Borrow and Hope – for the Planet?

Guest post by Barry Brill,

If the Earth is cooking, does it really matter how much money we borrow or print to cool it down? If we fail, we won’t even be here to pay it back. If it works, there will be plenty of profits and taxes to get the economy back in balance.

Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) is the Holy Grail for those well-intentioned folk on the left of politics who look at our world through dark-tinted glasses.

They blame a heartless capitalist system for poverty, joblessness, inequality and other economic, social and environmental ills. They give very scant credit to that system for the sharp global improvement in all these areas over recent decades. 

The left grieve that so many worthwhile projects are binned because sympathetic governments just don’t have enough money. Their long-standing reputation for “borrow and hope” policies is well earned.

This might all change with a 2020 bestseller from MTT high-priestess, Stephanie Kelton: The Deficit Myth : Modern Monetary Theory and the Birth of the People’s Economy.   As explained in its Amazon blurb:

Kelton busts through the myths that prevent us from taking action: that the federal government should budget like a household, that deficits will harm the next generation, that deficits crowd-out private investment and undermine long-term growth, that entitlements are propelling us toward a grave fiscal crisis.

MMT, as Kelton shows, shifts the terrain from narrow budgetary questions to one of broader economic and social benefits. With its important new ways of understanding money, taxes, and the critical role of deficit spending, MMT redefines how to responsibly use our resources so that we can maximize our potential as a society. MMT gives us the power to imagine a new politics and a new economy and move from a narrative of scarcity to one of opportunity.

Sounds wonderful – but, there’s a catch. It’s the curse of inflation.

Keynes v Friedman

A handful of economists (chartalists) have long argued that government debt need not cause inflation, so long as governments have the sovereign power to raise future taxes large enough to repay that debt. These thinkers influenced Keynesian ideas on the role of the state in the economy.

The view that “whatever is physically possible and desirable should be financially possible” has obvious attractions. In the 1930s, it was taken up politically as Social Credit, a cult that still has its followers.

By the 1970s, decades of Keynesian policies in the developed word had culminated in global inflation. The figurehead opponent of those policies, Milton Friedman, famously contended that: “Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon in the sense that it is and can be produced only by a more rapid increase in the quantity of money than in output.” 

The long-running debate between Keynesians and Friedmanites was eventually won by the latter. Friedman was awarded the Nobel prize for economic sciences in 1976. His ‘Chicago School’ view of macroeconomics was adopted by Reagan in the USA and Thatcher in the UK, and soon followed by others. Understandably, it came to be associated with centre-right politics.    

Economic Transformation

But the centre-left has now come roaring back. Keynes was too timid, say the modern left, who have now signed up to neo-chartalist theory. They demand an “economic transformation” that uses government credit to revamp and reform every single aspect of the economy, replacing them all with planned systems that are more equal and just.

MM Theorists say a really ambitious acceleration of government borrowing would uncover hidden slack in the economy. Added demand can create its own added supply, so that output keeps pace with the rapidly increasing money supply.

More convincingly, MMTers also say it’s been tried and it worked. The template is FDR’s war economy of 1941-44, as per this graph:

US Debt as a percentage of GDP

SOURCE: CBO

The MTT is nowadays better known as the “Green New Deal”, on the fudged  premise that the previous peak in government borrowing facilitated Roosevelt’s New Deal in the 1930s. The graph belies that date-shifting euphemism. In reality, the prior peak was curated for the the bloodiest of wars.

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in The Telegraph Economic Intelligence newsletter points out that, during WWII: “Roosevelt’s military-industrial expansion tightened the labour market and lifted wages, leading to the most dramatic fall in income inequality in US history. It ushered in the ‘social democrat’ era of the American Dream”.

This is the effect that President Biden now seeks to emulate – with his $1,900 billion ‘extra stimulus package’ along with the $2,000 billion ‘renewables’ package that energized his election platform.

And these elephantine figures come atop an estimated overhang of $1.6 trillion of extra household savings built up during the pandemic. If this gets spent as life returns to normal, America is heading for an explosive burst of growth. Goldman Sachs has pencilled in 6.8pc this year, Oxford Economics 7pc, and Moody’s Analytics 8pc.

“Today the mobilisation is against carbon rather than fascism. But the economic effects are comparable [to World War II]. That at least is the theory,” says Evans-Pritchard.

Risks and Taxes

The detail of MMT turns traditional macroeconomic theory on its head in multiple ways. While some academic economists engage in arcane debates, most say they can’t even follow the theory and point to its lack of either empirical or mathematical underpinning.

A 2019 survey of leading economists showed a unanimous rejection of assertions attributed to MMT. Leading leftist Paul Krugman says MMT devotees change the rules at whim, while Larry Summers called it the new “voodoo economics”.

Says the Economist:

“This strangeness is partly a result of MMT scholars’ unconventional idiom. Speaking with MMT’s adherents is sometimes like watching a football match with friends who insist the ball remains stationary while every other element in the game, including the pitch and goalposts, moves around it.

If the theory doesn’t pan out in practice, most sceptics think runaway inflation can be the only outcome.  Not so, say the MMTers – the financial imbalance can be fixed by higher taxation – ie new carbon and wealth taxes and unprecedented high rates for existing taxes.

Stephanie Kelton likens the economy to a sink basin, with Congress as the tap and money as the water – if the basin overflows, Congress has only to loosen the plug with new taxes to lower the water level.

There is a massive risk that the entire ‘economic transformation’ welter of words will build down to raising unprecedented levels of taxation in the hope of extinguishing inequality. Meet the new socialism, same as the old socialism.

Induced Consent

Throughout the English-speaking world[1] all centre-left parties have recently campaigned on the basis of “economic transformation” – but not on the basis of a new and unproven funny-money theory. Instead, the codewords are always used in tandem with climate change policies.

Poverty and racial/gender injustice would be overcome, and inequality would be eradicated – but all as a by-product of a “just transition” to a decarbonised economy. Every facet of the economy would have to be reinvented to track down all those pesky greenhouse gases.

‘There is no alternative (TINA)’ is a time-honored political technique. It is a sophisticated version of HL Mencken’s famous 1918 dictum: “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.”

If you believed that climate change was threatening the very existence of the human race (as leftist politicians claim) what would you do about it?  The only reasonable answer is “whatever it takes”.  Take huge risks? Well, of course – if the alternative is to be oblivion.

This unlikely story was made respectable by the UN’s Agenda for Sustainable Development : Transforming Our World. A by-product of that plan is the many-fold enlargement the UN’s role, and its perpetual goal of ever-closer union at the trans-national level.

For those who mistrusted the UN, there was support from multinational business leaders in the form of the “Great Reset of Capitalism” promoted vigorously by Davos Man[2]. And this in turn was an outcome of relentless pressure from the worldwide finance and banking industry over several years.

A few views from the world’s foremost financiers:

  • The climate transition presents a historic investment opportunity,” says BlackRock’s Larry Fink.
  • Net-zero investments are “one of the greatest commercial opportunities of our time,” ex-central banker Mark Carney declared.
  • It would be a mistake to underestimate the size of the cleantech opportunity,said venture capitalist John Doerr (who has appointed Al Gore as a partner).
  • There’s a lot of money to be made in the creation of these new [green] jobs,” chimes in presidential climate envoy John Kerry.

Those heavyweights gave ample cover for the left-wing echo chamber of Hollywood, Silicon Valley and their trend-setting global media – such as The New York Times, the BBC and The Guardian.

Will It Work?

In the name of saving the planet, the USA, and probably most of the developed world, are embarking on the boldest monetary experiment in history. The declared objective is no less than the dismantling and replacement of “every aspect” of the economy.

The economy that is to be replaced is the outcome of evolution over many  generations – for the most part under the ‘invisible hand’ of free market policies.

The audacious intentions may be worthy but the stakes are mind-boggling. Could anything go wrong?

The grand project is based on a cascade of unprovable assumptions:

  • if we continue to power the world with fossil fuels, the global average temperature will rise by 3°C+ within a few decades;
  • this will cause extreme weather, reduce food production and flood coastal regions to an extent that will make the planet barely habitable;
  • the most cost-effective solution to this global warming is the rapid erection of billions of windmills and solar panels at a cost of trillions of dollars;
  • funding of this building boom can be subsidised from uncapped Government borrowing (printing of money) without crowding out private productive capital and without resulting in any material inflation;
  • to the extent that inflation occurs, it can be cured by the Government withdrawing money from the economy with new and increased taxes. Doing that would help remove inequality and would improve the lives of the poor and vulnerable.

Every one of these assumptions is highly dubious. Each has a less than 50:50 chance of proving correct, and the cumulative prospects of a successful outcome  are vanishingly small.

There is a very high probability that the results of the cure will be materially worse than the results of the disease.

Climate Change Apotheosis

For years, perhaps decades, the over-hyping of climate change alarmism has been driving us all towards some such extreme outcome. This is no accident.

Using their own words, Dr Larry Bell has shown that climate policymakers have long  been concerned with redistributing the world’s wealth. He says –

It is way past time to realize that none of this is really about protecting the planet from man-made climate change. It never was,”

The UN’s Christiana Figueres told a Yale audience in 2018:

“We are on the verge of the greatest transformation humanity has ever set itself. We never, as a collective people, all of humanity — we never have decided before with choice and intentionality to do this. We have the chance to re-create the economy, to re-create the world.”

Anxiety about the future weather was a means to an end:

“And instead of feeling despair about climate change, people should feel awe and gratitude at the incredible opportunity to shape humanity’s collective future.

The combination of Covid 19 lockdowns and climate change hysteria, along with the 2020 US elections, have created the perfect storm. An experiment which would have seemed fanciful only a few months ago is now under way.


[1] I am referring to Labor and Green parties in Australia, New Zealand, and UK, the Liberal party in Canada, and Democratic party in USA.

[2] Along with HRH Prince Charles. The World Economic Forum publishes the Davos Agenda in a series of ‘Transformation Maps’ for the guidance of national governments

4.9 16 votes
Article Rating
108 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
DonK31
March 20, 2021 2:06 pm

This sounds quite a bit like the dog who chases the car and finally catches one…now what do I do?

Richard (the cynical one)
March 20, 2021 2:22 pm

Ironically, the Social Credit ‘cult’ held power for many decades in the province of British Columbia as a very conservative coalition, until it morphed into the free enterprise ‘Liberals’, who then lost their moral compass, and have been disgraced and replaced by a socialist/green party.

glen ferrier
Reply to  Richard (the cynical one)
March 21, 2021 3:36 pm

Awe Richard; BC’s Social Credit Party was never part of the social credit movement; it was just a name; the party was a conservative/liberal party.

Cheers,

Speed

commieBob
March 20, 2021 2:35 pm

Venezuela

commieBob
Reply to  commieBob
March 20, 2021 2:50 pm

The answer to that is, “Those guys did it wrong.”

The answer to that is this. Find a single example where anyone successfully implemented a Marxist economy.

This reminds me of Taoist immortality potions. There was the observation that, no matter what you do to mercury, it always comes back in the same form. So, logically, immortality potions should be based on mercury.

When someone died early after taking an immortality potion, the reason was always that he did it wrong. It took centuries for folks to figure out how bogus that is.

Reply to  commieBob
March 21, 2021 4:46 am

Bob, my bruh, you do realise Venezuela’s economic crisis is WHOLLY the result of American economic warfare on them, right? I promise you, no-one in Venezuela is going “…we just did it wrong…” they are going “…it was good until America decided we are doing it wrong…”
One would think Americans would be aware of the methods they have been using against free countries, now that they are also being openly targeted… Yet you still support the assassinations and ‘colour revolutions’ your Federal Reserve shareholders commit world wide.
Reminds me of the freedom the Yankees spread all over the oil fields; no matter how many people get cancer, the Americans insist that depleted uranium is concentrated democracy… Those shareholders, who are doing all the lending, are doing horrible things in your name, sir, and you go “Venezuela”?

This is why the rest of the world has no sympathy for your current woes;
the schadenfreude is keeping us rolling on the floor, even when we can
see how it also affects us.

Grant
Reply to  paranoid goy
March 21, 2021 9:35 am

That’s some revisionist history. While recent sanctions have further devastated the economy, Venezuela was long on its authoritarian rocket slide into oblivion.
Leftists idiots here are attempting the same thing; the promise of free money, painless borrowing and Euro style benefits without the taxes to support it.

Reply to  Grant
March 21, 2021 9:59 am

“…benefits without the taxes to support it….”
You don’t need to tax your people into poverty if you have the largest oil fields in the world…then American corporations start complaining about unfair competition because they are not allowed to take all that lovely moolah for themselves… Look at how Denmark suddenly has trouble to finance education since they allowed oil companies to “invest”, instead of running it as a public enterprise as always before.
The difference between Chavez and your Yankee liberals? Venezuela funded their public programmes from oil income, your liberals want to do it by borrowing money from banksters. It really is not the same thing. Why are Americans so blind to such simple concepts?
I just understood: You are seeing your system crumbling, but because you have been raised to BELIEVE in the Dream, you are morally, spiritually, hormonally driven to defend your reality. You ain’t stupid, you are invested! The rest of the world prays for you, I guess.

Drake
Reply to  paranoid goy
March 21, 2021 3:51 pm

” Venezuela funded their public programmes from oil income”

Until the incompetence of the dictatorial governance placing cronies in charge of the oil fields inevitably lead to the collapse of the system. The destruction started when Perez “nationalized” the oil facilities. Chavez accelerated the incompetence within the industry and Maduro is following after Chavez. Mexico, the same, they have lots of oil but can’t run the business.

Apparently you have someone who will ensure you stay above the peasants. That can be the only reason anyone would support socialist control of the means of production of anything, they have a pass to the head of the line. OR they are just morons.

BTW, all of this is well documented but wiki has most of the info as “disputed” as I am sure you, as a leftist, would dispute it.

BTW #2: when will Venezuela repay the investors who developed the fields they stole?

BTW #3, The failure of socialism is ALWAYS due to the cronies not being competent and not removed from their positions when they fail. Not WHAT you know but WHO you know.

Reply to  Drake
March 22, 2021 1:10 am

I see you came to your senses around 3:53pm a bit lower down?

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  paranoid goy
March 21, 2021 10:45 am

You really should go back on your meds. Your posts are absolutely astounding.

Reply to  Trying to Play Nice
March 21, 2021 11:09 am

That the best you can do? This is not high school, where you obviously bully kids by calling them stupid names… Or are you taking revenge on your bullies now, feeling safe in the company of your sponsored troll office colleagues?

glen ferrier
Reply to  paranoid goy
March 21, 2021 3:42 pm

Paranoid Dupe; Your causal effect relationships do not stand up to scrutiny.

Cheers

Drake
Reply to  paranoid goy
March 21, 2021 3:53 pm

Yes, the US caused the % of profits from the state run oil companies forwarded to the government to go from near 70% to under40%, not the people running the industry into the ground.

commieBob
Reply to  paranoid goy
March 21, 2021 6:50 pm

Actually, there’s a confounding variable which is fracking. Have you noticed how much less we care about the middle east these days?

America doesn’t need to import oil from anyone. The world is awash in oil. That has affected Venezuela but it has also affected Alberta.

One of the saddest spectacles I have seen in recent years is the Alberta premier going down to the ‘States to try to convince them of Alberta’s green cred so they would continue buying Alberta oil.

Biden canceled Keystone XL. So, is Canada falling to pieces like Venezuela?

Blaming all Venezuela’s problems on America is just a facile excuse. Alberta faces the same kind of problems and then some but it is competently run and is therefore not collapsing in a heap like Venezuela has done.

Reply to  commieBob
March 22, 2021 1:11 am

First, an apology to the site owners for perpetuating this stupid, off-topic argument.

“…the Alberta premier going down to the ‘States to try to convince them…continue buying Alberta oil. Biden canceled Keystone XL. So, is Canada falling to pieces like Venezuela?”

The Keystone thing is, what, two months old, and the premier is already begging for relief? Venezuela has been under attack for decades already. Really not a valid comparison, is it?
We shall have to wait until America institute crippling sanctions on Canada, blockade the sea lanes and send in hit squads to enforce the machine-rigged elections, and, of course, confiscate Canada’s foreign gold reserves and hand it over to some little Bolshevik prig and call him the rightful president of Canada, before we can compare it to Venezuela, not so?
You can start fixing your mess by at least allowing Venezuela to import the tools and spares needed to maintain their oil infrastructure, or you can keep on bleating about how corruption broke the pumps and pipes. Good gad, man, America won’t even allow shipments of medicine or food, sympathetic nations regularly get their ships “impounded” by Yankee warships, because they are “circumventing sanctions”. Not to mention the loaded oil tankers you steal and sell to yourselves!
Venezuela made many mistakes, like neglecting agriculture and manufacturing, but that is not this argument.
As for fracking, observe the storms building up in the lithosphere right now…

Last edited 7 months ago by paranoid goy
commieBob
Reply to  paranoid goy
March 22, 2021 11:24 am

Your knowledge of history is deficient. link

Reply to  commieBob
March 22, 2021 9:21 pm

So you send me a link to a “news” article that articulates Alberta’s grovelling for oil business? How does that relate to my (deficient) knowledge of that thing you call history? Or to this thread?
In other words, your statement is just meant as a slur? Well done.

commieBob
Reply to  paranoid goy
March 23, 2021 2:27 pm

You said:

The Keystone thing is, what, two months old, and the premier is already begging for relief?

The linked article is from 2016.

Alberta has suffered a bigger hit to its revenues than what you cited for Venezuela and for much the same reasons.

Venezuela’s problems are largely the fault of its inept ideologue leadership.

BTW, are you under the mistaken impression that snarky comments make you look smarter?

BCBill
March 20, 2021 2:44 pm

I believe you have described exactly what is going on. There is no other way to understand the complete betrayal of the scientific process with regards to climate, Covids, plastics in the environment, fake mass extinctions, the insane war against carbon, the relentless attacks on Western culture, the mischaracterization of police violence against minorities, the failure of the medical community and others to speak out against nonsensical cultural practises (acupuncture, ayurvedic nonsense, etc) and so on. To bring about change it would appear that the left is willing to first bring chaos. Sadly the left’s track record shows that they only ever get to the bringing chaos phase and then are incapable of anything more.

Reply to  BCBill
March 20, 2021 2:47 pm

Acupuncture is working very well.

MarkW
Reply to  Krishna Gans
March 20, 2021 3:55 pm

There aren’t any scientific studies that show that acupuncture works.

Reply to  MarkW
March 20, 2021 4:07 pm

No, may be, but results I personally know.
Alleregic coryza disappeared completely for years.
A friend sufferd starting in early spring when pollen starts flying around, being really ill. Some preemptive sessions, and since than, he is ok.

MarkW
Reply to  Krishna Gans
March 20, 2021 4:23 pm

The placebo effect is real. If it can’t be tested scientifically then it’s faith, not science.
Acupuncture, climate science, not much difference.

commieBob
Reply to  MarkW
March 20, 2021 5:14 pm

Just because you don’t know how it works, that doesn’t mean it isn’t real.

Good studies of acupuncture are difficult because it’s almost impossible to have a good placebo. That said, there are countless studies of acupuncture and many meta-studies. example

In China, as far as I can tell based on what relatives tell me, actupuncturists are treated like valued members of the health care team with a status akin to that of physiotherapists in our culture.

MarkW
Reply to  commieBob
March 20, 2021 5:51 pm

Studies where one set of people who are treated using the charts of the ancients can be compared to people who are treated using points picked at random.
No difference in the result.
When those who don’t believe in acupuncture are treated, they don’t see any benefit.

There are cultures where those who do horoscope readings are highly valued.

Last edited 7 months ago by MarkW
commieBob
Reply to  MarkW
March 20, 2021 6:23 pm

You say stuff but you almost never present evidence.

From the paper I linked:

… certain studies demonstrated that verum acupuncture had a greater effect than placebo and the mechanisms between a verum acupuncture group and a placebo/sham group were different.

As for your last snide remark, it displays a profound ignorance of China.

Underestimating China is why we’re in danger of China handing us our asses on a plate.

In case anyone thinks I’m an apologist for the current Chinese regime … let’s just say I have deep respect for them, just like I do for polar bears and rattlesnakes (both of which I fear and hate).

MarkW
Reply to  commieBob
March 20, 2021 6:39 pm

Using the fact that some people are highly respected, therefore acupuncture must work isn’t exactly what I would call a scientific statement.

If not believing that acupuncture works mean that I am dissing Chinese culture, then I’m guilty.

commieBob
Reply to  MarkW
March 20, 2021 7:39 pm

That’s not even logical.

What you are dissing is the Chinese medical system with which I’m willing to guess you have zero experience.

observer
Reply to  commieBob
March 20, 2021 8:09 pm

Why would he need experience? He knows from first principles how the human body works, so he “knows” acupuncture doesn’t work. It can’t!

A bit like how climate scientists can build models of the climate – they understand all the underlying first principles, you see! – and accurately forecast temperatures. Allegedly.

Mark W thinks he’s being scientific, but really his beliefs in this regard are purely faith-based.

Acupuncture works. Not always, and not for everyone, but then: neither does Western medicine.

Reply to  commieBob
March 21, 2021 4:51 am

Don’t forget the chinese inventioni far befor year 0
blackpowder, fireworks, compass, to name only three.

ozspeaksup
Reply to  MarkW
March 21, 2021 4:49 am

well horses dont know jackschitt about placebo effects neither do dogs
BUT animals treated with acupuncture and Bowen, and other methods make some amazing recoveries when the vets drugs failed

ozspeaksup
Reply to  commieBob
March 21, 2021 4:48 am

funny how the fda wanted royal raymond rifes machines and patents
and they trashed him and hounded him out
and now?
sound and electrotherapies are the NEW big thing
at immense costs and sanctioned for mega millions BY the fda of course

Reply to  MarkW
March 21, 2021 3:13 am

Sorry to tell you that you are wrong.
There are a lot of studies, for several problems, more or less effecive, but, I cite here out of one:

Used only in clinical trials for research purposes, sham acupuncture involves inserting needles at the ‘wrong’ locations, or using non-inserted needles (fake needles) at the correct locations. That ‘true’ acupuncture has significantly more effect in reducing pain than sham acupuncture, provides evidence that acupuncture is not simply a placebo effect.

Source

Our trial is the first one comparing acupuncture with the more appropriate pharmacological treatment for migraine prophylaxis. Data suggested that acupuncture could be adopted as a migraine prophylaxis and seem to be slightly superior to pharmacological treatment in compliance and rate of adverse events.

Source

Overview of studies

Acupuncture for chronic pain: individual patient data meta-analysis
The Status and Future of Acupuncture Clinical Research

wsbriggs
Reply to  MarkW
March 20, 2021 5:08 pm

Having complex surgeries done using only acupuncture, video taped and viewed by western professionals, ends that comment. Double blind, no, but not necessary when the recipient of the surgery can talk to observers while the surgery is taking place.

observer
Reply to  wsbriggs
March 20, 2021 8:19 pm

It’s impossible to do double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of acupuncture, for obvious reasons.

Add to that the fact that the Chinese have a completely different differential diagnosis (a heart attack could be considered to be a heart, stomach or liver problem depending on other symptoms).

The study Mark W refers to with sham points vs real points was carried out by Western doctors, not trained acupuncturists who know how to i) diagnose diseases according to Chinese differential diagnosis, ii) write a points prescription, iii) locate the points properly, and iv) needle them with the appropriate reducing, tonifying or even technique.

The equivalent of his study would be for me to claim heart surgery doesn’t work because I got a team of acupuncturists to do some, and all the patients died.

David Guy-Johnson
Reply to  observer
March 20, 2021 9:13 pm

Hilarious, keep the nonsense coming

Reply to  observer
March 21, 2021 11:47 am

It’s impossible to do double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of acupuncture, for obvious reasons.

It can be done and has been done, see links above

Rainer Bensch
Reply to  wsbriggs
March 21, 2021 4:53 am

CIPA?

Scissor
Reply to  BCBill
March 20, 2021 3:19 pm

On betrayal, Biden is calling out violence against Asians in the U.S. and urges Congress to draft new hate-crime legislation. Meanwhile, colleges and universities are eliminating standardized testing to be used as admissions criteria.

There is no discussion by Biden to reduce human trafficking and especially its impact on the sex trade. In fact, Biden’s policies are making matters worse for women and children. It’s indeed chaos at the Southern border.

Reply to  Scissor
March 20, 2021 3:28 pm

There is no discussion by Biden to reduce human trafficking and especially its impact on the sex trade. In fact, Biden’s policies are making matters worse for women and children. It’s indeed chaos at the Southern border

Do you have a link ?

Last edited 7 months ago by Krishna Gans
Scissor
Reply to  Krishna Gans
March 20, 2021 3:46 pm

Are you kidding?

Reply to  Scissor
March 20, 2021 4:01 pm

I’m not specialist in American politics.

observer
Reply to  Scissor
March 20, 2021 8:21 pm

I think you’ll find any problems during Resident Biden’s tenure are the “legacy” of Orange Man Bad.

Bsl
Reply to  observer
March 21, 2021 4:34 am

Given the unprecedented (in my lifetime-which includes the “irregularities” in Chicago giving Kennedy the victory in 1960) voting manipulation of the last election, you must have an IQ ‹ 50 if you think Trump is in any way responsible for what is happening and will happen during this administration.

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  observer
March 21, 2021 10:51 am

Just like Obozo’s eff ups were all Bush’s fault.

ozspeaksup
Reply to  Krishna Gans
March 21, 2021 4:53 am

go to ZeroHedge.com
a whole slew of items with kiddies in real wire cages, mex govt asking bidet to halt the flow etc etc

Reply to  BCBill
March 21, 2021 3:29 am

If you look deeper, ayuverdic medicine is not bad at all.

Ayurvedic herbs and spices are also an important component of this approach. They’re thought to protect your body from disease and offer a variety of health benefits, including improved digestion and mental health.

12 Powerful Ayurvedic Herbs and Spices with Health Benefits

ozspeaksup
Reply to  BCBill
March 21, 2021 4:45 am

you almost got a + until you sledged anything other than bigpharmas overpriced less than ideal ripoff system of so called medicine

Reply to  BCBill
March 21, 2021 10:19 am

“…the failure of the medical community and others to speak out against nonsensical cultural practises…”
Really?
I actually deleted the rest of my comment, I cannot waste time on something as stupid as that statement.

markl
March 20, 2021 2:46 pm

Wealth redistribution, Global Warming, Climate Change, One World Government are all just terms for Marxism under cover.

March 20, 2021 2:55 pm

Borrow and hope for raining brain.

Last edited 7 months ago by Krishna Gans
Rud Istvan
March 20, 2021 3:13 pm

Nice post.
Never heard about MMT before, but sure fits what is going on. Keynes was wrong, and Friedman was right about macroeconomics.

No matter MMT, the GND will fail because there are no realistically viable solutions to intermittency and lack of grid inertia EXCEPT to basically duplicate the grid with conventional backup. Nobody has to run the cost numbers to see that is just stupid and wasteful. But as a benchmark over at Judiths some years ago, we did run numbers correcting several grossly wrong EIA assumptions. LCOE Answer provided by post ‘True cost of Wind’: CCGT about $57/MWh, wind at 10% penetration based on now infamous ERCOT about $146/MWh. MMT cannot fix that ever.

Finally, the (in)famous UNFCCC Figueroa quote is the ‘Climate reparations’ hope from first to third world. Despite Paris, isn’t happening. See essay Caribbean Water in ebook Blowing Smoke for a further illumination.

An optimistic final thought. Team Biden stole the 2020 US presidential election. (The evidence just continues to mount—videos, affidavits, now finally even court rulings in Wisconsin and Michigan.) This has obviously emboldened them. What they do not realize is that their bold shenanigans are also exposing them to disinfecting sunlight, whether the new border crisis, the Baizuo beatdown in Alaska Thursday, or the not yet held Biden presser with questions to be ‘Submitted and approved in advance’. We have until Nov 2022 to fix election processes at state levels (Georgia, Arizona already in process) and primary Rino Uniparty turncoats like Murkowski (Alaska) and Kinzinger (IL). Hopefully the country can survive the two years.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Rud Istvan
March 20, 2021 8:01 pm

Re “the Baizuo beatdown in Alaska Thursday,” here’s a video and transcript of Tucker Carlson’s zinger on that topi, and related ones.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-china-america-white-liberalism-biden

Nick Graves
Reply to  Rud Istvan
March 21, 2021 2:34 am

Keynes was a snake-oil salesman who spoke in self-referential doublespeak and confounded his opponents. Sound familiar?

Friedman was less wrong, but still trying to intervene via interest rate controls with the free-market price discovery system.

The Austrian Business Cycle Theory nicely explains why fiat money will always end badly.

So my money’s on Mises and MMT will likely end very badly indeed. Unless you’re one of the BOND villains…

Bsl
Reply to  Nick Graves
March 21, 2021 5:35 am

Well done! I was thinking about writing a similar reply. Your reply is a masterful combination of brevity and insight.

MarkW
March 20, 2021 3:14 pm

The problem with the belief that government spending got us out of the Great Depression was that there was no correlation between what government was spending, and how well the economy did.
WWII did get us out of the Great Depression, but it wasn’t for the reason most liberals like to believe It was because FDR had to get rid of most of his industry limiting regulations in order to free up the factories to start making the war material that was needed to win the war.

observer
Reply to  MarkW
March 20, 2021 8:52 pm

The Depression really only came to an end when FDR (and his ruinous central-planning) did.

Sure, the US government started borrowing heavily to fund munitions production and most of the previously unemployed were hired to either make weapons or risk their lives and limbs using them in Europe or Pacific theaters. And GDP rose because that’s what deficit spending does. But workers can’t use bombers or tanks; during the war, consumer goods were tightly rationed. People’s standard of living was still awful. And anyone who lent money to the US government took a bath, as post-war inflation was higher than the yield on the war bonds.

The US did so well after the war for a number of reasons: it made a fortune selling armaments and materiel to the other combatants; it was the “last man standing” (every other major Western economy had been smashed by the war); it had (relatively) free markets; and it inherited the mantle of world reserve currency, meaning it was able to export its currency – which it produced at virtually no cost – in exchange for real goods. FDR’s agreement with the Sauds, ensuring petrodollar recycling, didn’t hurt either.

The idea that the US will be equally wealthy after “investing” a similar amount on renewables is pure magical thinking. For a start, the US’ current debt to GDP – before the GND even kicks off – is already at a simlilar level to what it was by the end of WWII, and it’s push to make energy “green” will just reduce the US’ ability to compete with fossil-fueled foreign concerns.

These people are either mad, evil or stupid.

Last edited 7 months ago by observer
Carlo, Monte
Reply to  observer
March 20, 2021 9:58 pm

These people are either mad, evil or stupid.

d) all of the above

MarkW
March 20, 2021 3:37 pm

What can be more fair than paying someone based on what their labor is worth?

DonK31
Reply to  MarkW
March 20, 2021 3:43 pm

Who decides what a persons labor is worth? Surely not the government.
It should be decided in a negotiation in which the employer says I am willing to pay this, and the employee says I am willing to do this job for that amount of money.
If both agree, then the worth of labor is decided.
If when I think that the worth of my labor is more than I am getting paid, then I can either ask for a raise or look for a different job that pays what I think I am really worth.

Last edited 7 months ago by DonK31
MarkW
Reply to  DonK31
March 20, 2021 4:15 pm

The market decides what a person’s labor is worth.
Basically it based on what the stuff a person creates can be sold for.

Last edited 7 months ago by MarkW
Clyde Spencer
Reply to  MarkW
March 20, 2021 5:10 pm

Ideally, what you say should be true. However, there are many examples of people doing the same job in different states and being paid very different wages. There are examples of people being paid outrageous salaries that are difficult to rationalize. Lastly, there is the corrupting influence of unions on wages.

MarkW
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
March 20, 2021 6:23 pm

The cases where people in different states were being paid different amounts can pretty well explained by different costs of living. Those who live in lower cost areas, the value of what they produce is worth less because of where the products they produce are being sold.
As to those who salaries you believe can’t be justified, without knowing who you are referring to, it’s hard to refute.
If you are talking about athletes and entertainers, they are being paid based on what their labor is worth. Does the presence of Tom Cruise, or some other famous actor mean that millions more will watch a movie? Yes it does. Then Cruise’s labor is worth millions. Successful singers sell 10’s of millions of albums, millions more flock to their concerts. Their income is justified.

And while unions can distort wages for a while, however without government intervention, these distortions will always self correct.
When unions force the wages for some workers above the market rate, companies will respond in one or more of three ways.
1) Raise the price of their product. (or reduce quality)
2) Reduce the wages of other workers
3) Automate

Raising prices (or cutting quality) causes the company to start losing sales to companies that are keeping their labor costs under control.
Reducing the wages of other workers only works for a short time. The problem is that it causes you best workers to leave and start working for your competitors.

This what happened to Detroit. They paid their union workers to much, and as a result Detroit charged more for their cars and they cut quality.
This worked until the Japanese started shipping lots of cars to the US. The Japanese cars were both cheaper and better made.
Detroit’s only response was to try and get Washington to ban the importing of Japanese cars.
The big automakers also started building first parts, then entire cars overseas where the plants were out of reach of the unions.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  MarkW
March 20, 2021 8:06 pm

I’m reminded of the adage “A fool and his money are soon parted.”

While the movie studios are willing to pay incomprehensible salaries to popular actors/esses, I think that their societal contribution pales compared to, say, the Salk Polio vaccine, or more recently the COVID vaccine. Why do these researchers receive an upper middle-class salary, while entertainers become wealthy? One difference is that entertainers usually have an agent negotiate for salaries and royalties. If the developers of life-saving medicines received as little as $1 per dose, they too would become wealthy, and more deservedly. The economics are distorted by a system of professional negotiators and a huge population that values entertainment more than medical service — until they become critically ill.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
March 20, 2021 8:11 pm

Incidentally, it is the huge national population that contributes to the distortion of societal worth. Someone can become wealthy selling a “pet rock” or “Hula Hoop” just on the shear numbers. Were the world population and national population much smaller, then the salaries to entertainers wouldn’t be justified because the number of tickets or albums sold wouldn’t justify it.

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
March 21, 2021 11:01 am

It’s funny you should mention pet rocks. I was working at a store that sold pet rocks during the peak of that nonsense. People would steal the rocks from the boxes (when the box and printed instructions were the real product) so we would go out to the parking lock and find replacements.

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
March 21, 2021 10:58 am

There are very few top superstars in entertainment and sports. There are many researchers available to drug companies. Supply and demand is what determines the wage.

Mohatdebos
Reply to  Trying to Play Nice
March 21, 2021 8:14 pm

Gladiators were among the highest paid individuals in the Roman Empire. The Soviets and the East Germans took care of their athletes. Entertainers are compensated for their box office receipts.

Reply to  MarkW
March 20, 2021 7:40 pm

That viewpoint doesn’t explain unemployment or demonstrate how it can be eradicated. MMT does. It is called the Job Guarantee and is similar to FDRs New Deal Work Program.

Derg
Reply to  Climate Detective
March 21, 2021 3:20 am

Do you think the Job Guarantee should pay $100 an hour?

Reply to  Derg
March 21, 2021 6:33 pm

It should pay the living wage: $15 per hour or about $600 per week.

whiten
Reply to  Climate Detective
March 21, 2021 5:21 am

Work Program 100mx2mx2m ditch to dig in 8hr
meet
Job Guaranty 1000 people with plastic tea spuns.

ResourceGuy
Reply to  Climate Detective
March 21, 2021 1:46 pm

I guess you did not notice that the work requirement for the able bodied on welfare has been erased and the same goes for expanded Medicaid. It’s the New Deal without the work.

Reply to  ResourceGuy
March 21, 2021 6:45 pm

The job guarantee is voluntary, not some form of slave labour.

Scott
March 20, 2021 3:42 pm

I have read Prof. Kelton’s work as well as going out of my way to watch her be interviewed by those friendly and hostile to her positions. Her overly simplistic view of “just raise taxes“ to correct the excesses of MMT it’s just the first Achilles’ heel in her argument. Moreover whenever she gets cornered into a discussion regarding the value I.e purchasing power, of the currency she immediately devolves into social justice rhetoric making clear The devaluation resultant from the excess money printing is of no concern to her. She stands right next to the printing press and will get all the benefits of the Cantilon Economy. You and I will be left slugging around in the mud and daub Hoping to gather a wheelbarrow of fiat cash To buy a loaf of bread

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  Scott
March 20, 2021 4:41 pm

Ask anyone who is fifty and older and lived in a country like Poland about how well things worked out for the “peasant” workers when they had to stand in line for bread dolled out by their communist masters.

Mr.
March 20, 2021 3:53 pm

Government-created demand and supply, hey?

So some sectors of society are ordered to grow turnips, and the remaining sectors are ordered to eat the turnips.

If you don’t like turnips, starve.

Mike Lowe
March 20, 2021 4:18 pm

I wonder whether other WUWT readers dislike those who use that word “Planet” as if they are the saviours of our Earth? To me, it immediately smacks of virtue-signaling giving pre-warning of Green nonsense to follow. It’s an Alarmist term rarely used by Realists!

Mr.
Reply to  Mike Lowe
March 20, 2021 4:48 pm

Equally, I get p1ssed off at the use of the term “THE climate”

There are dozens if not hundreds of climates around the globe, all of which have different characteristics, cycles and responses to changes in the phenomena that affect them.

To lump them all together as some sort of homogenized representation of reality is arrant nonsense.

And even if we did only have THE (i.e. one) climate, why do we need 114 different models of it to demonstrate how it works?

Last edited 7 months ago by Mr.
Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Mike Lowe
March 21, 2021 6:03 am

Well, at least they refrain from using the phrase “Greetings, Earthlings” when they address us!

george1st:)
March 20, 2021 4:41 pm

Spend like there is no tomorrow .
That recipe always leaves an nasty aftertaste .
When reality catches up .

observa
March 20, 2021 4:46 pm

So far in Oz at least the money printing has largely gone into circulating asset prices at ever higher levels until RE is completely unaffordable for a new generation of home buyers. With virtually zero interest on savings it’s the only game in town for a generation of aging post war baby boomers until such time as they or their heirs want to cash in to live on.

When the Feds allowed compulsory Super to be accessed for those in financial difficulties due to Covid the Super Funds got nervous with the size of withdrawals required and the need for quick cash. Why the Industry Funds are advertising heavily now with members’ dough that Gummint shouldn’t mess with the rules of Super.
Superannuation lobby kicks government in AFL advertising blitz (smh.com.au)

fred250
March 20, 2021 4:49 pm

If you DESTROY the carbon cycle

You DESTROY all life in Earth!

ResourceGuy
March 20, 2021 4:50 pm

MMT is used in Venezuela and Argentina ….to great effect.

Reply to  ResourceGuy
March 21, 2021 6:36 pm

Err, no it isn’t. But it is very similar to quantitative easing (QE) which the US Fed and UK BoE have used for most of the last 14 years. That is why people are starting to take it seriously.

Clyde Spencer
March 20, 2021 5:17 pm

If we fail, we won’t even be here to pay it back.

The analysis leaves out two other important, and obvious, possible scenarios. Namely, 1) that the huge expenditures aren’t necessary, or 2) are applied ineffectively, and consequently there is no change in the results. Thus, future generations are saddled with the debt, paid off as inflation, and they suffer a reduced standard of living, which often translates to a shorter life span.

Chris Hanley
March 20, 2021 5:29 pm

Modern Monetary Theory means government takeover of the free economy undermining incentive, productivity, savings and prosperity.
“We pretend to work, they pretend to pay us” (joke in USSR).
‘A minister announces triumphantly that 50 million pairs of boots had been produced last year, Winston Smith quite apathetically and with no special political thought says to himself for all he knows no boots at all were produced’ (Reflections on a Ravaged Century, Robert Conquest).

Chris Hanley
Reply to  Chris Hanley
March 20, 2021 5:34 pm

Referring to Orwell’s 1984 of course.

Reply to  Chris Hanley
March 21, 2021 6:39 pm

Orwell was a socialist.

Reply to  Chris Hanley
March 21, 2021 6:43 pm

All the money in the economy is created by the government. So government has already taken over the economy. That is the essence of MMT. The “free economy” is a myth.

Wade
March 20, 2021 5:30 pm

When I read this post, I immediately thought about 2022. I really believe the economy will crash in 2022. How hard will it crash, I don’t know. But I believe this because of the democrat’s war on cheap energy. The result will be less money into the pockets of those who need it the most.

When oil prices rise, it will cost more to transport everything. Food and other necessary goods will be more expensive. That is less money the poor and middle class will have to spend. Higher electricity bills also means less money the poor and middle class will have to spend. Less disposable income also means spending less on luxuries, which will affect businesses and restaurants. Higher oil prices also means it will cost more to travel. The tourism industry will be negatively affected as well. And when people have less money, it will affect the housing industry. Businesses will close, putting people out of work. Construction will slow, putting people out of work. Really, the only ones unaffected will be the politicians and the super rich who bribe the politicians.

Of course, some will say that we can just raise minimum wage to $15/hour. One of two things will happen then: (1) Inflation might happen so that $15/hour will still be too low to pay the bills; or (2) Business will find a machine to do the work, so now there are less people employed. Or maybe a combination of the two. And if businesses replace a human with a machine, they will never re-hire the humans to do the work. That will be a permanent lost job.

All this monetary pumping into the economy will end. Talking to people, they will not lockdown another winter. Fauci the fraud will once again be the one thing he hates: irrelevant. When those “stimulus” checks stop, reality will hit the economy. When something does not work, the logical thing is to stop doing it and be humble and admit you were wrong. Politicians are not humble. Just like their are too arrogant to admit that their lockdowns neither saved lives nor slowed a virus, they will be too arrogant to admit that their economic ideas are untenable. But they won’t suffer the consequences, we will.

gbaikie
Reply to  Wade
March 20, 2021 6:48 pm

–When I read this post, I immediately thought about 2022. I really believe the economy will crash in 2022. How hard will it crash, I don’t know.–
Biden is gotten us into a war, and will get us into more of them. And this probably help/encourage China get into more wars.

Definitionally Joe Biden is a power vacuum- and what he can’t do, is end any war.

PaulH
March 20, 2021 6:18 pm

As Richard Feynman once quipped:

quote-there-are-10-11-stars-in-the-galaxy-that-used-to-be-a-huge-number-but-it-s-only-a-hundred-richard-p-feynman-37-0-056.jpg
lower case fred
March 20, 2021 6:45 pm

The most audacious and unprovable assumption is that under the gentle guiding hand of a benevolent government the mass of human beings will be transformed into “good citizens”.

Watch what is happening with the Uighers.

Ozonebust
March 20, 2021 7:34 pm

Here is a good site to see how the US free market economy works.

https://wallstreetonparade.com

Meab
March 20, 2021 7:43 pm

If you poll 10 randomly chosen economists on any subject you’ll get at least 11 opinions

n.n
March 20, 2021 8:23 pm

Hope and bray, incessantly.

Mr. Lee
March 20, 2021 9:14 pm

I believe many aspects of MMT theory. But I think it should justify ending/reducing federal income taxes, rather than raising them.
After all, what am I paying Federal income taxes for? It’s not like there is some guy in the Pentagon waiting for my taxes before he can raise an army.
The only thing Federal income taxes pay for is lower interest rates. How much lower? Ha ha ha . As if they have to explain that to us peons!

Douglas Pollock
March 20, 2021 9:20 pm

Friedman’s “Chicago School” view of macroeconomics was first adopted by Chile by the so called “Chicago Boys” (a group of young economists that went to the USA to obtain a master degree in economics in the early 70’s) during President Pinochet’s regime (Sergio de Castro was his first and main promoter as Finance Minister). Reagan and The Iron Lady came afterwards.

Last edited 7 months ago by Douglas Pollock
Robert of Texas
March 20, 2021 9:49 pm

If temperatures did rise by 3 C, so what? Most of it would be up north where it’s too cold, most of it would be at night, and rain should become more common in dry places. Sounds horrible.

Plants would thrive, things that eat plants would thrive, and in general human suffering would decrease (except of course in Texas summertime – it would stay the same). With any luck we would not see -4 temperatures here where I live in winter ever again, and I would not be replacing all the “Texas Native and Texas Hardy” plants I used to own that died due to extreme cold.

Has anyone else noticed that the Sahara Desert is shrinking? Must be global warming. Warming is NOT BAD. It is part of a natural cycle – we may be adding to it slightly but we certainly are not in control of it.

Peta of Newark
March 21, 2021 12:36 am

Quote:
“”If the Earth is cooking, does it really matter how much money we borrow or print to cool it down? If we fail, we won’t even be here to pay it back. If it works, there will be plenty of profits and taxes to get the economy back in balance“”

All very lovely. Cannot deny that.

My points arising:

  1. Printing money is never a good idea. It is lazy fiscal policy that drives up prices and effectively reduces the value of goods and services while increasing tax revenue. Nice for omnipotent busybodies, not for everyone else.
  2. What if, The Earth is not actually cooking. Air temperatures near the surface may be rising but that can only mean more heat energy is leaving Earth, not less. Temp is not Energy. To take the Fiscal Analogy: “Spending money does not make you rich”
  3. Why or exactly are rising temperatures (more akin to summer) going to produce wilder weather (more akin to winter)?
  4. What if the CO2 levels are rising not because we are emitting it but because something that previously absorbed it has gone?
  5. What if CO2 is not the cause of the rising temps?
  6. What’s being proposed is a King Midas solution – you, me, nobody can EAT money.
  7. Surely it was/is the Pursuit Of Money that created the current ‘problem’. Will another Money Pursuit endeavour fix it – or even make things even worse?
  8. Ever heard of Stanley Jevons?

Re: (3) (4) (5) Surely we know something else is going on, directly under our feet, not immediately or actually above our heads or somewhere in the atmosphere
e.g. Cancer, Type 2 Diabetes, Alzheimer’s, Covid

We know that from the epidemic of Modern Disease. If you cannot see that epidemic by simply just looking at the people around you, insanely much more obvious and visible than CO2 can ever be, use Fiscal Insight to see the vast and increasing spend of healthcare.

Exactly as:

  • Spending money never made anyone rich
  • (over) Heating your house, factory, environment or planet never ‘saved energy’
  • Printing money never produced anything of value
  • Calories are not Nutritious Food

Hence, Throwing money at doctors does not mean you are healthy, quite exactly the contrary. Surely?

What if The Wrong Thing is being hounded and demonised with a view to being ‘fixed’ Will we be spending a huge resource we don’t have in large supply and thus cannot afford – except via fake and imaginary Printed Money – thus making whatever quite worthless.

Is that resource not already being spent? Twice
1) Our own children.
Via ‘student loans, sky-high rents, rampant inflation despite what Government Offices of National Statistics & Lies are saying, impossibly expensive homes to buy, a tax system that disallows parents from leaving anything significant or worthwhile to their children or simply even, = the Falling Birthrate
Not only are we stealing from the children, we are stealing their very existence ##

Is there any other resource we are already overspending to our detriment – a resource much more valuable, a resource that actually keeps us alive and well.
Physically, mentally and financially

2) Yes, I am alluding to Dirt & Biomass

Thus ## Having trashed our own, we are stealing our children’s health & happiness
e.g. via Autism, Downs and Childhood Obesity not least

Cliche: (free free to sing along y’all)
“”The love of money is……“”

Charles Fairbairn
March 21, 2021 2:26 am

The missing piece in this jigsaw is Wisdom.
This where decisions upon Return on investment are concerned. Thriving economies have a track record of past Wisdom.
Printing money can only provide the opportunity to exercise Wisdom; but never provides the Wisdom itself.
Governments, constrained as they are to the vagaries of politics, are notoriously bad in this area of decision making which should be left to the combined individual decisions of the population as a whole.

If inflation is to be avoided then the productivity resulting from an investment MUST balance the current net present value of the finance provided. Increasing taxation to offset the printed money is the worst option as it prevents the exercise of Wisdom by the population.

ozspeaksup
March 21, 2021 4:43 am

yeah equality issues are removed when everyones poor n stuffed.

March 21, 2021 10:01 am

“In the end, hope is really not much of a plan.” – Bugs Bunny

This says a lot. When you base your decisions on your feelings and not on the realities of nature, aka REAL SCIENCE, crossing your fingers is not even an option. You WILL lose big time and then wonder what went wrong and, of course, the next step is not to correct the problem but to fix the blame on someone you do not like. They get farther and farther from reality, but they do not come back to reality but dig deeper into their delusion.

The basic liberal thought is that anything they think must be perfect and thus everyone else should be forced to agree.

otropogo
March 21, 2021 8:55 pm

Haven’t you heard Mao Tse Tung’s dictum: Power grows out of the barrel of a gun?

Money is unnecessary if you have power. You take what you want. The fact that governments around the world are suddenly acting as though money grows on trees should tell us something.

I personally thought ‘quantitative easing’ was a much more delicate way of lying to us. Who in the world is lending all of our governments the trillions of dollars they’re spending, and WHY?

Whether it’s a flood of debt or a flood of worthless money, the effect is the same, it’s taking a mixmaster to society. We’re all going to be a humungous human slurpy. Well, except for those very few who have a ticket to a better place, whether in Patagonia or on Mars (and their little armies of retainers and body guards, of course).

March 25, 2021 7:42 pm

If your “cascade of unprovable assumptions” grinds to a halt, as seems likely, the plan fails, everyone realises it wasn’t required and the earth system is revealed as self-managing. However, as thoughtful grown-ups I’d say we’re obliged to at least try to stop the Great Reset that is making free with our money—waste not, want not—since the underlying science is non-existent.

I agree with your assessment that those assumptions are unlikely. Indeed, many of us understand that your very first unproven assumption, of imminent warming by 3 °C or more as a result of fossil fuel emissions of CO<sub>2</sub>, is most likely a stretch, following the radiative revelations in van Wijngaarden & Happer last year. The radiative capacity of all the greenhouse gases combined would seem incapable of raising the surface temperature that much against a natural thermal regulation of half a billion years that has stabilised the temperature within ±3.3 C° over the last 810,000 years (ice core data, Greenland & Antarctica). – Jouzel et al. (2007).

There are other factors mitigating against such warming but the radiative deficiencies alone would scuttle their ship.

%d bloggers like this: