further to all this, i see no mention of pakistan which makes sense given the news of late regarding imran khan, specifically the not so subtle usa pressure to get him to conform with usa-nato agenda in ukraine... i find this all so very interesting..
I second your recommendation of Simplicius's article. I told him it's outstanding because it is. The Khan issue is potentially volatile as it confirms what he alleged from the start. How his supporters react will be telling. And it's now quite clear that until Pakistan is purged of its compradors, it will be a potential problem within the SCO along with India.
Good. Unfortunately I don't have a good enough understanding of such matters. In particular I'm ignorant on the related debate that occurred recently in MoA columns. Something about the USA debt and the utility/danger of printing money and increasing that debt. I think. As best I can make out.
It seemed to me that one party to that debate was arguing that a sovereign nation like the USA (with a dollar hegemony the only sovereign nation in this respect, really) really never has any debt because it is in a position to simply buy that debt itself and cover it by making more money. ie. doing things that normally would cheapen a currency and weaken the nation. Doesn't happen to the USA because everyone always needs their money and they don't need anyone else's.
The easiest way to understand the so-called debt ceiling crisis within the USA is to read Hudson who says the US debt is in dollars that it can print itself to pay the debt:
" As I explained, this is simply a charade. There was never a debt problem, but it was presented nightly on the news, like a wrestling match between the good guy and the bad guy. And the pretense was that somehow the Congress had to come together and agree to remove the debt ceiling in order for Congress to pay for the programs that the Senate and Congress already had approved.
"There was no debt crisis at all. That was simply an excuse to pretend there was one, so that they could cut back social spending in the United States, cut back the social programs for Medicaid and increase the oil pipeline.
"By cutting off the social programs, once they agreed to that, the very next day, the Republican Senator from Maine, Susan Collins, said, “Now that everything has changed in the last 12 hours, now that there’s a war in Ukraine and Europe has used up all of its arms, we have to very sharply increase military spending by maybe 20 or 30 percent, a few trillion. So we’ve got to cut back the remaining programs in the United States. “
"They’ve already cut back all money to fight COVID and to fight disease. All of that was emptied out as part of the deal, but none of that had to be done. It’s like a kind of sitcom or a television show where they make it appear as if a problem that has to be solved that isn’t a problem to begin with, that never was a problem. Isn’t that what I said when I was on television in China last week, didn’t they include that explanation?"
Thanks a lot for that. I've made a start on it. It's a big read, lots of meat I think. But I left off to come here when it reached a point where it seemed he was not going to explain this question that puzzles me greatly: Why?
Why does the government want to reduce social services spending?
Out of pure evil?
Because given the money argument presented it has no money worries. It wouldn't/shouldn't worry about social services as a proportion of spending of available monies for unlimited monies appear to be available.
Demonstrated by the assertion that they can afford to fund any size war/military.
Why wouldn't the govt happily spend untold freely available money on services to the people that will make the people happy and docile?
There's apparently some big point here I'm missing.
So more money can be lavished on their interests is the answer. Is that evil? I say it's Anti-human or inhumane. Are those behaviors evil? One online dictionary's definition: "morally reprehensible : SINFUL, WICKED. So, yes, evil.
To answer your last question is again related to morality. If a government can spend all the money it wants to, then why doesn't it? Looking at those who have ruled the lands of Western Christendom since it was made the Roman state religion is a good way to learn why that's not done. I have a suggestion for you. Someday soon when you can spare at least an hour to do some reading, I highly suggest going to the following link, register if you're not already a member, which is free, then reading as far as your one hour will get you. I'm sure you'll want to read more after that, but the first hour ought to give you your answer. Also, if you understand why they (the Roman Church) altered the saying from "...forgive them their debts" to "... forgive them their sins," than you have the gist of Class relations. https://archive.org/details/manyheadedhydras00line
simplicius had a very good article up discussing russia banking system and finance, in case anyone missed it.. https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/russias-cbdc-exploring-the-truth
further to all this, i see no mention of pakistan which makes sense given the news of late regarding imran khan, specifically the not so subtle usa pressure to get him to conform with usa-nato agenda in ukraine... i find this all so very interesting..
I second your recommendation of Simplicius's article. I told him it's outstanding because it is. The Khan issue is potentially volatile as it confirms what he alleged from the start. How his supporters react will be telling. And it's now quite clear that until Pakistan is purged of its compradors, it will be a potential problem within the SCO along with India.
Good. Unfortunately I don't have a good enough understanding of such matters. In particular I'm ignorant on the related debate that occurred recently in MoA columns. Something about the USA debt and the utility/danger of printing money and increasing that debt. I think. As best I can make out.
It seemed to me that one party to that debate was arguing that a sovereign nation like the USA (with a dollar hegemony the only sovereign nation in this respect, really) really never has any debt because it is in a position to simply buy that debt itself and cover it by making more money. ie. doing things that normally would cheapen a currency and weaken the nation. Doesn't happen to the USA because everyone always needs their money and they don't need anyone else's.
I don't know.
An essay by Karlof explaining this would be nice.
The easiest way to understand the so-called debt ceiling crisis within the USA is to read Hudson who says the US debt is in dollars that it can print itself to pay the debt:
" As I explained, this is simply a charade. There was never a debt problem, but it was presented nightly on the news, like a wrestling match between the good guy and the bad guy. And the pretense was that somehow the Congress had to come together and agree to remove the debt ceiling in order for Congress to pay for the programs that the Senate and Congress already had approved.
"There was no debt crisis at all. That was simply an excuse to pretend there was one, so that they could cut back social spending in the United States, cut back the social programs for Medicaid and increase the oil pipeline.
"By cutting off the social programs, once they agreed to that, the very next day, the Republican Senator from Maine, Susan Collins, said, “Now that everything has changed in the last 12 hours, now that there’s a war in Ukraine and Europe has used up all of its arms, we have to very sharply increase military spending by maybe 20 or 30 percent, a few trillion. So we’ve got to cut back the remaining programs in the United States. “
"They’ve already cut back all money to fight COVID and to fight disease. All of that was emptied out as part of the deal, but none of that had to be done. It’s like a kind of sitcom or a television show where they make it appear as if a problem that has to be solved that isn’t a problem to begin with, that never was a problem. Isn’t that what I said when I was on television in China last week, didn’t they include that explanation?"
Here's the link to the transcript of the program Hudson mentions in his last sentence above, which provides a more detailed, patient explanation that's easy to understand, https://michael-hudson.com/2023/06/buying-us-debt-subsidizes-imperialism/
Thanks a lot for that. I've made a start on it. It's a big read, lots of meat I think. But I left off to come here when it reached a point where it seemed he was not going to explain this question that puzzles me greatly: Why?
Why does the government want to reduce social services spending?
Out of pure evil?
Because given the money argument presented it has no money worries. It wouldn't/shouldn't worry about social services as a proportion of spending of available monies for unlimited monies appear to be available.
Demonstrated by the assertion that they can afford to fund any size war/military.
Why wouldn't the govt happily spend untold freely available money on services to the people that will make the people happy and docile?
There's apparently some big point here I'm missing.
"Out of pure evil?"
So more money can be lavished on their interests is the answer. Is that evil? I say it's Anti-human or inhumane. Are those behaviors evil? One online dictionary's definition: "morally reprehensible : SINFUL, WICKED. So, yes, evil.
To answer your last question is again related to morality. If a government can spend all the money it wants to, then why doesn't it? Looking at those who have ruled the lands of Western Christendom since it was made the Roman state religion is a good way to learn why that's not done. I have a suggestion for you. Someday soon when you can spare at least an hour to do some reading, I highly suggest going to the following link, register if you're not already a member, which is free, then reading as far as your one hour will get you. I'm sure you'll want to read more after that, but the first hour ought to give you your answer. Also, if you understand why they (the Roman Church) altered the saying from "...forgive them their debts" to "... forgive them their sins," than you have the gist of Class relations. https://archive.org/details/manyheadedhydras00line
Way to go. Avoid seizing of accounts and US dollar dominance.
Not about this post, but a note to you about a book I just noticed (looking for something else):
https://substack.com/profile/42333526-random-ruminations/note/c-22213055?utm_source=notes-share-action&r=p7cra