were previously mocked, discouraged, censored, or banned, in addition to antibiotics and corticosteroids, and then let the "vaccine" take credit for any improvements that result.

In other words, it was an iatrogenocide of epic proportions.  And he backs this up with correlations between various prescription data, "vaccine" dose data, "Covid" death data, and all-cause excess death data.  Such data are VERY damning indeed.  Now we can see the big picture, and all that went into it.

And it pans out quite accurately indeed.  Also, a Bangladesh study found that just three nutrients--Vitamin C, Vitamin D, and Zinc--would have been enough to make the pandemic a non-event (at least if the pre-2020 standard of care had not been denied).

That, of course, was before the "vaccines".  And it should go without saying that any excess deaths and other harms that occurred after early 2021 or so could not possibly be disentangled from the "vaccines."

And of course, all the lockdowns, masks, and antisocial distancing were gasoline on the fire, as were the jab mandates and such.  While the five steps above could have still proceeded without these things, and with everything strictly "voluntary" per manufactured "consent", these things are very effective add-ons if one is going for maximum impact of a deadly plandemic.  They crank the fear factor up to 11, increase power and control by the oligarchs, divide and conquer the masses, and cause their own direct and indirect harms and deaths as well.

How will they ever live this down?

UPDATE:  Bonus points for the lockdowns, antisocial distancing, and related restrictions temporarily knocking out the competition from other, more benign and endemic respiratory viruses and allowing the more novel coronavirus to take hold more easily, while also perversely selecting for strains that were both more contagious and more deadly at the same time, AND also managing to build "immunity debt" to the temporarily suppressed viruses by the time they inevitably come roaring back with a vengeance. 

The lockdown zealots have a LOT to answer for!

UBI Is The Only Way To End Modern Slavery

Most of the objections to Universal Basic Income (UBI), from both the left and the right (usually the right), are fundamentally patronizing, paternalistic, and/or sadistic in nature, whether subtly or not-so-subtly.  Those are, of course, very easily debunked as void on their face in anything even remotely approaching a free and civilized society.  But what about the very few supposedly ethical objections that don't quite fit this mold?

One such objection to UBI is that it is really just "crowdsourced slavery", both within nations as well as (especially) with the imperialistic Global North continuing to exploit the Global South.  Or something.

Tell me, how exactly does one "crowdsource" slavery?  And if everyone is getting free money, and all work thus becomes de facto voluntary and optional, who exactly is really being exploited or enslaved?  How would anybody be able to economically coerce anyone else?

And how exactly can it possibly be any worse than the status quo?  (Don't think too hard about that.)

Even the biggest degrowth advocates like Jason Hickel openly support UBI, and he is certainly no imperialist shill.  Ditto for Charles Eisenstein and David Graeber.

True, UBI is unlikely to be global overnight, and will have to start at the national or subnational level.  A global UBI (especially directed primarily towards the Global South) would best be funded by a Tobin Tax on foreign currency exchanges, while a national, subnational, or local one would best be funded by seigniorage via national or local currencies, and/or Georgist-style taxation on the use of natural resources.  But until then, even a globally lopsided national-only UBI is highly unlikely to be any WORSE than the status quo, even if we do still maintain a sizable "trade deficit" in the near term.  In other words, if you make the perfect the enemy of the good, you ultimately end up with neither.

(Some may counter that they are really "making the necessary the enemy of the convenient", but that is really just begging the question.)

Over the lifecycle, we ALL subsidize each other to one degree or another.  Period.  And whether we like it or not, the globalization genie is out of the bottle, and has been for some time now.  And while all empires should of course go back to being republics, returning to complete autarky (whether it be national or small-scale autarky) is a practical nonstarter for the foreseeable future, so a new model of "alter-globalization," perhaps combined with some partial economic relocalization, is the least worst way forward.  (The scarcity mindset sure doesn't help.)

Until then, we need to meet people where they are at.

As for slavery, go look up your own slavery footprint under the status quo.  Go on.  I bet your hands don't feel so clean now, do they?

If you still feel guilty about receiving UBI for whatever reason, then by all means, feel free to to donate it to GiveDirectly then.  Put your money where your mouth is.  Otherwise, silence is golden.

Bonus points for those who decide they now support UBI, even if only so they can now finally afford to buy ethically sourced, fair trade products instead of the usual cheap junk often produced by slave labor.  If you just spotted the glaring "collective action problem" in the status quo before I mentioned it, you are quite astute, and even more bonus points to you.

Honestly, NO ONE's hands are truly clean in the system we currently live in.  Except those at the very top (the oligarchs) and the very bottom (literal chattel slaves) of the global pyramid, we are all effectively varying degrees of slaves AND slavers at the same time under the global kyriarchy.  And some form of UBI is necessary, even if not sufficient by itself, to finally end this evil system for good.

(Mic drop)

Dear Congress, Stop Playing "Chicken" With The Debt Ceiling. Yesterday.

Dear Congress, 

STOP playing "chicken" with the debt ceiling (and thus the global economy) and pass a clean bill to raise it so we don't default.  Yesterday. 

Seriously, KNOCK. IT. OFF.

Better yet, simply abolish the silly concept of the "debt ceiling" that NO other country in the world has.  It serves NO useful purpose except as a political cudgel, which means it has NO useful purpose at all.

If not, the President would have no choice but to either 1) default on its debt obligations, which clearly flies in the face of the Constitution and would be utterly disastrous for the global economy, 2) invoke the 14th Amendment and simply ignore the debt ceiling, or 3) #MintTheCoin, that is, mint a trillion-dollar platinum coin so the government can still pay its bills. Actually, the latter option really wouldn't be a bad idea, come to think of it.

Sincerely, 

Literally everyone with at least half a brain

How To Reduce Gun Violence Without Violating The Second Amendment

How to reduce America's horrible gun violence problem without violating the Second Amendment?  Here is a partial list if ways to keep such dangerous weapons out of the wrong hands while respecting the rights of responsible gun owners all the same:

• Do a massive, voluntary gun buyback program.  And yes, when done at a large enough scale and paying enough for it to be worth one's while, these things actually do work.
• Follow something like the Massachusetts model on the federal level (things like gun licensing, universal background checks, red flag laws, and a reinstated assault weapons ban and high-capacity magazine ban).
• Apply the RICO law to street gangs.
• Additional penalties for gun carry during a felony.
• Put a tax on bullets, like comedian Chris Rock advocated.  Expensive bullets = no innocent bystanders.

None of these things actually violate the letter or spirit of the Second Amendment in any way, by the way.  Remember, the best part of the Second Amendment is where it says, "well-regulated".

Stephen Hawking Warned Us About It. We Need To Listen Yesterday!

Years ago when he was still alive, the late genius theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking made a terrifying prediction, namely that the prospect of uncontrolled superhuman artificial intelligence (AI) is at least as much of an existential threat to humanity as climate change.  And that really says something!

Alas, we still don't seem to be listening, let alone heeding his wise advice.  There is no way to sugar coat this hard-to-swallow pill.  If AI grows any more powerful than it currently is (that is, more powerful than GPT-4) before we learn how to fully control it, and it becomes uncontrollable, it would truly be an existential threat to humanity, civilization, and planet Earth (and possibly even beyond).  Not just in the distant future, but also sooner than one may think, at the rate things are currently going.  Even as a best case scenario, uncontrolled AI would make literally every single current problem in the world far worse before it would make it better.  I repeat, that's the best we could hope for, and it goes downhill from there.  I mean, once the genie is out of the bottle, it's not like anyone would be able to, you know, outsmart it any longer if it ultimately becomes orders of magnitude smarter than even Stephen Hawking himself.

The TSAP thus supports recent calls to put a minimum six month global moratorium on any further AI development beyond GPT-4, period, no exceptions.  And ideally, this moratorium would be indefinite, but six months would still buy us time.  THIS is what things like the precautionary principle and Pascal's Wager were literally designed for.  That is, we would be in a far less precarious position (by orders of magnitude) if we "overreact" and shut it down yesterday, than we would if we were to foolishly let AI get out of control and it becomes too late to control it.  There is literally no comparison between the two.

We ignore such risks at our peril.  Don't say we didn't warn you!

Just Say NO To The WHO Pandemic Treaty!

The TSAP has previously noted that the WHO Pandemic Treaty (currently pending ratification) is problematic at best, both in what it contains, as well as what it lacks.  Now we are learning even more about why the USA should NEVER sign onto it, especially the amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) in conjunction with it.  In classic textbook Orwellian doublespeak fashion, the text contains a very disturbing section that purports to preserve and honor national sovereignty, but actually ends up doing the exact opposite, as can be seen in the extremely elastic wording below:

4.3 of the Treaty
"3. Sovereignty – States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the sovereign right to determine and manage their approach to public health, notably pandemic prevention, preparedness, response and recovery of health systems, pursuant to their own policies and legislation, provided that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to their peoples and other countries. Sovereignty also covers the rights of States over their biological resources."

Wow.  Read between the lines once again.  The part in bold is the absolute worst kind of Orwellian sophistry, in that all someone would have to do is argue in a tortured fashion that it is like having a "designated peeing section in a swimming pool" (apologies to the late George Carlin) for nations to refuse to implement WHO diktats including, but not limited to, travel restrictions, lockdowns, closures, mask mandates, or jab mandates/passports.  The Constitution be damned, of course, as this treaty doesn't even allow for the usual "subject to constitutional limitations" qualifiers found in typical international treaties.  And also the collateral damage to people from such measures would predictably be ignored by the powers that be.

To put it bluntly, if the USA does sign the treaty, then we as a nation would effectively be signing away our national sovereignty to the WHO.  And we must never do that.  Once we do, there is NO turning back!

At a minimum, the USA must add a reservation to the treaty striking the bold text entirely and adding "subject to constitutional limitations", as a condition for signing and ratification.  Better yet, the USA should denounce the treaty entirely and refuse to sign it.  

Worse still, as a News Uncut Substack article notes, "the proposed amendments remove an existing IHR paragraph which protects “respect for dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of people.” Translated, that means you could lose liberty and bodily autonomy; anyone who refused a mandatory vaccine could be banned from travel, work or even shopping. No digital health passport, no life."

Very telling indeed.  All the more reason to reject this utterly terrible treaty wholesale, period.

"Too Big To Fail" = Too Big To EXIST

Once again, the issue of "too big to fail" is in the foreground, as we have obviously learned NOTHING from the last financial crisis.  If there is ANY lesson that we must NEVER forget, it is this: "too big to fail (or jail)" is really too big to EXIST, period.  And here is what we absolutely MUST do going forward:  give all banks and corporations large enough to have "systemic risk" (that is, where them failing would literally bring the whole economy down) a choice between the following menu of options:

1. Pay a prohibitive 90% marginal tax rate on all profits beyond the first billion, or,
2. Break up into smaller, unaffiliated banks or companies, similar to what anti-trust laws require for monopolies, or,
3. Full nationalization by the federal government, and (if already failed or failing) replacing the entire board of directors.

That's it.  That's the ONLY real solution. 

Of course, we also need to bring back the Glass-Steagall Act and pass a financial transactions tax and repeal the safe harbor provision of bankruptcy law and regulate derivatives better and stuff like that.

So what are we waiting for?

What Was The Cruelest April Fool's Joke In All Of Recorded History?

What was the absolute cruelest April Fool's joke in all of recorded history?  "Two weeks to flatten the curve".  After all, had it actually been true, it would have literally ended on April 1, 2020.

And as The Who (not to be confused with the WHO, the World Health Organization!) famously sang:

"We won't get fooled again!"

Trumpty Dumpty Had A Great Fall

Well, it finally happened today.  The Donald has become the first (former) president to be indicted for a crime.  In his case, the primary charge (possibly a felony) was one related to the infamous Stormy Daniels hush money scheme, of all things.  And he also faces potential charges related to his attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.  It is really NOT looking good for the washed up plutocrat turned reality TV star turned wannabe politician turned wannabe dictator turned disgrace of epic proportions.

All the king's horses and all the king's men, won't be able to put Trumpty together again.  Believe me.

UPDATE:  Trump was arrested and arraigned on April 4, 2023, and charged with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, and that's just what they have so far.  His next court date is December 4, 2023.  Scratch that, it is the next court date for THESE particular charges.  A civil case against him related to rape allegations is coming up before then on April 25.  Looks like all of that Teflon has finally worn off of the Don for good, and for the first time in his life he is finally being held accountable for something.  

And far from rallying around their fallen idol like they would have in the past, most of his supporters were strangely out to lunch when it happened.

He is rapidly falling away and falling apart now, and it is only going to get worse for him going forward.  Really sucks to be him now.  Sad!  Believe me. 

How To Smash The Permanent War Racket For Good

On the 20th anniversary of "Quagmire Accomplished" in Iraq, Dennis Kucinich wrote a great article about the utter disaster it has been, and the massive human costs and follies of wars of aggression in general.  I agree with him 100%.  Also, we should note that it was part of a much larger racket as well, that is, a state of permanent war that the oligarchs have been benefiting handsomely from for decades, all while cannibalizing our own country in the process, as Chris Hedges has noted in another good article.

My response to that article was as follows:

As Major General Smedley Butler said back on 1935, "War Is A Racket". It was true then, and is true now, *a fortiori*.

https://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html 

I will note that bringing back the draft would not really solve anything. Conscription did not prevent Vietnam from dragging on, and even (largely) universal conscription still doesn't prevent Israel from their own perpetual war against Palestinians and occasionally other neighbors as well. And plenty of non-imperialisitic countries have all-volunteer militaries currently, because they know it's a strategically superior choice in the 21st century. 

And then, there is that annoying little detail that conscription is a form of slavery, of course. And the working class would still bear the overwhelming brunt of it, while the elites would still find a way to stay out of harm's way. The middle class, however, would be further hollowed out. 

Would it heal our divided nation if brought back today? That is very doubtful. I think it would look far more like the (often very racist) 1863 Draft Riots of NYC than the anti-war protests of the Vietnam era. 

In other words, the grass may look greener on the other side, but it still has to be mowed all the same. 

One good idea though would be my own variant of General Butler's idea, "consensual conscription", where for all wars going forward, it should be put up to a vote by those of military age. Those who vote no will be exempt, while those who abstain or vote yes will be eligible to be drafted into that war. And renew the vote every year. If the majority vote no, the war must end within 90 days, period. Also, raise the eligibility age to include people in their 40s, 50s and even early 60s. You know, those who are of the age to start the wars but not actually serve in them. Those who are 4F or CO would join the newly-created Human Shield Brigade, which is exactly what it sounds like: a sort of Peace Corps on steroids whose primary purpose is to nonviolently put their bodies on the line to protect civilian populations wherever they are deployed. 

Everyone would have skin in the game, and yet no one would be forced or coerced into participating in a war they do not believe in, or any war for that matter. 

And eradicating poverty with UBI, free college, single-payer Medicare for all, and stuff like that would also end the so-called "poverty draft" as well. Of course, that would mean we would have to (gasp!) pay our troops what they are actually worth, that is, significantly more than they are currently being paid. And since the federal government is Monetarily Sovereign, they could easily print their own money to do so.

Problem solved.

More details, not included in my response:

The Selective Service System should be put back into "deep standby" like it was from 1975-1980, where all registration is suspended.  Only reactivate the registration requirement when an actual draft is either in effect and/or likely will be in the near future.  And yes, if that ever does happen, women should be included as well.  It's really only fair, right?  What's good for the goose is good for the gander, and if you really want equality, you got it, Toyota!

For the record, the TSAP of course does not support bringing back an actual draft.  A country that needs a draft to defend itself deserves to lose, and any fair-weather "allies" unwilling or unable to defend themselves without the help of foreign conscript armies from halfway around the world also deserve to lose as well.  And if there were a truly "just war", conscription would be unnecessary, as volunteers would be plentiful.  But in those vanishingly rare instances where we are actually in a war of necessity, and volunteers are no longer enough, the sacrifice should be shared equally.  Not only in terms of gender, but also age, class, race, and so on as well.

If anything, the billionaires should go first, THEN we can talk about drafting the broader working class.

Regardless though, any conscription for the sole or primary purpose of social engineering, as opposed to absolute necessity for defense as a last resort, has absolutely zero place in a free society.  It is an alien culture that ultimately belongs to totalitarians.

Also, the half-century old War Powers Resolution of 1973 needs to be updated and tightened so the President cannot just start indefinitely undefined wars willy-nilly, and the President should be held fully liable for any damages resulting from the abuse of this power.  Wars or any war-adjacent military actions in foreign countries lasting more than 90 days should require a formal and official declaration of war by Congress per the Constitution, and if not it must be halted within 90 days, no exceptions.  No more indefinite or nebulous AUMFs without a very strict sunset clause.  No more decades-long quagmires ever again.  Like, EVER.  And the nuclear launch codes must be taken off of "hair trigger alert", and only given when the President's senior advisers approve.

And of course, the profit needs to be taken out of war.  The crony capitalism of the mercenary-industrial complex needs to end yesterday, full stop.  And all it would take would be a few tweaks of the tax code, plus the intestinal fortitude to actually enforce it.

As General Butler famously said, 

"TO HELL WITH WAR!"

"Either war is obsolete, or man is."

-- Buckminster Fuller

"War, what is it good for?  Absolutely NOTHING!"

-- Edwin Starr

"Come the war, come the avarice, come the war, come hell...Come attrition, come the reek of bones, come attrition, come hell...This is why, why we fight, why we lie awake...And this is why, this is why we fight..."

-- The Decemberists

"Now the labor leader's screaming when they close the missile plant, United Fruit screams at the Cuban shore. Call it peace or call it treason, call it love or call it reason, but I ain't marching anymore."

-- Phil Ochs

"I declare the war is over, it's over, it's over..."

-- Phil Ochs

"But the hardest thing I'll ask you, if you would only try, is take your children by their hands and look into their eyes.  And there you'll see the answer you should have seen before.  If we win the wars at home, there'll be no fighting anymore"

-- Phil Ochs 

Three Years Later, The Debate Is Over

Three years later, the results are in, and now the debate is over for good:

Lockdowns don't work, and actually do more harm than good.

Masks don't work, except as a mind control device, and are far from harmless. 

Novel experimental gene therapies that speciously self-identify as "vaccines" not only don't work as advertised, but they have caused a LOT of excess deaths and serious injuries on balance.

Sweden got it right overall, as did Belarus, Nicaragua, Tanzania, the Faeroe Islands, and the 12 US states that (largely) eschewed lockdowns, mask mandates, and jab mandates, plus a few other states like Florida and Georgia that came to their senses quickly after seeing their early errors.

In other words, the powers that be in most of the world did literally EVERYTHING wrong in dealing with the pandemic, by design, and the very few things that could have actually helped save lives were deliberately ignored or censored.

The day of reckoning is NOW.  Seriously, NEVER AGAIN!

Any questions?

UPDATE:  Once again, it looks like Vitamin D was the closest thing to a magic bullet for this virus, especially along with Vitamin C and Zinc.  We see consilience across numerous studies and converging lines of evidence everywhere.  And that's also probably why all Nordic countries and Canada and Australia had such relatively low excess death rates, as all of these countries fortify their food (mostly flour, bread, and milk) with Vitamin D far more than the rest of the world does, while the USA generally only fortifies milk and most countries don't even fortify with Vitamin D at all.  Additionally, we also see that neither the official narrative, nor the "Scooby Doo" narrative that they wanted us to discover, have ever really jibed well at all with Occam's Razor. 

Pay No Attention To The Little Man Behind The Curtain

A new book by Matthew Desmond, Poverty By America, is the latest book about the topic of why poverty persists in the richest country on Earth.  In it, he discusses what he feels is the root cause of poverty's persistence, namely all of the ways that the non-poor benefit at the expense of the poor by keeping them poor.  It is true that it is not always enough to comfort the afflicted, sometimes you need to "afflict the comfortable" as well, to paraphrase the famous author and filmmaker Michael Moore.  

While there is a great deal of truth to what he says, and he makes some great points, the TSAP feels that the author is unfortunately 1) engaging too much in zero-sum game thinking, where in for one person to win, someone else has to lose, 2) largely ignoring the "little man behind the curtain", that is, the oligarchs of the big banks and Wall Street who fundamentally rig the game, and the FERAL Reserve that they own and control.  By focusing on all of the ways that the middle class and somewhat rich benefit at the expense of the poor, it also has the effect of ignoring what the billionaire class has done and is continuing to do to the broader working class, which includes the poor, the near poor, and the ever-shrinking middle class as well.  In contrast, David DeGraw back in 2014 wrote Peak Inequality, that really sheds light on the "little man behind the curtain":  the top 0.01%.  And it applies a fortiori to 2023, as inequality has only gotten worse.  If reading that doesn't make you feel RIPPED OFF, check your pulse 'cause you might be dead!

While there a number of things that need to be done to solve these massive intertwined and synergistic problems of poverty and inequality, keep in mind that we can mathematically end poverty overnight with a Universal Basic Income (UBI).  And also another that our tax code is actually regressive at the very top, where thanks to numerous loopholes, the top 0.01% often pay only a fraction of what those below them pay, if anything at all.  Aside from closing loopholes and greatly hiking the top marginal tax rates for those making over $10 million per year, another idea that has yet to be tried is a financial transactions tax on stocks, bonds, derivatives, and stuff like that. Alternatively, essentially all taxes could be replaced by a tiny 0.1% or less Universal Exchange Tax (UET) on all electronic transactions, period.  With a tax base of most likely $5 quadrillion or more, a 0.1% rate would raise $5 trillion per year, enough for the entire federal budget and then some.  It would actually be quite progressive in practice, since the rich make far more transactions than the non-rich.  And such a tax would still be quite painless for literally everyone except perhaps speculators and money launderers.

And of course, we need to nationalize the private FERAL Reserve, and restore the power of money creation back to its rightful creators, Congress, who would then authorize the Treasury to do so.  Such power is far too important to leave to the big banks and they sycophantic lackeys and technocrats. 

So what are we waiting for?

How To Defuse The QUADRILLION Dollar Derivatives Bubble

"Beware the Ides of March!"

With all the talk about (so far) isolated bank failures and the potential for a real, wider financial crisis in the near future, no one wants to talk about the real elephant in the room:  the looming QUADRILLION dollar derivatives bubble just waiting to burst.  And if the FERAL Reserve keeps on hiking interest rates in a misguided attempt to fight inflation that is already cooling, it will burst catastrophically, making 2008 and possibly even 1929 look like a walk in the park.

This massive derivatives bubble was decades in the making, resulting from the ever-increasing "financialization" of the economy.  Wall Street has basically been gambling with other people's money, in the world's largest casino, all while getting bailouts.  Privatize the profits, and socialize the losses, basically.

There is still time to defuse this ticking time bomb though:

1. Cut interest rates, YESTERDAY!  Or at least stop raising them!
2. End Quantitative Tightening, YESTERDAY!
3. Pass a financial transaction tax (aka "Wall Street Gaming Tax") of 0.1% on all financial transactions, including stocks, bonds, and especially derivatives.
4. Repeal the "safe harbor" provision of bankruptcy law, particularly as it applies to derivatives. 
5. Reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act in full.
6. Ban the practice of "quote stuffing".
7. Ban stock buybacks by corporations.
8. Going forward, ban any and all types of new and exotic derivatives that are not completely transparent. 
9. No more bailouts OR "bail-ins" of the banks (but of course depositors should still be made whole per the FDIC, with  no apologies to ultra-purist libertarians or paleoconservatives).
10. Implement "Quantitative Easing For People" (that is, with direct payments to individuals, not banks) as needed.
11. And last but not least, all banks that are "too big to fail" are really too big to exist, and should thus be either forcibly broken up, or nationalized as public utilities.  YESTERDAY!

The first five items alone, or even the first four, would be enough to defuse it in the near term, while the remaining items would be to clean up the damage and/or prevent it form happening again in the future. 

In the meantime, we all need to brace ourselves for a possible financial crisis and recession in the future.  But don't fall for the idea that we should withdraw all of our money now, as that would literally be a self-fulfilling prophecy.  The FDIC guarantees the first $250,000 per depositor per bank, so unless you have more than that (and didn't put it in multiple banks like you should have), it does not make sense to do so.

And let's not forget the role that the lockdowns played in all of this.  To paper over their predictable consequences, they printed trillions of dollars to do so (which increased demand for goods and services), at the same time that the lockdowns and their fallout constrained supply and snarled supply chains.  The resulting inflation was then belatedly papered over by raising interest rates and Quantitative Tightening, and the resulting whiplash has brought us where we are now with the banks, and making the bubble even more likely to burst.

Of course, things weren't exactly rosy for the financial system before the pandemic either.  Behind the scenes, a financial crisis was already subtly brewing, with the turmoil "repo market" in September 2019 being the first canary in the coal mine.  The FERAL Reserve kept printing more and more money to try to paper it over, but the problem wouldn't go away, even many months later.  They needed to do something BIG, and FAST.  It's almost like the pandemic was actually a PLANDEMIC, a big heist of the century to temporarily shore up the big banks in 2020 and make the rich richer, the poor poorer, and hollow out whatever is left of the middle class.  But hey, that's just a "conspiracy theory", right?

UPDATE:  The FERAL Reserve has raised the Fed Funds Rate by 0.25 percentage points.  Looks like they really, really wanna pop the "Everything Bubble".

Why "Nattokinase" Should Be A Household Buzzword Now

The ever-insightful Dr. Peter McCullough has recently pointed out a way to detox from the jabs.  An enzyme supplement called Nattokinase, from fermented soybeans, can apparently dissolve the toxic spike protein, and also thins the blood as well to reduce the dangerous clotting that the jabs are famous for.  He discusses all of this on his recent Substack post here.

So that looks like another good way to detox from the jabs.  We already knew for a while now that N-acetylcysteine (NAC) is also good as well, in that it cleaves the disulfide linkage in the spike protein.  And zeolites and Vitamin C have been recommended by others as well, and resveratrol and fisetin, and also pine needle tea and omega-3 fatty acids.

Of course, the number one best way to avoid the toxic consequences of the jabs is to not get any (more) jabs in the first place.  In other words, nip it in the bud.  DUH!  But failing that, all hope is still not lost.

For more damage control for those who got jabbed, see here as well.

DISCLAIMER:  The above should not be considered medical advice, so be sure to consult a nutritionally-informed physician before beginning any supplement program.

Three Nutrients. Three Tablets. Three Lost Years That Could Have Been Averted

We have noted this before, but we will again.

From the ever-insightful Dr. Steve Kirsch's recent Substack article, in a nutshell:

"Special mention for the fact that the entire pandemic was completely unnecessary. 3 supplements work better than vaccines and are safe and cheap. All the lockdowns, masking, vaccines, mandates, social distancing, etc. were all unnecessary. And even though this is now known, nobody will pay attention since it will make them look bad.

"Uptake of vitamin C, vitamin D and zinc were significantly associated with the reduced risk of infection and severity of COVID-19 (OR: 0.006 (95% CI: 0.03–0.11) (p = 0.004)) and (OR: 0.03 (95% CI: 0.01–0.22) (p = 0.005))... this study was conducted before the start of mass vaccination against COVID-19 in Bangladesh."

https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/14/23/5029

That's over 150x decreased risk just from taking these 3 dirt-cheap supplements that everyone has known to be safe + effective for decades! And it was all pre-vax, it was for the original Wuhan strain that was most dangerous!"

Read that again, and again, and again and let it sink in.  Vitamin C, Vitamin D, and Zinc.  Those three things alone would have largely defanged and declawed this overall already relatively humdrum virus to begin with, which was basically a classic super-flu at worst, and never an existential threat.

And especially for Vitamin D, but the others too, this was confirmed time and again.  And again and again.

Oh, and one of the other thing that we at the TSAP have long advocated, the humble xylitol nasal spray, has also been confirmed yet again as prophylaxis.

It gets even worse still for the powers that be, apparently, when one also notes that the standard of care for patients with post-viral pneumonia was abruptly changed worldwide, at or before the beginning of the pandemic.  And not for the better, either. The change was to no longer give antibiotics for pneumonia if Covid was thought to be the cause, even though it was very likely that many if not most of such deaths were from secondary bacterial infections.  And antibiotics would have been given had they not been inexplicably removed from the protocols, and thus deliberately withheld from patients for political reasons.  A good chunk of excess deaths could thus easily be attributed to that alone.  

Just #3tablets of azithromycin or doxycycline would often have been enough to save their lives.

And don't forget to read the eye-opening Spartacus Letter if you haven't already.

In other words, all of the lockdowns, closures, masks, jabs, and NPIs were basically in vain.  Not that these things would have ever really had any hope or redeeming quality in the first place, of course. 

Three nutrients.  Three tablets.  Three lost years that we will never get back, that could have all been averted, to say nothing of all of the gargantuan excess deaths that resulted.  How will they ever live this down?  And will future generations ever forgive us?

Why The WHO Pandemic Treaty Needs Serious Revision Before It Can Be Signed

The current draft of the WHO pandemic treaty is very close to being signed by President Biden.  And while the "fact checkers" vociferously deny that the treaty will sign over America's hard-won national sovereignty to the WHO in the event of a future global health emergency, there is still good reason to refuse to sign it until serious revisions are made.  

First, the constitutionally questionable practice of it possibly even going into effect without the Senate's "advice and consent" (as is typically required to ratify international treaties), let alone the utterly specious notion that treaties can even supersede the Constitution itself, is enough to give anyone a severe case of the heebie-jeebies, or at least any serious student of history that gives a crap about the Constitution.  That alone is bad enough. 

But the most important problem of all, is what the treaty, by omission, does NOT require of its signatories.  The following is what we believe any such treaty absolutely MUST require explicitly, in light of the past three years of authoritarianism:

To be prohibited in any circumstances:

• All lockdowns, in theory or practice, must be strictly prohibited. 
• All mask mandates outside of a healthcare setting must be strictly prohibited.
• All forced business closures must be strictly prohibited unless fully compensated by, and entirely at the expense of, whatever government imposed such closures.
• All forced school closures lasting more than ten (10) consecutive school days must be strictly prohibited. 
• All vaccine mandates, passports or coercion, in theory or practice, must be strictly prohibited for any vaccine that 1) has been on the market for less than ten (10) years and/or 2) has not been conclusively proven to be truly safe and effective.
• Launching or marketing any sort of vaccine, or anything that identifies as such, without the proper safety and effectiveness testing and/or without following GMP, shall be strictly prohibited. 
• Any attempt to censor alternative viewpoints shall be strictly prohibited. 
• Any attempt to officially deny or censor a known effective treatment or prophylaxis shall be strictly prohibited. 
• Any attempt to abolish cash shall be strictly prohibited. 
• Social credit scoring shall be strictly prohibited. 

To be strongly discouraged overall:

• Blanket mask mandates in healthcare settings shall be strongly discouraged. 
• School closures of any kind shall be strongly discouraged.
• Business closures of any kind shall be strongly discouraged. 
• Vaccine mandates, passports, or coercion of any kind shall be strongly discouraged regardless of the vaccine or how supposedly safe it is.
• Mandatory quarantine of exposed individuals without symptoms shall be strongly discouraged for any disease for which the body of research evidence does not support (i.e. influenza and coronaviruses).
• Gathering restrictions or any other restrictions on freedom of association shall be strongly discouraged. 
• Travel bans and restrictions shall be strongly discouraged. 
• Mass testing with PCR shall be strongly discouraged in most circumstances. 
• Central bank digital currency (CBDC) shall be strongly discouraged (and shall be prohibited if it replaces cash entirely).
• Digital ID shall be strongly discouraged. 

To be encouraged:

• Informed consent
• Bodily autonomy 
• Human rights
• Civil rights and liberties 
• Free speech
• Public health (as it was originally founded)
• Early treatment and prophylaxis 
• Nutrition 
• Holistic view of health
• National sovereignty 

Definitions:

• "Lockdown" shall be defined as any mandatory "stay home", "shelter in place", or equivalent order lasting more than 24 consecutive hours, for all or part of the population, for any reason.  Any nighttime curfew order lasting more than three (3) consecutive nights would also meet this definition as well.  These must be off the table.
• "Mask mandate" shall be defined as any attempt to force or coerce anyone to cover all or any part of one's face for the purposes of disease control, or any penalties for not complying for same.
• "Vaccine mandate" shall be defined as any attempt to force or coerce any person to receive anything that identifies as a vaccine.
• "Vaccine passport" shall be defined as any identifier bestowed on a person that gives certain privileges conditional on having received anything that identifies as a vaccine.
• All other definitions have their usual meaning, and apply in theory or practice.

That should be the FLOOR for any such treaty, as even that may be too much leeway. Then, and ONLY then, should the USA agree to any WHO pandemic treaty.

The Verdict Is In: Freedom Wins

We had already noted that Sweden was thoroughly vindicated for eschewing lockdowns, masks, and overall stringency during the pandemic.  Just like Belarus, Nicaragua, Tanzania, and even Brazil did similar to or better than their stricter neighbors in terms of cumulative all cause deaths as well.  

"But America is different!" the lockdown zealots speciously claim.  We are somehow too affluent, too spoiled, too poor, too unequal, too racist, too diverse, too multicultural, too fractured, too lazy, too workaholic, too unhealthy, too coddled, too independent, too dependent, too immature, too precocious, too low-trust, too credulous, too individualistic, too herd mentality, too smart for our own good, too stupid, too educated, too uneducated, too fragile, too many problems already, too (insert favorite adjective here, the more contradictory the better) to be able to even compare ourselves to other countries, let alone copy even in part what the world's few remaining free countries did without disastrous consequences resulting.  Or something. 

Of course, in this country, twelve US states (nearly a quarter of all states) basically eschewed lockdowns as well, most famously South Dakota, and several additional states were either much less stringent than the national average and/or only locked down briefly before opening up and lifting restrictions fairly quickly, most famously Florida, Georgia, and Texas.

And yet, now a new 50-state study finds that among US states and DC, less stringent states were not significantly different from more stringent ones in terms of health outcomes, but they did do significantly better on economic outcomes and education outcomes as well as overall outcomes.  For example, when adjusted for age and pre-existing conditions, Florida and California (with polar opposite policies) ended up being within error bounds of each other and the national average in terms of death rates.  And as we have noted earlier, this was not the only American study that arrived at similar (if not even more damning) conclusions either, namely that lockdowns and related restrictions were essentially all pain and no gain.  Thus it looks like freedom wins hands down, both in the USA as well as abroad. 

Let America be America again!

UPDATE:  Yet another international study found that not only were lockdowns, overall stringency, and jabs associated with higher death rates, but also HCQ and IVM were associated with lower death rates, just as the late Dr. Vladimir Zev Zelenko famously predicted back in 2020.  In a world of Lysenkos, be a Zelenko.