The Right Way To Do Medicare For All

With the debate about single-payer Medicare For All increasing in recent months, it is important to know a crucial detail about it.  While the main thrust of the debate lately has been how to "pay for" it all, and exactly which taxpayers will bear the brunt of it, the truth remains that our Monetarily Sovereign federal government by definition has infinite money, and thus does NOT actually need any taxes to pay for it (or anything else, for that matter), since federal taxes do NOT actually pay for federal spending at all.  That is in fact a Big Lie, and has been false ever since we got off the gold standard in 1971, yet for some reason most Americans seem to not have gotten the memo yet.

Notice how nobody seems too worried about how we are going to "pay for" the military with its truly massive price tag, after all.  That is in itself a kind of tacit admission that the Big Lie is in fact a lie, and that the emperor isn't wearing any clothes.  So no reason for all of this silly handwringing and harrumphing about how to "pay for" Medicare For All.

Yes, Virginia, we actually can have free and comprehensive health care for all Americans, period, with no deductibles, copays, cost-sharing, premiums, or taxes.  In fact, being the richest country in the world, we can aim even that much higher still than all of the other countries that currently have single-payer healthcare.  All we have to do is stop believing the Big Lie that federal taxes pay for federal spending.

So what are we waiting for?

Setting The Record Straight: Austerity Is NOT Good For The Economy

The evidence is overwhelming now.  Austerity is NOT good for the economy, for the same reason that applying leeches to cure anemia is not a good idea.  Money is the lifeblood of any economy, and cutting "deficit" spending (via tax hikes, spending cuts, or both) effectively shrinks the money supply.  And for a Monetarily Sovereign government like our own federal government, there is literally no good reason to do so at all, in good economic times or bad.

Never was, and never will be.  At least not in the post-gold standard world since August 15, 1971.

The infamous Reinhart and Rogoff (2010) outlier study that suggested that a debt/GDP ratio reaching some arbitrary level was inherently bad for the economy was roundly debunked in 2013 by a 28 year old grad student who discovered that the results were due to a coding error in the spreadsheet.  And even when Reinhart and Rogoff claimed that there still was a correlation (albeit much weaker), that was most likely due to reverse causation (i.e. due to countercylical policy responses to recessions) and residual or unmeasured confounding.

As for the Canadian experience that suggests that their austerity in the 1990s and early 2000s was somehow good for the economy has also been debunked.  The inherently harmful effects of austerity were masked by 1) an increase in the money supply, 2) a massive devaluation of the Canadian dollar, 3) a sharp cut in interest rates, 4) lag effects of previously massive deficit spending, and 5) secular global trends during that time period.  And of course, there was also the Alberta oil boom as well that continues to this day.  And they still experienced adverse effects in spite of their economic growth, particularly from the ruthless cuts to their otherwise legendary and stellar healthcare system that led to a "brain drain" and the notoriously longer "wait times" that opponents of single-payer Medicare For All disingenuously luuurve to scare ignorant Americans about.

As for Iceland in the wake of their 2008 financial crisis, they actually did more austerity than any country not named Greece.  But their austerity cuts did not begin in earnest until 2010, and the effects were essentially masked by a sharp devaluation in their currency as well as lag effects from previous deficit spending.  Thus, their massive recovery still occured in spite of budget cuts and tax hikes.

And how about the biggy:  the postwar surpluses in the late 1940 and early 1950s in the USA?  That was a deficit spending cut of a whopping 35% of GDP, yet the economy still grew like gangbusters.  But again, that growth was in spite of, not because of, their massive deficit reduction.  It was masked by massive increases in private-sector debt, lag effects of the previously massive deficits of WWII, and of course the relatively short-lived unique competitive advantage the USA had as the only major developed economy that was not devastated by the war.  And there were some fairly deep deflationary recessions during that time in 1948-1949 and 1954-1955, and before long, the federal government saw the need to run deficits once again to keep the secular economic boom going (which it did).

Thus, these exceptions really only prove the rule.  Not only is the conventional "wisdom" about austerity inaccurate, but it is in fact 100% wrong at least as far as federal finances go.  If anything, so called "deficit" spending is needed to ensure robust economic growth in the long run.  All the more reason to put an end to the Big Lie and finally decouple federal spending from taxes and Treasury securities yesterday.

In fact, since a growing economy requires a growing supply of money, and the fact that GDP = Federal Spending + Nonfederal Spending + Net Exports, one can therefore argue that a deficit/GDP ratio of at least 3% on average is needed to maintain robust economic growth of 3% per year or higher.  And to cure recessions, depressions, or secular stagnation, an even higher ratio is needed, perhaps as high as 7% or 8% even.  No wonder the EU has been persistently in the doldrums:  they actually set a 3% ceiling on their members' deficit/GDP ratios, they all have painfully high and regressive taxes such as VAT, and worse still, those nations who use the Euro are monetarily non-sovereign and cannot create their own money.

And for any country who is still contemplating fiscal austerity in spite of all this: at the very least, the growth of the money supply needs to be maintained by other means, namely the loosening of monetary policy.  Failure to do so will risk a recession or even a depression.  Note that GDP growth (or lack thereof) tends to lag the growth (or lack thereof) of the money supply by four quarters (one year) on average, sometimes even longer if there is a lot of momentum, so any apparent lack of immediate adverse effects should really not lull one into complacency.

Please note that until about 2014, the TSAP once did support austerity as well as a return to the gold standard.  We no longer do, and deeply regret ever giving any sort of credence to these outmoded ideas based on fundamental ignorance of economics.

Just Print The Money

What seemingly intractable problems can be solved with just four simple words?  And which current presidential candidate once actually said those four exact words, "just print the money", or at least the last three of those four magic words?

A)  Bernie Sanders
B)  Elizabeth Warren
C)  Kamala Harris
D)  Joe Biden
E)  Donald Trump

Give up?  Scroll down to find the answer:

The answer, believe it or not, is E, Donald Trump.  Yes, THAT Donald Trump.  Meanwhile all of the other 2020 candidates (sorry Bernie, but even you don't get a pass on this one) are apparently too cowardly to utter those words when asked how they will "pay for" the various high-ticket items on their wish list.

Back in 2016, then presidential candidate Donald Trump said a lot of outrageous and controversial things and too many gaffes to count.  But one in particular stands out in light of recent posts and current events, namely, the one in which he implied he would default on the national debt if he couldn't negotiate a better deal.  Now that is clearly not something for a politician or candidate to even joke about, let alone actually do.  But it was what he said after he was criticized for it and he backpedaled on it which was actually much more noteworthy:

This is the United States government. First of all, you never have to default because you [just] print the money. I hate to tell you. So there’s never a default.

And that second "gaffe", ladies and gentlemen, was actually NOT a gaffe at all.  Why?  Because it is actually TRUE, believe it or not.  Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, after all.

Wait, what?  You read that correctly.  Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) has actually been arguing this for years now, as has Rodger Malcolm Mitchell and his own theory of Monetary Sovereignty (MS).  That is, a Monetarily Sovereign government like our own federal government and many others (but unlike the euro nations or any US state or local government) has the inherent and unlimited power to create money by fiat.  The only limits such a government has are those it chooses to impose on itself, such as the remaining arcane and archaic rules left over from when we actually had a gold standard before we got off of it in 1971.  The world changed in that year, but our "leaders" have apparently not gotten the memo.

You might want to sit down before you read any further.  Taxes do NOT actually pay for federal spending, rather, the government simply creates the money they spend ad hoc with a few clicks of a computer as they go along.  Nor is there any physical need for them to borrow money, but they do so anyway by issuing Treasury securities (i.e. T-bills, T-notes, and T-bonds) whenever they create new money that is unmatched by taxes in order to match it with borrowing--all because of those arcane and archaic rules that they could remove with a stroke of a pen if they chose to.  That is, IF they actually chose to.

So where do our tax dollars actually go then?  Well, one could argue that those dollars are effectively taken out of the economy and needlessly destroyed.  And yes, some of those dollars are ultimately destroyed in practice if not in theory.  But it is worse than that, for at least at some point before destruction, they first have to make a pit stop at the privately-owned FERAL Reserve, where they do little more than further enrich the bankster oligarchs.  Again, all because of those arcane and archaic rules.

And that big, scary number that we see on the National Debt Clock?  Well, nowadays the national debt is literally just an accounting gimmick.  What it really consists of are deposits in federal Treasury security accounts, not debt in the way that private debt is.  Effectively, it is really a national savings account, and so-called "deficit" spending is simply when the government puts more money into the economy (via spending) than it takes out (via taxes and fees).  Thus, a deficit for the federal budget is actually a surplus for the rest of the economy, and vice-versa.

Of course, Rodger Mitchell has an even better, more fundamental idea that makes it so the government would never need to borrow a single penny ever again, and it doesn't require raising taxes OR cutting spending.  Not only that, but it would guarantee that Social Security and Medicare, and any other program, would remain fully funded indefinitely as well without the use of FICA taxes (or any other tax for that matter).  The solution, in his exact words:

The best way is to eliminate the federal budget deficit and debt: Ending government borrowing. The government has the unlimited ability to create and spend money without borrowing. The process will be: 

1) Congress will create an account called "Money." 

2) Congress will determine how much money this account contains. The process will be similar to the way Congress now determines the debt ceiling. 

3) Federal agencies will write checks against this account according to budgets decided by Congress. If any federal agency needed additional funds, Congress would decide whether or not to allow this spending, in the same way that Congress votes for additional spending by the military et al. 

This would eliminate concerns about "our grandchildren paying for the federal debt." There would be no federal debt.

And as long as such money were created without any interest or related fees attached to its creation (as per Ellen Brown), such a solution would actually work.  Modern Monetary Theory indeed supports such an idea.  Congress can already spend money into existence rather than lend it into existence, all they would have to do now is officially decouple such spending from taxes and Treasury securities.  (And since he mentioned the debt ceiling, that is another thing we should really get rid of as well in the meantime, since it does far more harm than good.)

Before that, there actually is a painless (albeit unconventional) method of paying off the existing debt in one fell swoop.  Not just this year's deficit, but ALL of the cumulative $21 trillion of the debt. It's called the Noble Solution (named after its creator, Richard E. Noble) and does not involve any significant tax hikes or spending cuts. So what is it? It's something we never would have advocated just a few years ago:  printing (electronically creating) money out of thin air to pay it off all at once.  After all, FERAL Reserve has been creating money out of thin air for decades now (including that recent whopping $16 trillion secret bailout of the banks, which eventually rose to nearly $30 trillion) so we might as well put this practice to productive use.  Money is really nothing more than an accounting entry nowadays, so let's make the entry and be done with it for good.

But wouldn't that lead to hyperinflation?  In a word, NO.  Noble points out that while creating such money is undoubtedly inflationary, using it to pay off the debt (which is in Treasury bonds and is thus already part of the money supply) would be deflationary in that it would shrink the money supply by an equal amount. Thus, the two effects would cancel each other out, as paper (electronic data) would be exchanged for paper (data).   Besides, inflation and hyperinflation is NOT caused by money creation, but rather by shortages of food and/or energy, leading to reverse causation.  Of course, we would have to bypass the FERAL Reserve to avoid creating more debt in the process, such as #MintTheCoin. Or better yet, nationalize the FERAL Reserve entirely and return the power of money creation to its rightful owners, our elected representatives in Congress and the Department of the Treasury.  America would then be "free and clear" for the first time in history since Thomas Jefferson.  And it would cost us NOTHING.

Not like it really matters, since as we already noted, the "debt" is not even really debt at all, but simply deposits in Treasury securities.  And as Mitchell notes, since the federal government has infinite money, it does not actually touch those deposits at all, but simply returns the existing money in those accounts to the account holders by transferring it, while adding newly-created interest dollars to whatever amount is there.  Thus, to "pay off" / extinguish the debt completely, the only new money that needs to be created is the interest, and that new money will stimulate the economy.  You read that right.

Alternatively, Joseph M. Firestone points out that the very same effect can also be had more gradually, with Congress passing an Act (such as the very next budget or appropriations bill) that removes those arcane and archaic rules entirely, and mandates/guarantees than any new deficits as well as any outstanding Treasury securities (i.e. national debt) be funded / paid for automatically with the very same ad hoc money creation that they already do in practice, but no longer needing to match it with new borrowing or tax revenues.  Thus, the federal government would no longer need to borrow even one penny (i.e. issue any new Treasury securities) unless they truly wanted to for reasons unrelated to the federal budget.  And according to Rodger Mitchell, such bonds do, in fact, have other useful, unrelated functions (i.e. providing a safe haven for investors to park their money, and an effective platform for the government to control both short and long-term interest rates, and thus the demand for dollars).  But the point is they would no longer HAVE to do so just to meet their current and future fiscal obligations, so the national debt would stop increasing and gradually decrease as any existing  Treasury securities mature and/or are redeemed. And thus the 100% contrived political issue (and cudgel) that is the national debt / deficit would quickly become a dead issue, and we can finally focus on other, real priorities for a change.

You know, things like Universal Basic Income, Medicare For All, free college, improvements to education, rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, and stuff like that.  All of which can be readily "paid for" with the stroke of a pen and the click of a computer key.   No taxes or borrowing required.  And if the "inflation dragon" ever does happen rear its ugly head again, simply raising interest rates will quash it, as will the practice of draining excess bank reserves and "sterilizing" cash inflows at the FERAL Reserve (which again, really should be nationalized to to become truly FEDERAL) when the newly-created dollars pass through many hands and then the banks and make an inevitable pit stop there.  Problem solved.  And any inflation that is driven by food and energy shortages can be resolved by simply redirecting federal spending to incentivize the producers of such to produce more, by buying such products at a premium and selling (or giving them away) at a loss.  Hey, it's infinite money, remember?

So what are we waiting for?

When Will The Trump Bubble Burst?

With impeachment now a foregone conclusion, the trade war still ongoing and damaging the economy, and Trump generally making a mess of things, people are wondering, when will the stock market bubble finally burst?  Like a dog on a leash, it eventually has to snap back to reality sometime.  All the corporate stock buybacks in the world or FERAL Reserve machinations will not be able to postpone it forever.  As history has shown, what goes up, must come down.  And the bigger they are, the harder they fall.

The massive federal "deficit" spending (which to be honest, is really a non-problem for a Monetarily Sovereign government like ours) from 2018 onwards is of course fueling the economy right now in spite of Trump's general wrecking-ball economic and non-economic policies.  More federal "deficit" spending = more money supply = more growth dollars = more economic growth, as a general rule.  But eventually even that will not be enough to stop the damage being done by Trump's recklessness, especially since so much of that new money creation is going to the where in least needs to go (into the hands of the rich and mega-corporations, Wall Street instead of Main Street.  Especially if the Republicans decide to actually start cutting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other vital programs while cynically using the "deficit" hysteria as a cudgel.  Yes, they will actually have the chutzpah to try that at some point.

You can really only do so much damage before papering over it no longer works anymore.

Trump's Syria Withdrawal Is Reckless And Treacherous, But...

Trump just announced that he will be abruptly pulling all troops out of northern Syria, while allowing Turkey to invade Syria, essentially throwing our Kurdish allies to the wolves after all they did for us for so many years now.  Predictably, this has earned him strong condemnation from both corporate duopoly parties that are invested in the military-industrial complex, but not only from them.  The truth, however, is a bit more nuanced than that, even if Trump doesn't really do nuance.

It is obvious now that Trump is clearly Putin’s puppet and is pulling out of Syria for the very basest of ulterior motives: to appease Putin and Erdogan, to “wag the dog” and distract from his mounting scandals, and of course to nurture his own fat relentless ego. And he is doing it as abruptly and chaotically as possible, without so much as a heads-up beforehand to our allies, especially the Kurds who he seems to have no qualms about selling down the river to Turkey.  Very base and cowardly indeed.  

We at the TSAP thus condemn Trump's withdrawal for the way he is doing it and the timing of it.  But...

That said, sometimes even a stopped clock can be right twice a day. As we have noted time and time again, we need to get the hell out of out of not just Syria, but also the decades-long quagmires of Iraq and Afghanistan, the latter of which is longer than Vietnam at this point.  ISIL, though clearly still in existence as a terrorist group (kinda like al-Qaeda and the Taliban, etc.) is nonetheless defeated territorially compared to 2014. Time for other countries/actors to step up to the plate and do whatever remains of the heavy lifting now.   Long past time for that, in fact.

And we also need to stop suborning Saudi Arabia’s unconscionable mass-murdering proxy war in Yemen as well (though Trump seems cool with that for now).

"Endless war" is NOT a sustainable strategy.  In fact, it is not even a strategy at all, but a concept, and an absurd one at that.  The only people who benefit from it are the oligarchs and the military-industrial complex, as the late Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler once famously noted in his 1935 book War Is A Racket.  (Of course, WWII was the exception that proves the rule.)

Whether a war is a “wham, bam, thank you ma’am” kind of war like Libya or a decade(s)-long quagmire like Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan, the end result is essentially ultimately the same sort of disastrous failed state that becomes a magnet for extremists.  And once it becomes Quagmire Accomplished like it is currently, whether we leave now, a year from now, ten years from now, or 100 years from now, the result on the affected nation(s) we invade and subsequently leave is basically the same.  Quick withdrawal in general is thus the lesser evil on balance.

In fact, Tom Englehardt (Tom Dispatch) and Peter van Buren had the best idea of all--quick withdrawal, after getting ISIL where it really hurts by taking out their OIL.  Such targets--wellheads and oil trucks--are not at all hard to find, and are fairly easy to take out from the air.  And put diplomatic and economic pressure on Turkey and other so-called "allies" to stem the flow of Daesh oil as well.  Because oil is their primary source of funding, and removing that will cause them to quickly collapse of their own weight, and when they are seen as a failure then few would want to join them.  And once we take it out, then GTFO and let Daesh fall on their own sword.  (And apparently, we ended up doing a modest version of exactly that sort of oil campaign, with a fair amount of success, albeit late in the game and minus the withdrawal.)

The TSAP agrees with that idea, and we would also like to add to that.  We have said it before, and we will say it again.   Before withdrawing, we should give every *woman* over there an AK-47 and tell them to take over their country and mow down anyone who stands in their way. Let Allah sort it out. Problem solved. But of course, the mostly-male powers that be would not be too keen on that idea. After all, they wouldn't want women in THIS country getting any ideas, now would they?  (Of course, the TSAP believes that women should indeed take over the world in order to save it, so that wouldn't really be a bad idea, come to think of it.) Honestly, it is certainly a better idea than arming questionable male "rebels" who end up turning traitor.  Seriously, think about it.

For Iraq and Afghanistan, we need to get out yesterday.  For Syria, it is more nuanced and complicated thanks to Turkey's latest incursion into Syria, and of course what that means for the Kurds (spoiler alert: it isn't good).  Thus, being a bit less hasty with withdrawing the 1000 or so troops in Syria specifically would probably be the least-worst idea right now.  And in all of these countries, a post-withdrawal Marshall Plan would also be a good idea as well to help deal with the aftermath.

Like the song says, if we go it will be trouble, if we stay it will be double.  And those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

UPDATE:  Just 24 hours after he recklessly shunted troops to the side in Syria (he didn't actually remove them yet from Syria, but plans to) to pave the way for the Turks to invade and slaughter the Kurds (which they are apparently doing right now), he ordered 1800 troops to Saudi Arabia, because reasons, perhaps to provoke Iran.  This man is extremely dangerous right now, amd clearly unfit for command even as dogcatcher, let alone President of the United States.

The Donald Is Circling The Drain

It really does NOT look good for the Donald these days.  A formal impeachment inquiry has now been officially launched against him, and it looks like he will be impeached any day now.  This time, it is because Trump allegedly tried to pressure a foreign government, the Ukraine, to give him political dirt on Joe Biden's son.  That, and so many other things in Trump's laundry list of scandals are now coming back to haunt him.  And that is a VERY long list indeed!

With dirty tricks like that, he makes even Tricky Dick Nixon look like an angel by comparison!

Of course, the House can only charge him with such "high crimes and misdemeanors", and it is up to the Senate to actually try him and vote on whether or not he should be removed, which requires a two-thirds majority to do so.  But even if they don't have the votes to remove him before the 2020 election, it is just a little over a year away, and him having this sort of a dark and ominous cloud hanging over him would certainly NOT help him win re-election at all.

And now with his stupid trade war really starting to bite hard and wreak havoc with both the national and global economy, and his latest foray into the asinine War on Vaping, he is pissing off more and more of his erstwhile supporters, making it even more likely that he will be creamed in 2020 either way.

The jig is up, Donald.  Now go do us all a favor and RESIGN, yesterday.  Don't let the door hit you on the way out.  Or as you like to say, "YOU'RE FIRED!"

UPDATE:  It looks like Trump threw Pence under the bus as well.  So we may very well get a two-for-one impeachment special as a result.  Plus, if Trump eventually does a Nixon and pre-emptively resigns in hopes of Pence pardoning him, he will surely be out of luck now.  Hey, that's karma!

How To Prevent--And Cure--The Next (Or Any) Recession Or Depression (Updated)

With a recession likely coming later this year or next year at the latest, it is important to realize the causes so such recessions can be cured or even prevented in the first place.  Enter Rodger Malcolm Mitchell, the guru of Monetary Sovereignty, penned this important and timely article.

He notes that every single recession and virtually every depression in history has been preceded by a cut in federal deficit spending, or worse, a federal surplus.  That is not coincidence, since cutting the federal deficit slows the growth of the money supply, and surpluses actually shrink the money supply, all else being equal.  (Federal deficit spending = spending new dollars into existence.)  A growing economy requires a growing supply of money, and when the money supply fails to keep up with the demand for money for too long, the economy reacts by shrinking.  Thus, barring a truly massive increase in private debt (i.e. more money lent into existence by banks), deficit cuts ultimately result in recessions and surpluses result in depressions or at least really long and deep recessions.  And recessions and depressions can only be cured by increasing the money supply dramatically, typically by increasing federal deficit spending.  That's it.

And this makes perfect sense, since GDP is literally nothing more than a money measure.  To wit, GDP = Federal Spending + Nonfederal Spending + Net Exports.  Kinda hard to grow that without sufficiently growing the money supply as well.

Everything else is basically a sideshow, but that said, sometimes sideshows can be significant too.  Take the current Trump Trade War, for example.  This lose-lose, negative-sum game would have been recessionary by now had it not been for the massive growth in the federal deficit occurring at the same time, and eventually it may still cause the next recession in spite of the deficit.  But if the Republicans decide to cut federal spending because of manufactured deficit hysteria, that will cause a far worse recession or depression, on top of the consequences of the trade war.  And Wall Street recklessness can indeed cause financial crises, which of course can have knock-on effects on Main Street as well, as we have seen numerous times already.  Though even that is most likely due to the fact that stock market crashes--or any other asset price crash--will shrink the money supply, all else being equal.  And that is especially true when there is a "credit crunch" where banks suddenly refuse to lend as much as before, as we have seen in the wake of both the 1929 and 2008 stock market crashes (but not 1987).

What about oil and gasoline prices?  True, 10 out of the past 11 recessions have been preceded by sharp increases in fuel prices.  And that makes sense in a country in which oil is the lifeblood of the economy.  But even this is more nuanced than one may think.  Neither increases in interest rates alone nor increases in fuel prices alone seem to be enough to cause a recession by themselves unless such increases are truly extreme, which is very rare.  But the simultaneous combination of significantly large increases in both (that is, a sharp hike in the Fed Funds Rate by more than 2.00-2.50% AND at least a doubling of crude oil prices within a year or two) appears to be sufficient to cause a recession.  Of course, given how rare it is for recessions to not be preceded by cuts in deficit spending, it is not clear if sufficient deficit spending can be enough to prevent an oil-induced recession while interest rates are also hiked to prevent or cure inflation.  But at the very least, increasing federal deficits will cure such recessions once the inflation dragon is defeated.

The Fed recently cut the Fed Funds Rate by 0.25 percentage points (25 basis points), while noting that there would not likely be any more cuts this year.  And the stock market lurched downward upon that announcement, and lurched down again the following day thanks to Trump's further escalation of the trade war, and yet again following China's predictable retaliation.  Cutting interest rates is basically like pushing on a string, and in any case it may be too late to fully prevent the next recession that is largely induced by Trump's trade war.

Overall, we know what causes virtually all recessions and depressions.  That means we also know how to prevent and cure them as well.  That is, when recession hits, or ideally before it hits, we should increase federal deficit spending, or at least refrain from cutting it.  It's really not rocket science.

Enough Is Enough Already! (Yet Again)

Another day, another horrible mass shooting.  This time, it was in fact TWO mass shootings within 24 hours:  one in El Paso, Texas, followed by another in Dayton, Ohio, and so far at least the first one (if not the second as well) appeared to be fueled by racism, xenophobia, and white nationalism (much like the one at the garlic festival in Gilroy, California just days prior).  These two shootings are among the deadliest in this country's history, but in context with the numerous other recent mass shootings it otherwise seems disturbingly banal.  Seems that mass shootings in general have become an almost daily occurrence in recent years, and school shootings in particular an almost weekly occurrence--in the USA at least.  So far there have been 251 mass shootings in 2019 alone.   But the rest of the industrialized world doesn't really seem to have this kind of problem, even in countries where racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism and hate groups in general are rife.  Why is that?  Well, there's always....

GUNS.

America is the land of 300 million guns, and combined with a culture that is crazier and more violent than most other "developed" countries, and much more extreme inequality, it is a very lethal combination indeed.  And some states, most notably Florida and Texas, but also Pennsylvania as well, have particularly lax gun laws compared to other states.  Of course, the biggest elephant in the room is the fact that at least 98% of mass shooters are MEN.  Thanks to the patriarchy and the sort of "toxic masculinity" that it creates, combined with the above factors, too many men end up resorting to violence.  Like the Iron Maiden song says, "a briefcase, a lunch, and a man on the edge".  With a gun. I mean, what could possibly go wrong, right?

There should be no doubt at this point that something needs to be done.  However, we do not believe that banning all guns for everyone, or adopting British or European-style gun laws, is the solution, as the genie is already out of the bottle, and there is also that whole Constitution thingy as well.  Thus, the TSAP recommends that the following measures be taken:

1. Bring back a new and improved 1994 assault-weapons ban yesterday, this time with more teeth.  This time, include all rapid-fire devices and all magazines with more than ten rounds in the ban as well as the previously-banned types of semi-automatic rifles and their knockoffs.
2. Remove the 20-year ban on gun violence research, yesterday. 
3. End the gun-show loophole and implement universal background checks, yesterday.
4. Put a significant excise tax on all bullets/ammo, like Chris Rock recommended. (Seriously)
5. Treat ammo sales the same as gun sales.  Or better yet, treat bullets like Sudafed:  must show ID, limit on the number that one can buy, the number bought would be recorded, and if you do buy too many, you will be investigated.
6. Pass a "one gun a month" law at the federal level.  And consider perhaps putting a limit on the number of guns that an individual can own at a given time, except for antiques/relics/curios.
7. Require reporting of lost or stolen guns.
8. Regulate firearms like other consumer products in terms of health and safety standards--currently such standards are nonexistent.
9. Improve enforcement of existing gun laws, which tend not to be enforced very well these days, and improve state reporting of prohibited persons to NICS.  Also, prohibit anyone on the terrorism watch list from buying any guns, period--and consider hate groups to be domestic terrorists as well.
10. Consider a massive gun buyback program, one that pays significantly more than what the guns are worth on the street.  Voluntary for any still-legal weapons, mandatory for any newly-banned ones. 
11. And last but not least, improve our woefully-inadequate mental healthcare system.

Of course, to truly solve our gun violence problem would require a fundamental overhaul and transformation of our society, which the TSAP clearly supports.  We need to go from being what Riane Eisler calls a "dominator" society to more of a "partnership" society, as the latter kind is far less violent overall.   But in the meantime, the aforementioned recommendations would go a long way towards taking the dangerous edge off of the problem. 

And like other cases of domestic terrorism, these were most likely due to a combination of toxic masculinity, easy access to deadly weapons (especially the obligatory semi-automatic AR-15, AK-47, or their knockoffs), and a virulent racism and xenophobia fueled by the so-called "alt-right" (read: white supremacists, KKK, and neo-Nazis) as well as the Trump administration that nods, winks, and looks the other way (when they aren't stoking the fire themselves like Trump himself apparently had done recently).  Regardless of the motive, the first two factors are absolutely essential for virtually all mass shootings.   To be clear, these atrocities are, even more disturbingly, NOT isolated incidents or flukes, but the tip of a very large iceberg of hate and violence that appears to be getting worse in recent years.

I don't know about you, but my favorite part of the Second Amendment is where it says "well-regulated". Too bad so many Republican Congresscritters who are bought and paid for by the NRA can't seem to read the first half of the freaking sentence.  Oh, and nevermind that when it was written, guns at that time fired at most one round per minute, not 600+ per minute like so many of today's killing machines.  Not like the gun lobby and their lackeys really do nuance.

It's (Still) Mueller Time!

The Russiagate scandal, along with Trump's other myriad scandals, is not going away anytime soon.  And after Mueller testified to Congress, he made it clear that Trump was NOT exonerated, particularly for the high crime of obstruction of justice, though under current Justice Deparment rules a sitting president cannot be indicted.  Thus, Congress needs to impeach him.  And Nancy Pelosi really needs to stop dithering about it and get the ball rolling yesterday.

We Still Condemn Trump's Deplorable Immigration Policy

Trump's deplorable immigration policy is only getting worse it seems.  While the administration has supposedly stopped separating undocumented children from their parents at the border, the children thay have been separated already have still not been reunited.  And as there is currently a crisis at the border with all of the recent asylum seekers, they are increasingly being detained in deplorable conditions without adequate food, water, and sanitation.   We literally have innocent children being treated worse than convicted felons in this country.

And yes, "concentration camps" is the correct term, since the dictionary definition is "the mass detention of civilans without trial".   So it looks like AOC is apparently spot-on.  This is how it started in 1930s Germany, after all--first they had detention camps, then slave-labor camps, and only from 1941 onward did they have extermination (death) camps.

Look, it is clear that a lot of people don't like the term "concentration camps".  Maybe we should call them "torture camps" instead, given that what all too often occurs in them meets the internationally recognized definition of torture, especially when it involves children.  Or perhaps we should call them "Trump Camps" to guarantee that historians forever attach their memory to his name and vile and disgusting legacy, while ironically giving him a perverse ego boost without him even seeing the irony.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration is planning even more ICE raids for the purpose of deporting more and more undocumented immigrants, including those who have been living here for years or decades and have no criminal records.

Clearly, such cruelty for cruelty's sake has NOT been any sort of deterrent, as the number of illegal border crossings has gone from the lowest it has been in years in much of 2017 to the highest it has been in decades by March 2019.  Let that sink in.

That kinda backfired, didn't it?  Meanwhile, the 100% preventable illnesses, injuries, and deaths of both children and adults in these camps just keep piling up every day that goes by.  We can no longer call our country a "shining city on a hill" anymore as long as this continues.  Even the late Ronald Reagan (who coined both that phrase, as well as the MAGA slogan, by the way) must be spinning in his grave right now.

To be sure, the crisis at the border does not have any easy, ready-made solutions at this point, and certainly requires thinking outside the box.  Ideally, all immigrants should come in through the proper channels legally.  But the system is currently broken, and when those proper channels are blocked off by the powers that be, for political reasons, clearly something has to give as a result.  And the train has basically left the station at this point.

Don't look away.  This is how it starts, people.  The banality of evil, and "we were just following orders" and "the law is the law".  So where's the long-overdue outrage?  Remember, the only thing it takes for evil to prosper, is for good people to do nothing.  Seriously.

No War With Iran!

After the recent attacks on oil tankers in the Sea of Oman and Strait of Hormuz by an unknown attacker, Trump and his warmongering cronies are now hastily blaming Iran for these attacks.  But there is plenty of reason to believe they are being, shall we say, "economical with the truth".

The timing alone is suspicious, as Trump has every reason to "wag the dog" to deflect from his ever-mounting scandals including, but not limited to, Russiagate.  Also, the evidence is lacking and what little there is, just doesn't really seem to add up.  And we know that Trump has been hell-bent on provoking Iran ever since pulling out of the nuclear deal last year.  Time will tell, of course, but this really has "false flag" written all over it.

Besides, going to war with Iran would most likely be a disaster of epic proportions, and certainly not something to take lightly.   And even if Iran does somehow turn out to be the culprit, the fact remains that the ships attacked were not even American tankers (they were Norwegian and Japanese), and fully zero Americans were harmed in the process.  In fact, this was apparently a "property damage only" (PDO) incident.  So let's NOT fall for this would-be modern-day Gulf of Tonkin incident and get sucked into yet another decades-long quagmire again.

The best foreign policy can be summed up in four words:  "first, do no harm".  Seriously, this is not a game, and the stakes have never been higher now.

UPDATE:  Just a few days later on June 20, Iran confirmed that they shot down an unmanned American spy drone (again, PDO) that they claim was flying in their airspace, while the Trump administration claims it was over international waters.  Time will tell who is telling the truth, perhaps even both if, for example, it turns out that the drone entered Iranian airspace first but was subsequently shot down over international waters.  Maritime borders can be tricky and nuanced.  Regardless, this is still not a good reason to go to war with Iran.

It is exceeding unlikely that the Orange Cheeto in Chief actually wants a shooting war with Iran.  He himself has said as much.  He would rather just bluff to make himself look tough while distracting from his myriad scandals closing in on him in the late stage of his failed presidency.   And his puppetmaster Putin apparently doesn't want him to go to war with his buddy Iran, either.  But now that Iran apparently called his bluff, and Bolton and Pompeo are still itching for war, the United States is now in a very precarious situation thanks to Trump's stupid bear-poking saber-rattling routines, and a war may still happen inadvertently in spite of him canceling it at the last minute.  He is clearly like a crackhead playing with matches and gasoline, and every day he seems more and more unfit for the office of dogcatcher, let alone for the office of the Presidency.

Take Back The Flag

Just pointing out that today is Flag Day.  But this blog looks no different today because we display the Stars and Stripes every day (albeit inverted ever since Trump took office, as our nation is in distress).

To all the ignorant fools who burn it, remember what it is that you're really burning, and all those that fought and died for it. Those who consider themselves to be on the political left would be better served by "taking back the Flag" and waving it proudly, so it is not perverted into an ultra-right-wing symbol by the fascists. Make it clear that the government policies you oppose are not in the national interest. And let everyone know that you can just as strongly love this country as you fear its government.  In fact, plenty of true patriots often do feel that way, and as Jefferson once said, "dissent is the highest form of patriotism."

The Flag is not Republican, Democrat, liberal, conservative, or belonging to any other faction. It is the American Flag, and it belongs to all of us.  Live free or die!

How To Prevent--And Cure--The Next (Or Any) Recession Or Depression

With a recession likely coming later this year or next year at the latest, it is important to realize the causes so such recessions can be cured or even prevented in the first place.  Enter Rodger Malcolm Mitchell, the guru of Monetary Sovereignty, penned this important and timely article.

He notes that every single recession and virtually every depression in history has been preceded by a cut in federal deficit spending, or worse, a federal surplus.  That is not coincidence, since cutting the federal deficit slows the growth of the money supply, and surpluses actually shrink the money supply, all else being equal.  (Federal deficit spending = spending new dollars into existence.)  A growing economy requires a growing supply of money, and when the money supply fails to keep up with the demand for money for too long, the economy reacts by shrinking.  Thus, barring a truly massive increase in private debt (i.e. more money lent into existence by banks) deficit cuts ultimately result in recessions and surpluses result in depressions or at least really long and deep recessions.  And recessions and depressions can only be cured by increasing the money supply dramatically, typically by increasing federal deficit spending.  That's it.

And this makes perfect sense, since GDP is literally nothing more than a money measure.  To wit, GDP = Federal Spending + Nonfederal Spending + Net Exports.  Kinda hard to grow that without sufficently growing the money supply as well.

Everything else is basically a sideshow, but that said, sometimes sideshows can be significant too.  Take the current Trump Trade War, for example.  This lose-lose, negative-sum game would have been recessionary by now had it not been for the massive growth in the federal deficit occurring at the same time, and eventually it may still cause the next recession in spite of the deficit.  But if the Republicans decide to cut federal spending because of manufactured deficit hysteria, that will cause a far worse recession or depression, on top of the consequences of the trade war.  And Wall Street recklessness can indeed cause financial crises, which of course can have knock-on effects on Main Street as well, as we have seen numerous times already.  Though even that is most likely due to the fact that stock market crashes--or any other asset price crash--will shrink the money supply, all else being equal.  And that is especially true when there is a "credit crunch" where banks suddenly refuse to lend as much as before, as we have seen in the wake of both the 1929 and 2008 stock market crashes (but not 1987).

What about oil and gasoline prices?  True, 10 out of the past 11 recessions have been preceded by sharp increases in fuel prices.  And that makes sense in a country in which oil is the lifeblood of the economy.  But even this is more nuanced than one may think.  Neither increases in interest rates alone nor increases in fuel prices alone seem to be enough to cause a recession by themselves unless such increases are truly extreme, which is very rare.  But the simultaneous combination of significantly large increases in both (that is, a sharp hike in the Fed Funds Rate by more than 2.00-2.50% AND at least a doubling of crude oil prices within a year or two) appears to be sufficient to cause a recession.  Of course, given how rare it is for recessions to not be preceded by cuts in deficit spending, it is not clear if sufficient deficit spending can be enough to prevent an oil-induced recession while interest rates are also hiked to prevent or cure inflation.  But at the very least, increasing federal deficits will cure such recessions once the inflation dragon is defeated.

Overall, we know what causes virtually all recessions and depressions.  That means we also know how to prevent and cure them as well.  That is, when recession hits, or ideally before it hits, we should increase federal deficit spending, or at least refrain from cutting it.  It's really not rocket science.

The Best Way To Honor Our Fallen Heroes

This Memorial Day, and any other day of the year for that matter, the best way to honor our fallen heroes is to stop making more of them, as blogger Dave Hitt famously noted.  We need to bring our troops home and stop sending more and more of our servicemembers to these unnecessary wars of choice.  And of course, our Veterans need to be properly cared for as well, something that, with few exceptions, both corporate duopoly parties in government have consistently failed to do for decades now.

Let us now take a moment of silence for our fallen heroes who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our country.

What The (Latest) Right-Wing Attack On Women's Reproductive Rights Is Really About (Hint: It's NOT The Sanctity Of Life)

In recent weeks, the long-standing right-wing assault on women's reproductive rights has heated up dramatically.  Now that there are enough right-wing reactionary judges on the Supreme Court to seriously endanger Roe v. Wade, several states have passed increasingly restrictive abortion laws.  It did not stop with the TRAP laws, bizarre restrictions, and attempts to defund Planned Parenthood years ago.  And it will NOT stop with the latest "heartbeat" laws in Missouri, Ohio, and Georgia, or with Alabama's near-absolute BAN on abortion either.  And if unchecked, it will NOT stop with overturning Roe v. Wade (and Doe v. Bolton) either, since after that, Griswold v. Connecticut and Eisenstadt v. Baird (the cases that legalized birth control) is ultimately in their sights as well.

Now you see why they were in such a rush to get Brett Kavanaugh confirmed despite the cloud of sexual assault (including attempted rape) allegations hanging over his head.  But why the recent push to ultimately eradicate women's reproductive rights NOW?  Why has it become so feverish, more so than usual?  It is no coincidence that Alabama's draconian abortion ban was signed into law on the same day that it was announced that the birth rate, particularly the total fertility rate (TFR), had apparently dropped to a new low for the USA:  1.728 children per woman. Granted it is not the only reason, but the panic among both the religulous reich as well as the corporate oligarchy is certainly palpable, since capitalism depends on growth for the sake of growth, the ideology of the cancer cell that eventually kills its host, by the way.  It's basically one giant Ponzi scheme, with patriarchy as its main protection racket.

What we are witnessing is a sort of "birth strike" by American women, and even men as well, particularly of the Millennial generation.   Given the outrageous cost of living these days, and especially the cost of raising even one child (let alone two or more), lack of social support for parents and a fraying social safety net in general, stagnant wages, a hollowed-out middle class, and the massive albatross of student loan debt, it actually makes perfect sense.  They are the ones who are actually thinking rationally here.

And contrary to what the naysayers may claim, that is actually a very GOOD thing on balance.  The world is grossly overpopulated and in serious ecological overshoot, and Americans' truly elephantine ecological footprint per capita due to our massive pollution and overconsumption of resources only makes it that much more important to reduce birthrates in the USA relative to the rest of the world.  And such grave ecological concerns greatly dwarf any social and economic concerns about population aging and other consequences of low birthrates.  Especially since with a Monetarily Sovereign government like our own federal government, money is literally no object when it comes to things like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and things like that--the government can literally only go broke if they choose to.  And our addiction to economic growth is also part of the problem in terms of ecological sustainability, so that fear needs to be jettisoned at once as well.

In fact, one recent study finds the ideal TFR in terms of standards of living overall is in fact in the 1.5-2.0 range, basically the same as what the TSAP has long advocated since our founding nearly a decade ago in 2009.  Yes, really.  Take that, birth dearthers!

Of course, it is not all wine and roses either.  The very same New York Times article that we referenced in a previous post does note that both women and men are on average having fewer kids than their own self-reported ideal numbers, primarly due to economic reasons.  Part of the decline in fertility is due to Millennial women having more choices than previous generations, of course, but at the same time those choices are severely constrained by economics.  Our nation has a truly abysmal record of providing paid family leave, high-quality childcare, and social safety net benefits in general compared to most other modern and even semi-modern countries.  And in spite of increasing gender equality in many ways, the modern workplace remains both largely male-dominated and male-defined, and thus stuck in the past in terms of work-life balance.  And while the perennial fears of low birthrates are largely overblown, it is still entirely possible that if they eventually fall to extremely low levels (such as Japan's 1.2-1.4 over the past two decades) and remain that low for decades at a time, we may very well hit a "pothole" on the road to sustainability.  So there is still plenty of room for improvement in that regard, even if current TFRs are right where they should be.  And besides, it is simply the right thing to do regardless of fertility rates and any concerns about such numbers.

If the pro-lifers and pro-natalists really cared, they would instantly advocate not only very generous paid family leave and subsidized (if not free), high-quality childcare, but would also support things like Universal Basic Income (UBI) to eliminate poverty (especially child poverty) while also (partially) compensating the unpaid work of mothers (and some fathers as well).  They would also advocate better quality education from pre-K through post-grad, also free, as opposed to currently trying to kill the entire public education system via death by a thousand cuts.  They would advocate better work-life balance for both women AND men, higher minimum wages, and especially shortening the workweek (what's the point of having kids if you are never going to see them?).  And they would also advocate single-payer Medicare For All.  But do you see them advocating any of those things?  Of course not.  Gee, I wonder why.

So can you really blame young people for effectively going on a (partial) reproductive strike given the world we currently live in?  Of course not.

The best way to sum things up:  Want us Millennials to have (more) kids?  Give us a quarter-million dollars, then we'll talk.  Because that's about how much it costs on average to raise a child from birth through age 18--and that doesn't even include college.  And besides, our Mother Earth will truly thank us in the long run.  Otherwise, silence is golden.  Capisce?

The Mueller Report Is Out--And Even The Redacted Version Is A Lot More Damning Than Trump Wants You To Believe

Well, the much anticipated Mueller Report is out now, and even the redacted version is a LOT more damning than Trump or Barr want anyone to believe.  Seriously.  While it is ostensibly inconclusive about Trump's personal participation in the Russian hacking and interference, the three most important words in the entire 400+ page report are "does NOT exonerate", particularly in relation to the high crime of obstruction of justice. And even the inconclusiveness was largely due 1) important evidence apparently being deleted/destroyed by some of the major players in the Russiagate scandal, and 2) apparent duress, however subtle, to one degree or another, from the Justice Department under Trump.

I mean, this is the very same Donald Trump who unceremoniously fired FBI Director James Comey, then forced Attorney General Jeff Sessions to resign, and even tried to fire Robert Mueller himself--all because he wanted the ever-growing Russiagate investigation to just go away already.  Ipse dixit--he himself said it, after all.  If that is not a textbook example of obstruction of justice, and one that would make even Tricky Dick Nixon himself blush, in fact, I really don't know what is anymore.

And that is just the redacted version!  In other words, Trump is NOT out of the woods yet, if ever.  His fate now rests in the hands of Congress, as well as the Southern District of New York, who is now led by Attorney General Letitia James.  So Donald, if I were you, I would do us all a YUUUGE favor and RESIGN, yesterday.  Then pray that you don't ultimately end up behind bars, because I doubt they would take very kindly to the likes of you in the big house.

Here's A Novel Idea: Just Abolish It Already!

Now that a federal judge recently struck down as unconstitutional the longstanding requirement that only men, and not women, have to register for Selective Service (aka the draft), its legal status is in limbo until the Supreme Court sorts it out.  Some believe that the best solution is to expand it to include women, and that does indeed make sense from a gender equality perspective.  But here is an even better solution:  just abolish it already, period.

The United States has not had an active draft since it was officially abolished in 1973, at the end of the Vietnam War, and for good reason:  it no longer made any sense.  Following that, the requirement to register for Selective Service was subsequently ended in 1975, pushing the Selective Service System into "deep standby", which was essentially complete hibernation.  After all, it makes no sense to have registration if there is no active draft or chance for one in the near future, right?  Such hibernation lasted until 1980, when President Carter reactivated the registration requirement--but not the draft itself--in order to, in his own words, "send a signal to the Russians" since the Cold War looked like it was (briefly) heating up a bit once again.  Fair enough.

But here we are now in 2019, and the largely symbolic registration requirement still remains in effect, and for what, exactly?  It is basically an antiquated relic from a time when given the technology (or lack thereof) of the day, it may have been perhaps a bit more difficult to quickly reactivate a draft even if truly necessary.  But even in 1980, and with relatively puny enforcement, the registration system was back up and running within a matter of months despite being idle for five years.  And today if they really wanted to, even without registration, the government could literally find anyone they wanted to draft from all of the many other databases that already exist.  That method may have a bit more friction to it, of course, but a little bit of friction for something with that much gravitas is really not a bad thing.

And the odds of an active draft ever being reinstated in the foreseeable future are almost nil given today's technology and the increasingly professional nature of the US Armed Forces.  Even if we run very short of troops, we can simply pay them more and we will be thus able to meet our recruiting goals.  And if we still can't meet our goals, we should really question the wisdom of whatever war(s) we happen to be fighting at that time, and exactly whose interests are really being served.  To put it bluntly, a country that needs a draft to defend itself deserves to lose, and in a truly just war, conscription would be unnecessary since volunteers would surely be plentiful.

(Some would note exceptions, of course, but those very rare exceptions only prove the rule.)

Therefore, the TSAP believes that registration requirement be abolished at once and the Selective Service System be put back into the hibernation of "deep standby" just like it was in 1975-1980.  And if they like, they can also update the law currently on the books to include women in the event it is ever reactivated in the future.  But make no mistake, the TSAP has never, and will never, support a draft--unless of course you mean the "consensual conscription" idea that we have floated before in which all wars longer than 90 days are put up to a popular vote, and only "yes" voters (and perhaps followed by abstainers) would get drafted.  That's about as fair as it gets.  Otherwise, we unequivocally say, as they famously said back in the day:

"HELL NO, WE WON'T GO!"

and, as the late Major General Smedley Butler famously said,

"TO HELL WITH WAR!"

Ruh Roh. The Yield Curve Just Inverted

Yesterday, on March 22, 2019, the yield curve inverted for the first time since 2007.  Specifically, the spread between the 3-month Treasury and the 10-year Treasury has flattened and then flipped:  short-term yields are now higher than long-term yields, the reverse of what is normally the case.  It is a leading indicator of a coming recession, since it basically means that investors are becoming so bearish that they would rather lock in current interest rates as they expect rates to drop significantly in the near future rather than continue rising further.  And since it typically precedes the onset of a recession by 6 to 18 months on average, it means that the odds of a 2019 or 2020 recession are looking very, very likely.

And while the stock market seemed to be rebounding from the December mini-crash of 2018, it now seems to be once again teetering on the edge of the Big One, the coming Crash of 2019.  And with Trump's tariffs and resulting trade war really starting to bite hard recently, leading to GM and Ford both announcing layoffs, and American soybean farmers getting creamed, things really don't look so hot right now.

In Bernie we TRUST, in Trump we RUST.  Tired of "winning" yet?  Hey, American Brexit, now do you finally Regrexit?

What MMT Gets Wrong, And Monetary Sovereignty Gets Right (Part Deux)

Recently, we wrote an article discussing the theoretical and practical differences between Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) and Monetary Sovereignty (MS).  But still, some may wonder why there is essentially no correlation between deficit spending and inflation, at least not in the post-gold standard era and not even during WWII.

Surely there must be some connection, right?  Well, there technically is, but essentially only at the extremes.  Why?  Because of the "velocity of money", spending (sources of dollars) need NOT be symmetrical with taxes (sinks of excess dollars), only that enough dollars are clawed back in the long run (with the definiton of "enough" being quite elastic).  And as the velocity of money increases along with actual or potential inflation, so too does the tax take, narrowing the gap between sources and sinks.

For example, if the velocity of money factor is 7 (i.e. newly created dollars changing hands seven times on average, before being destroyed), spending can theoretically exceed tax revenues at any given time by up to a whopping factor of seven (!) before the excesses begin to accumulate year after year to the point where inflation increases when demand for goods and services grows much faster than supply, all else being equal.  Of course, the velocity will vary, and all else may not be equal, but that only makes it even more of an automatic stabilizer overall.

(Of course, it sure didn't hurt that during WWII, taxes were collected in real time (i.e. withholding) and the tax base was greatly broadened as well, despite record-high yawning deficits.)

And of course, another major sink is the FERAL Reserve draining excess bank reserves, while raising interest rates increases the demand for dollars and thus the relative value of dollars.  And paying down debts of any kind is another major sink as well.  And of course, a growing economy requires a growing supply of money, just to prevent recession and/or deflation, so the sources can still exceed sinks of all kinds by quite a large margin before inflation begins to bite, and we are currently nowhere near that point.

And of course, banks create money out of "thin air" all the time every time they make loans.  The difference is they don't create the interest that is owed, which must come from somewhere when it is paid back.  And if this were the only method of money creation (which it would be, if federal "deficit" spending money into existence interest-free were zero or negative, that is, a so-called "balanced budget" or "surplus"), then there would NEVER be enough money to pay it back, leading to net destruction and artificial scarcity of money.  And that would be VERY harmful for any economy--it was, after all what turned the mild-at-first 1929 recession into the full-blown Great Depression by the time 1930 had come and gone.

So it's no wonder we don't see any robust correlation between deficit spending  (i.e. money creation) and inflation in either the short or long run.  Thus, another myth bites the dust.

We Wholeheartedly Condemn The New Zealand Shooting

"On March 15, 2019, a horrific racist, xenophobic, and Islamophobic hate crime and act of terrorism shook New Zealand as well as the world.  A white supremacist hatemongering terrorist launched a deadly attack on two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, killing 49 people and injuring countless others, including children, who were worshipping in those mosques.  Horrible as this unprecedentedly deadly mass shooting was, it would likely have been far worse still had the terrorist been able to set off his many bombs as well.  And we wholeheartedly condemn this horrific and cowardly act of hate and terrorism, and all other such acts as well as the virulent ideologies, including white nationalism, racism, xenophobia, and Islamophobia, that inspire and lead to such senseless violence."

This was literally all that Trump and his sycophantic lackeys would need to have said to avoid being unnecessarily tainted (as much) by having somehow inspired such horrific and hateful violence with his own virulently hateful rhetoric against (non-white) immigrants, refugees, and especially Muslims.  (Which, by the way, his rhetoric apparently DID inspire in part, according to the killer's own rambling manifesto.)  But apparently the Donald can't even do that, preferring instead to just punt on the issue altogether and give the usual pat answers.  And that, ladies and gentlemen is, in a word, "Sad!".