Bringing the GEO-POLITICAL POLICY discussion back to our communities----both right wing and left wing 99% of citizens must understand those far-right wing global Wall Street CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA are lying when they say to the right----KEYNESIAN ECONOMICS IS BAD-----saying to the left----laissez-faire neo-liberalism creates jobs and businesses----
THEY ARE BOTH LYING TO ADVANCE EXTREME WEALTH AND EXTREME POVERTY.
Local economics for thousands of years of capitalism has been a form of BOTH. Keynesian economics creates stability for local and national governance-----laissez-faire allows for global market trading. There has always been global market trading---it is not bad when YOU REGULATE, PROVIDE OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY AND DON'T ALLOW MONOPOLY TO KILL LOCAL ECONOMIES as CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA did.
We will discuss the new global Wall Street POSING term-----PROTECTIONISM. This term is already being corrupted just as the far-right global Wall Street corrupted the terms FREE MARKET and TRADE DEFICIT.
Remember, the US has a trade deficit because global Wall Street pols sent all our US corporations to China to then RETURN PRODUCTS to US as IMPORTS. It is not Chinese corporations creating a trade deficit---it is our own US corporations manufacturing overseas creating those import vs export deficits. Who shouts loudest against these corrupted trade deficit standards? Right wing Republicans and left wing Democrats both parties captured by global Wall Street---
THEY ARE LYING, CHEATING, AND STEALING FROM OUR LOCAL COMMUNITIES AND ECONOMIES.
What is 'Trade Deficit'
Trade deficit is an economic measure of a negative balance of trade in which a country's imports exceeds its exports. A trade deficit represents an outflow of domestic currency to foreign markets.
BREAKING DOWN 'Trade Deficit'
Economic theory dictates that a trade deficit is not necessarily a bad situation because it often corrects itself over time. However, a deficit has been reported and growing in the United States for the past few decades, which has some economists worried. This means that large amounts of the U.S. dollar are being held by foreign nations, which may decide to sell at any time. A large increase in dollar sales can drive the value of the currency down, making it more costly to purchase imports.
As we said----the NEW WORLD ORDER will see Foreign Economic Zones where global corporations move from Asian and Latin American nations to African and Western nations. Those Asian nations having hosted global corporations these several decades will now simply fill these economic zones with their own corporations. Chinese Foreign Economic Zones filled with global corporations from other nations will now be filled with Chinese corporations. The Chinese global 1% KNOW the US Foreign Economic Zones are being built with global corporate campuses and global factories to EXPORT-----NOT IMPORT. Remember, US Foreign Economic Zone policies do not allow for manufacturing that is retail---it only allows for manufacturing that is EXPORT. This is why for several decades we heard nothing about a TRADE DEFICIT and now we hear nothing but TRADE DEFICIT.
As long as US Foreign Economic Zone policy states the US zones are EXPORT MANUFACTURING ONLY----we cannot rebuild our local US economies. THIS IS THE TOP 99% ECONOMIC POLICY PRIORITY.
Is the United States slipping down a path toward protectionism?
By David Page, opinion contributor - 02/15/17 12:00 PM EST
In the weeks since inauguration, the new administration has struck a more protectionist tone. Trump’s White House seems less convinced by the benefits the United States has accrued from globalization and comparative advantage through international trade. Rather, it has focused on the continuing decline of manufacturing jobs.
Peter Navarro, head of the new National Trade Council, has theorized that open trade—particularly with China—has impacted U.S. manufacturing job prospects. His views appear to have found resonance with others in the administration. This has created uncertainty over the direction that U.S. trade policy will take.
In his first month, President Trump has already pulled out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), voiced concerns over currencies in China and Japan, and opened negotiations over the North American Free Trade Act (NAFTA) with Canada and Mexico. Navarro has also criticised German trade policy. Yet meetings between President Trump and Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, which included future trade relations, appeared productive.
Looking ahead, trade relations with Mexico and China appear priorities. In the first instance, Mexican trade relations appear to be wrapped up with the renegotiation of NAFTA. The scale of sought after change here is unknown. However, this process will take some time. Do not expect unilateral protectionist measures while such talks are underway.
The outlook for China is less certain. The administration has loosely talked about currency manipulation. Although China currently breaches only one of the U.S. Treasury Department’s three guidelines for manipulation (and importantly, China has been supporting the value of its currency for around 18 months), we see some risk of this. Yet such a move would be largely symbolic and designed to provoke broader negotiations.
More direct action cannot be ruled out. Broad-based tariffs would risk a comprehensive retaliation from the Chinese authorities that would prove damaging to U.S. economic interests, harming both producers and consumers. A series of targeted-tariffs are more likely. The president enjoys a wide range of executive authority over trade policy that goes largely unchecked by Congress.
The current administration has renewed targeted anti-dumping tariffs on China steel imports, but may go further by pursuing a different approach. Concentrating on sectors that account for significant portions of the U.S.-China bilateral trade deficit and that have had a significant impact on U.S. jobs, as proxied by the scale of import penetration, the electronic and computer sector, as well as the electrical and appliance sector, may face a high risk for targeted tariffs in the future. However, even these measures should be expected to prompt retaliatory action from China, with the risk of further escalation.
The prospects for domestic production do not lie solely with trade policy. Another key element to domestic competitiveness is tax policy. For years, corporate America has called for a more competitive system that does away with worldwide taxation—a practice eschewed by most other OECD economies—and lowers the headline tax rate from the currently uncompetitive 35 percent rate.
House Republicans have proposed a shift to a destination-based, cash flow tax system. This would overhaul of the current system and combine a lower headline corporate tax rate—Republicans argue for 20 percent—with other incentives for investment, including full expensing of capital investment. Proponents state this would modernize the tax system, incentivize investment and underpin domestic competitiveness. This could significantly boost the outlook for U.S. production without recourse to trade policy.
That is before we consider border tax adjustability, which is a mechanism that would exclude U.S. exports and input costs from domestic production from taxation. To proponents of tax reform, a move to a destination-based, cash flow tax system requires measures to prevent base erosion—or an accelerated process of corporate inversions, outsourcing and intellectual property transfers.
Border tax adjustability is proposed as a policy designed to remove incentives for base erosion, which should prove trade neutral. However, the assumption of trade neutrality requires significant dollar appreciation of 25 percent, which is an unlikely outcome. Without such an appreciation, border tax adjustability would likely have a marked additional impact on the balance of trade beyond any prospective boost that broader tax reforms could provide. Border tax adjustability policies would also likely be considered protectionist by the World Trade Organisation (WTO), due to the unlike tax treatment of domestic and foreign production.
Hence the scale and direction of corporate tax reform remains uncertain for now, although President Trump has promised an announcement over the coming weeks. Some degree of tax reform looks likely, although the scale proposed by the House Republicans now appears ambitious. Progress would be a key development for the competitiveness of domestic manufacturing. As such, the administration might only be in a position to determine trade policy in the light of tax reform.
I remain wary of the new administration’s direction over protectionism, although I acknowledge marked uncertainty in this regard. Direct protectionist measures remain a threat. For 2017, I consider a renegotiation of NAFTA and trade relations with Mexico to be the most likely priorities. I also consider the United States unlikely to strike out with direct tariffs ahead of concluding corporate tax reform measures. Yet there is a likelihood of increased trade tensions. I see the risk of the United States labelling China a currency manipulator. And I consider further risks ahead with the prospect of direct import restrictions or tariff measures, if the administration considers progress towards boosting domestic production inadequate.
As long as US Foreign Economic Zone policy states the US zones are EXPORT MANUFACTURING ONLY----we cannot rebuild our local US economies. THIS IS THE TOP 99% ECONOMIC POLICY PRIORITY.
As long as global Wall Street 5% to the 1% train our young adults to be global Wall Street 1% followers and NOT COMMUNITY LEADERS this will MOVE FORWARD.
As we see here in Baltimore every higher education institution that should be training our young adults to be community leaders are indeed tied to GLOBAL WALL STREET 1% EMPIRE-BUILDING----and they train our young adults to be FOLLOWERS OF GLOBAL WALL STREET. Whether black, white, or brown citizen---this is what the 99% must change. Global Johns Hopkins is raging global 1% IVY LEAGUE-----our HBCUs sadly are tied to global IVY LEAGUE working for global 1%----and even our local U of B----has appointed leaders tied to global Wall Street and yes, all leadership training is tied to GLOBAL WALL STREET 1% POLICIES.
If the goal for the 99% is changing US Foreign Economic Zone policies from EXPORT MANUFACTURING ONLY to local manufacturing with retail sales of products---how are we going to make that policy goal when all our youth are being trained to work for GLOBAL WALL STREET 1%?
These same global Wall Street institutions control all of our K-12 after-school programs meaning absolutely no training for 99% being leaders is happening.
THIS SAME DYNAMIC IS HAPPENING IN YOUR NECK OF THE WOODS----IF THE 99% DOES NOT BREAK THIS HOLD BY GLOBAL WALL STREET ON OUR HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS WE CANNOT BUILD OUR LOCAL ECONOMIES FOR WE THE PEOPLE.
The US Urban League and Greater Urban League are partnered with global Wall Street Baltimore Development and Greater Baltimore Development ---they are those pesky 5% to the 1%------stop allowing these folks to be leaders-----they are simply PLAYERS.
Saturday Leadership Program & Summer Leadership Program
SIGN UP TODAY
ABOUT THE PROGRAM
The Greater Baltimore Urban League launched the Saturday Leadership Program in 2013. Each month, 100 Saturday Leadership Fellows from all neighborhoods in Baltimore convene to develop their leadership potential. We hold the sessions at Baltimore colleges. Last year, we met at Coppin State University, Goucher, MICA, Morgan State University, Notre Dame, Sojourner Douglass College, and the University of Baltimore. This year, we are planning sessions at 10 colleges. At the beginning of a Saturday Leadership day, students grades 8-12 meet at the host university at 8:00am for breakfast and are welcomed by a fellow student serving as the morning MC. The students are divided into four groups for the day’s activities, each group named after a notable African American from Baltimore who reflects the day’s theme. The Greater Baltimore Urban League Young Professionals conduct two leadership development sessions. The workshop themes include standard leadership development exercises such as teambuilding as well as themes reflecting the social mission of the Urban League. These two areas, of personal development and community-focused leadership, are integrated into each session’s activities. Students also participate in grade-specific college readiness activities. Following lunch, the host university takes participants on a campus tour. On the weekends between sessions, GBUL organizes field trips and public service activities. Every college visited is on the MTA bus line, and the MTA has donated day passes for each participant for every Saturday. The program is free.
The specific program dates are determined by the colleges, but they will not conflict with any PSAT, SAT, or ACT testing dates or Baltimore City Public Schools vacation dates. The first session is held in September.
The Saturday Leadership Program is committed to including students of all abilities in our programs. We want to help our students succeed in school, career, college and community life. We provide reasonable accommodations for students of all abilities and we work with families and the community to create an out-of-school program where all of our students can succeed.
WHY SATURDAY LEADERSHIP?
We know that our youth have unlimited potential. They can become leaders in their fields and their communities. So why wait to unleash that potential?
BECOME A SATURDAY LEADERSHIP FELLOW
The program is free of charge but heavy in commitment. When a student joins the Saturday Leadership Program, they are committing to attending every session on time for the entire time (8:00 am to 2:30 pm). We welcome students with any G.P.A. who have a desire to develop their leadership potential and are ready to make the serious commitment to attend. Because this commitment is so important, the application requires three signatures: the student, the parent or guardian, and a sponsoring agency. The sponsoring agency can be any program (example: church youth group, tutoring program, sports team, college access program) in which the student is currently participating. The sponsoring agency will verify that the student has excellent attendance (90% or more) in the agency’s program and commits to ensure that the student will attend every Saturday Leadership Session.
The sponsoring agency will select prospective participants from their program and distribute the application to these students. Families completing the application will submit the application to the sponsoring agency and the agency will submit the application to the Greater Baltimore Urban League. We only accept applications submitted by sponsoring agencies. We have 70 spots for new applicants, they are filled first come first served.
SATURDAY LEADERSHIP ACTIVITIES
In previous years, session topics have included:
- community leadership and service
- finding career and academic aspirations
- notable African Americans & notable Baltimoreans
- financial literacy
- scholarships and financial aid in college
- networking & mock interviews
- Freedom Readers (an Enoch Pratt Free Library collaboration)
- Stress & Time Management
- History Wall
- Public Speaking & Debate
- College Tours and Sessions on College Life (on-campus culture)
Off-Saturday activities give the opportunity for even more activities that fall outside of the typical SLP curriculum. Past Off-Saturday events have included the MLK Day Parade, theatre/dance workshops, an Orioles game, help with resume-writing, college applications and more.
It is important that each nations' 99% of citizens understand the dynamic of these Foreign Economic Zones. Where early in US Foreign Economic Zone policies entailed only duties and tariffs----during Clinton/Bush/Obama these FTZ laws were changed making these zones ready for global corporate manufacturing ONLY. The reason we are seeing NO local manufacturing replacing those that left Baltimore these few decades is the laws surrounding FTZ.
If WE THE PEOPLE want to rebuild our local economies to that same thriving FREE MARKET economy filled with small businesses, regional businesses all competing with corporations in manufacturing and sales----we must GET RID OF US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE POLICIES that allow only GLOBAL MONOPOLIES.
This is for what our global Wall Street Baltimore Development---Greater Baltimore Development---Johns Hopkins works and their 5% to the 1% 'labor and justice' organizations are tied to MOVING FORWARD GLOBAL CORPORATE MANUFACTURING ONLY. This is why the 5 % to the 1% are filling our US cities with NON-ECONOMIES----NGOS-----and these institution's leadership KNOWS WHAT MOVING FORWARD looks like. THESE 5% PLAYERS DON'T CARE.
We are watching as global 1% create ANCIENT PHOENICIA while pretending to rebuild our modern US economy.
'SEZs have a long pedigree: the first free-trade zones were in ancient Phoenicia. The first modern one was set up at Shannon airport in Ireland in 1959, but the idea took off in the 1980s after China embraced them. There are now more than 4,000 SEZs (see chart). A study conducted in 2008 estimated that 68m people worked in them. They come in many forms, from basic “export processing zones” to “charter cities”, urban zones that set their own regulations in all sorts of areas that affect business'.
What each city and county will need as this massive economic collapse occurs is KEYNESIAN ECONOMICS----our government revenue needs to fuel our economic development---but wait! OBAMA AND CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA created $20 trillion in US Treasury bond debt ILLEGALLY tied to only global corporate campus development---these global Wall Street pols deliberately staged this economic crash so the only RECOVERY will be for those dastardly global 1%.
THIS IS WHY A $20 TRILLION NATIONAL DEBT WAS ALLOWED TO OCCUR---AND WHY STATES LIKE MARYLAND LOADED WITH MUNICIPAL BOND DEBT---TO KEEP ANY LOCAL ECONOMY FROM BEING REBUILT.
'Debt doesn’t matter? Really? That’s the most irresponsible fiscal notion since the tax-cutting mania brought on by the advent of supply-side economics'.
The Dangerous Notion That Debt Doesn’t Matter
Steven Rattner JAN. 20, 2012
WITH little fanfare, a dangerous notion has taken hold in progressive policy circles: that the amount of money borrowed by the federal government from Americans to finance its mammoth deficits doesn’t matter.
Debt doesn’t matter? Really? That’s the most irresponsible fiscal notion since the tax-cutting mania brought on by the advent of supply-side economics. And it’s particularly problematic right now, as Congress resumes debating whether to extend the payroll-tax reduction or enact other stimulative measures.
Here’s the theory, in its most extreme configuration: To the extent that the government sells its debt to Americans (as opposed to foreigners), those obligations will disappear as aging folks who buy those Treasuries die off.
If that doesn’t seem to make much sense, don’t be puzzled — it doesn’t. Government borrowing is still debt that must eventually be paid off, just as we were taught in introductory economics.
Failing to repay the debt would mean not only the ugliness of default but also depriving the next generation of whatever savings their parents parked in government bonds.
And remember that just a small fraction of Treasuries are owned by individual Americans. Institutions and many foreign entities own the rest and are not about to give up claims that they are owed.
The more realistic alternative of continuing to service that debt offers the unattractive eventual prospect of either higher taxes or sharp cutbacks in government programs, or both.
That problem is greatly compounded by the fact that the $10 trillion of debt that is held by investors represents only a fraction of the federal government’s obligations and ignores an additional $46 trillion of commitments to Social Security and Medicare.
Of course every modern economy both tolerates and benefits from some amount of debt. But the United States has been on a binge, brought on by a toxic mix of spending increases and tax cuts that began with the Reagan tax cuts in the 1980s and were later turbocharged by those of President George W. Bush.
The figures are stark. In 1975, government debt per household was roughly equal to half of a typical household’s annual income. Today, it’s 1.7 times. Add entitlements, and the obligations would take a mind-boggling nine years of family income to pay off.
Even deficit hawks like me recognize that with the economy still barely above stall speed, now is hardly the moment for the government to slam on the fiscal brakes, debt or no debt.
So that means there’s no realistic alternative to more debt. But we can reduce the adverse consequences by how we spend this borrowed money. There are two main forms of stimulus: one kind is channeled through tax cuts and then mostly spent, just like a strapped family that puts its monthly expenses onto a credit card. Alternatively, government can direct its resources toward long-term investments that earn a return; think roads and dams but also medical research and education.
At the moment, gridlock grips Washington, and about all that Congress has offered is a two-month cut in the payroll tax, which may help shake the economy out of the doldrums but provides little lasting benefit.
We could just as effectively throw borrowed hundred-dollar bills out of airplanes. About the only worse approach would be nothing at all.
Government’s focus should shift toward investment. To do so, multiple challenges must be overcome.
First, unlike every company in America, the government doesn’t keep its books in a way that highlights these important two categories, investment and consumption. As a result, Congress can’t evaluate the long-term impact of its actions.
Second, the dark shadow of the Tea Party movement has made added spending — the route for most new government investment — taboo.
While public investment may take longer to unleash its positive forces, the case for it is compelling, in part because rising entitlement expenditures have crowded out government’s investment activities.
In the early 1950s, government devoted about 1.2 percent of gross domestic product to infrastructure; by 2010, that amount had fallen to just 0.2 percent. Meanwhile, federal spending on research and development dropped from a high of nearly 2 percent in 1964 to 0.9 percent in 2009.
By contrast, Franklin D. Roosevelt’s much-praised Works Progress Administration spent the equivalent of at least $1.5 trillion over eight years on projects that in New York City alone ranged from building La Guardia Airport to reroofing the New York Public Library to creating a lasting body of literary and artistic work.
I agree that short-term help for the economy combined with long-term deficit reduction is the right direction for budgetary policy.
But we also need to make every dollar of debt matter, and therefore we should be directing our efforts to lifting the economy toward programs that provide long-term benefit, not just a short-term burst of caffeinated energy.
Before the right wing global Wall Street pols start blaming Obama and Clinton neo-liberals for these $12 trillion in national debt from US Treasury bond fraud----let's be clear the BUSH/CHENEY crew of global Wall Street pols were these same cheerleaders----bringing $4 trillion in national debt from subprime mortgage loan and many other frauds of our US agencies. WE THE PEOPLE MUST DEMAND THESE BOND DEBTS BE VOIDED---DEFAULTED----in order to redirect our local taxation to rebuilding local economies.
This is the problem and solution for 99% of WE THE PEOPLE.
Yes, we can default on all this US Treasury and state municipal bond debt BECAUSE it was always done ILLEGALLY. Now, this is why 2016 elections were rigged an fraudulent to assure US mayors and governors were in place who would not DEFAULT----they are global Wall Street 5% of players. Here in Maryland that is Governor Larry Hogan who ran as a Republican but is that global Wall Street Bush neo-conservative----and in Baltimore that is Catherine Pugh as mayor running as a Democrat but being a far-right wing global Wall Street Clinton neo-liberal.
ANY GROUP THAT IS REALLY LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE WOULD HAVE BEEN SHOUTING THIS THESE SEVERAL YEARS. WHAT WE HAVE ARE GROUPS CAPTURED BY THAT 5% TO THE 1% MAKING SURE THE 99% DOESN'T KNOW.
This is bad for all US citizens and immigrant citizens----black, white, or brown citizens---right wing or left wing citizens----WAKE UP and STOP MOVING FORWARD.
Krugman is that far-right global Wall Street neo-liberal economist national media pretends feels the pain of 99% WE THE PEOPLE.
'Krugman is trying to argue that because government debt did not hinder private wealth creation we should use government debt to create private wealth. The cart is not even before the horse using this “logic”, as the cart and horse aren’t even on the same road'.
Krugman's Debt Doesn't Matter Mantra------Goes Back To America's Greatest Swindler, Jay Cooke
By Jeffrey P. Snider. Posted On Sunday, February 15th, 2015
With the G-20 recoiling itself back into the same kinds of mistakes made in the 1960’s, leading directly to the Great Inflation, we will have to take into account the other end of that, namely other forms of “stimulus.” With the global economy sinking, and worries about it beginning to resound beyond just inconvenient bears, there is growing official consensus on central banks taking a clearer approach but also that governments need to face up to “austerity.”
Paul Krugman has been leading the critique against what he sees is a disastrous and ignorant deformation against debt. In times like these, which he “predicted” based on too little government spending, Krugman derides fiscal sense as “cold-hearted.”
This misplaced focus said a lot about our political culture, in particular about how disconnected Congress is from the suffering of ordinary Americans. But it also revealed something else: when people in D.C. talk about deficits and debt, by and large they have no idea what they’re talking about — and the people who talk the most understand the least…
People who get their economic analysis from the likes of the Heritage Foundation have been waiting ever since President Obama took office for budget deficits to send interest rates soaring. Any day now!
The above quoted passage was taken from a column he wrote back on New Year’s Day 2012. While it has aged three years, given the global slowdown that was about to take place and the ineffectiveness of monetarism alone to dispel it, his words are being taken increasingly as both prescient and prescriptive. However, the logic behind his anti-austerity agenda is more of a sleight of hand than actual argument.
The primary misdirection lies in that second last sentence of the second paragraph quoted above, “budget deficits to send interest rates soaring.” While that could be a concern under some conditions, that is by no means proof that so much “fee money” isn’t a negative factor. The problem with this government-centric view is that it is government-centric not just to begin with but in every part of the formulation. Governments occupy a unique place in society, by design, but that doesn’t necessarily translate into superpowers:
First, families have to pay back their debt. Governments don’t — all they need to do is ensure that debt grows more slowly than their tax base. The debt from World War II was never repaid; it just became increasingly irrelevant as the U.S. economy grew, and with it the income subject to taxation.
Second — and this is the point almost nobody seems to get — an over-borrowed family owes money to someone else; U.S. debt is, to a large extent, money we owe to ourselves.
Debt isn’t money in the truest sense of the word, but Krugman is right that national debt functions in many ways like currency. But that is taken a step further. This argument isn’t new, in fact it was used many times in the nineteenth century to end fiscal restraint (how well did that work?). Even in the US, in 1865, Jay Cooke wrote a famous pamphlet extolling the virtues of the national debt incurred to fight and complete the Civil War. He made the same argument that Bank of England officials had been making throughout the first half of that century about English colonialism, explicitly that national debt was not debt but actual wealth.
Since taxes are needed to pay off national debt, and taxes represent a government extraction of accumulated wealth, paying off national debt amounts to reducing national wealth – or so it was said. Cooke made the argument as a bond dealer hoping to continue selling government bonds, but the point stuck; so well that Paul Krugman is representing it more than a century and a half later.
But there is still something slightly dishonest about the entire idea, especially in this 21st century expansion. Krugman again:
This was clearly true of the debt incurred to win World War II. Taxpayers were on the hook for a debt that was significantly bigger, as a percentage of G.D.P., than debt today; but that debt was also owned by taxpayers, such as all the people who bought savings bonds. So the debt didn’t make postwar America poorer. In particular, the debt didn’t prevent the postwar generation from experiencing the biggest rise in incomes and living standards in our nation’s history. [emphasis added]
Here he is making the same argument as above, in that incurring a massive national debt hasn’t been an impediment to prosperity. Thus he makes the further supposition that it won’t be because it hasn’t both in the current era and in the past where government borrowing was equally as intensive. But that is the disingenuous part, as it does not represent the primary problem at all.
Maybe government debt did not pose an existential problem to our post-war prosperity, but it didn’t create it either! That seems to be the proper framing of the apparently eternal question about the current economic malaise. Maybe government spending through deficits won’t send interest rates skyrocketing, or fiscal imbalances that will destroy the “dollar” (a laughable assertion where the “dollar” is concerned), but that isn’t the point. Government debt of whatever size fails to create the wealth by which taxes are extracted to repay it, or not – that function is independent and prior.
Krugman is trying to argue that because government debt did not hinder private wealth creation we should use government debt to create private wealth. The cart is not even before the horse using this “logic”, as the cart and horse aren’t even on the same road.
Private wealth creation comes first, and government attention to “aggregate demand”, spending of the sake of spending, has been woefully inadequate because actual wealth is not based on simple transactions. The transactional nature of the economy is incidental to wealth, not its primary focus. Generic spending doesn’t do anything but waste resources, which is anathema to private wealth creation axiomatically in opposition to such short-termism. Waste is unprofitable; wealth is profit.
Unfortunately, these Keynesian mythologies are coming back again as nobody (besides the Chinese, ironically) seems to remember the “stimulus” non-impact of the ARRA (or the serial “stimulus” programs in Japan). Like the G-20 appeal to currency devaluations all over the world (which is impossible because somebody has to appreciate if others depreciate, and the only one that can do that is the “dollar” which everyone hates when it “rises”; circular logic is the only logic here), there can only be statist solutions to these intractable economic problems, especially because those statist solutions make them intractable. The only real alternative and solution is to destroy the status quo entirely, which markets attempted to do in 2008 but were interrupted and then co-opted once more.
Paper wealth isn’t wealth, and government debt isn’t “free money.” There are consequences to both which their proponents never include in the “prospectus.” Orthodox economics has no sense of a balance sheet, only the idea that activity matters; and that any activity in the short run will lead to prosperity in the long run. So we have had a few decades of “any activity” and yet economists are left wondering why the global economy won’t recover and is at the same time so easily susceptible to the slightest negative pressures. Though they hate free markets, they will come to eventually appreciate their absence just as the current economy appreciates and suffers the absence of actual wealth drowned out by religious devotion to the “aggregate demand” falsity.
What the American people have seen these few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA is PATRONAGE GOVERNMENT-----where all the wealth and opportunity is moved to the 1% and their 5%-----and our government elections rigged to players and public appointments are as well. This is what captured a functioning democratic republic locally, statewide, and nationally. When WE THE PEOPLE allow $20 trillion in US Treasury bond debt stand it will not only be used as an excuse for AUSTERITY against social programs and public trusts ---it will relegate our local economies to global corporate campuses and that global 1% receiving all our tax and public assets while throwing a few million out to non-economies. Baltimore City has had this economy for decades soon to become more extreme in its wealth and poverty if MOVING FORWARD continues.
We must break these $20 trillion bond debts to bring that tax revenue to our cities/counties/states free to develop local small business and small manufacturing business.
IT IS EASY PEASY----AS ALL THAT US TREASURY BOND AND MUNICIPAL BOND DEBT WAS DONE ILLEGALLY AND UNCONSTITUTIONALLY. JUST SAY NO TO BOND DEBT.
A functioning KEYNESIAN economy with combination free market capitalism with government funding to aid in economic development cannot exist when $20 trillion in bond debt is secured to global 1%. It creates the most CRONY OF ECONOMIES---IT IS LITERALLY A GLOBAL CORPORATE CAMPUS PLANTATION.
The UK is captured more than the US by that OLD WORLD MERCHANT OF VENICE GLOBAL 1%----but here is a discussion all public universities should have been having these few decades and especially NOW. Whether those public universities are in Republican states leaning right wing---or in Democratic states leaning left wing. We must get rid of this PATRONAGE SOCIETY BUILT THESE FEW DECADES OF CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA in order to rebuild real local economies.
PUBLIC APPOINTMENTS TO WHAT ARE NOTHING BUT COMMITTEES ----THIS IS NOT DEMOCRATIC --IT DOES NOT MEET OUR US CONSTITUTIONAL 3 BRANCHES OF GOVERNANCE WITH CITIZENS DETERMINING LEGISLATION.
EXPLAIN HOW PUBLIC POLICY IS AFFECTED BY A RELIANCE ON PATRONAGE
APPOINTMENTS TO THE PUBLIC SECTOR.
WHAT SORTS OF POLICIES ARE DELIVERED? WHAT SORTS ARE NOT?
University College London, University of London,MSc, Public PolicyFebruary 2012
Patronage appointments' effects on public policy continue to be a debated topic among public management scholars, with no unified position on whether appointees or careerist bureaucrats have the best impact on public management. This essay explores what are these competing viewson the effects of patronage appointments on the public sector. The first part outlines positive effects stressed by scholars which argue the need of increased political responsiveness. The second part refers to the drawbacks of patronage appointments that result in costly and less efficient policies. Drawing on the readings, I group these adverse effects into four categories that offer a clearer picture explaining the relationship between patronage appointments and public policy.
Patronage appointments are believed to mostly have a negative impact on public policy, but attempts are made to prove certain positive effects. The neutral competence of bureaucrats, seenas the key to performance in the public sector (Heclo, 1975) has been targeted by criticism seeking to accommodate the need for increased political responsiveness among bureaucrats.William West (2005) claims that
politics and administration are intertwined
and in order to increase outcomes produced by the public sector there is a need for combining nonpartisan objectivity (characteristic for merit based systems) with responsiveness toward political executives (typical for patronized systems). This view is supported by Bok, Maranto and Moe,which argue that political appointees bring to administration more energy, human capital and higher levels of education than careerists do (Lewis, 2007). They also claim that appointees contribute to a better implementation of their political principals' agenda. Thus responsiveness is the outstanding advantage of patronage, as opposed to careerist bureaucrats, who, according to Dunleavy (1985) tend to make choices based on their own preferences and orientations, thus diverging from the current political agenda. Having political appointees in executive positions may also help mitigate the lack of trust issue that many have in non-elected officials exercising political discretion (West, 2005). The need for responsiveness argument even if conclusive was questioned by David E. Lewis(2007) in his quantitative research on USA agencies performance. He reported that even though responsiveness is important, it does not outweigh advantages careerists have: strategic planning,public management and effective outcomes.Lewis conclusions can be challenged by rational choice theories that describe careerist bureaucrats as oriented to budget-maximizing, bureau-shaping and rent-seeking (Niskanen,1971), which theoretically has enormous implications on how public policy is delivered.Probably, if political appointees would also satisfy the professional criteria, they could satisfy both prerequisites for efficiency: responsiveness and objectivity in decision making. But, this is
only a hypothesis, which may prove right or false and further research is required to see the potential results of such a model of patronage.Till then, Lewis (2007) makes it clear that programs administrated by political appointees get lower results than programs administrated by career bureaucrats. Evans and Rauch (1999)confirm this theory at macro-level, providing evidence in favour of merit based systems. The reasons behind poor performance of patronage appointments and more effects to the public sector are detailed next. I distinguish four categories of effects patronage appointments have: political consequences,institutional consequences, consequences on social policies and consequences on economic development.
Scholars agree that across democracies and non-democracies political appointments are mainly used by politicians as a method to boost their political support (Remmer, 2007; Lewis, 2007). Even though patronage outcomes depend upon political systems, agency
design, culture, level of democracy, a set of political consequences can be widely observed:
politicized bureaucracies - where partisanship shapes policy choices;
electoral manipulation with a clear advantage of the incumbent politician
that useadministrative resources and public institutions as their private tools;
fragile political institutions
with corrupt judges, MPs and ministers;
fragmented society: ''ours'' and ''against us'';
defective political system that does not transform political inputs in outputs;
mistrust in public institutions.Due to these ends, Remmer (2007), citing Diamond (1998) and Fox (1994) calls patronage a
distasteful form of governance fundamentally antithetical to democratic rule
The main difference between efficient and non-efficient bureaucracies is shelled in the personnel that runs the organisation, and has less to do with other factors (Wilson, 1989). In patronized public sectors politicians do not pay much if any attention to appointees' qualifications and knowledge. Appointed executives do not meet the required skills level and in effect, the public policies delivered are neither efficient, nor effective or economically advantageous.
Appointees' policy choices are not based on evidence and record, but they rather define tasks from political principal's perspective, which may not be in the best interest of the population.Sometimes the interest of political principal can be neglected as easily as public interest,manifesting as a principal
agent problem. Due to moral hazard and adverse selection in addition to the high level of discretion appointed managers have, they may tend to shirk the irresponsibilities and act on their own will and interest.Similarly, Lewis (2007) illustrates other adverse effects patronage has on institution' performance. In his research on USA federal agencies, he makes clear that programs administrated by political appointees
systematically get lower evaluations than programs run by civil service
. The lack of knowledge on how certain agencies work and public management
experience of appointed managers is highlighted as being the reason.Another effect patronage has on institutions is given by disruptions in the implementation of reforms and other long term policies. Moe (1989) too endorses the opinion that politicians and senior appointed bureaucrats have short term objectives and are not preoccupied about economy and efficiency as ends. Thus, the policies delivered are usually short term oriented,symbolic, with little impact.
Consequences on social policy
Patronage channels public resources to party's networks of supporters and clientele (Remmer,2007). Evidences from 1999 Ghana (Miguel and Farhan, 2004), show that the party in power allocated almost 30% more funding for schools in the areas where it had good results in parliamentary elections of 1996. Similarly, in 2010, in Pakistan, the government protected from floods only districts that paid bribes to state officials, despite the considerable donations from the international community (Quiroz Flores and Smith, 2010). Social spending is correlated with patronage spending and depend on electoral competitions.Social spending increases before elections to expand political support, but decreases after elections, when bigger slices of the public budget are allocated for administrative costs (Remmer,2007).Such policies even though represent a powerful tool for incumbent governments, directly affect the quality of public goods delivered to citizens. That includes the unequal provision of education, health, justice, social security, infrastructure, police, etc. which mainly are delivered to political supporters, and make citizens dependent upon patronage networks.
Consequences on economic development
Most of scholars agree on the adverse impact patronage has on state economy and welfare(Remmer 2007; Rauch and Evans, 2000; Van Biezen and Kpesky, 2007). Corruption and nepotism are often used to characterize the effects of patronage, but a deeper look reveals other associated effects.Patronized public sector is permanently expanding in terms of personnel size and budgetary spending. Expansions take place after each electoral cycle
adding up on the existing number of civil servants. Remmer (2007) points out to Argentina
s public sector, where until 2001 the public spending exceeded revenue growth, but the government continued to increase personnel spending by increasing provincial employment by 40%. This led to Argentina
economic meltdown in 2001.Growth is much dependent on governance, Rauch and Evans (1999) claim. They explored the connection between the quality of the bureaucracy and growth, proving that a bureaucratic system compiling Weber's characteristics determines positive growth, while the supply of patronage varies with poverty and inequality of electorate. A key reason behind this negative connection is that entrepreneurs avoid long term investments in countries with patronized public sector because of the corruption, unpredictable bureaucracy, lack of transparency and reduced accountability.
The lack of an agreement in the academic community regarding the effects of patronage on public policy reflects the disproportionate focus on testing hypothesis related to partisanship’s disadvantages, rather than its potential advantages. In my opinion current research looks at a limited number of variables when measures the effects of patronage, introducing consistent bias and leaving space for interpretation whether patronage is the cause or the result of inefficient income distribution, poor education, and democracy level in a particular country.The existent research reveals that patronage appointments to public sector have adverse impact on citizens' lives. In consequence, people face economic insecurity; unemployment, poor services and in many cases poverty. More than that, patronage combined with autocratic systems may exclude people from enjoying
which are by default non-excludable (as defence, fresh air, protection from disasters). We attest that people’s dissatisfaction with their leadership instigates people to mass protests as the current examples of Middle East revolts, Greece or Russia show.
Everyone knowing financial policy knew in Bush era not only were US subprime mortgage loan frauds being marketed globally filled with fraud and government corruption---we knew in Europe and to a lesser extent in US SOVEREIGN DEBT FRAUD was soaring. Sovereign debt fraud occurs when a corrupt national leader allows a nation to take on so much debt he/she knows cannot be handled just to send that nation into the hands of the global 1%. This is what Greek and Spanish leaders did during Bush era over in Europe. They wanted to send Greek and Spanish citizens into these WORLD BANK/IMF structures.
Goldman Sachs was identified early on in staging these massive sovereign debt frauds---here we see HIDING THE DEBT----talked about without using the words fraud and government corruption. We all knew Greece was soaked in national debt when their books hid that fact. All of those businesses partnered in sovereign debt contracting and outsourcing were being staged to be LOSERS. Think how many US businesses are tied to US Federal contracting debt as we MOVE FORWARD into an economic collapse with $20 trillion in national debt----just like Greece. You can bet none of that Federal contracting debt will be tied to a global corporation!
THE WORLD KNEW GOLDMAN SACHS COMMITTED BANKING FRAUD----THE WORLD KNEW THOSE PESKY GREEK LEADERS WERE GUILTY OF MALFEASANCE AND CORRUPTION AS THEY WORKED TO MOVE GREECE'S WEALTH TO THOSE OLD WORLD MERCHANTS OF VENICE GLOBAL 1%.
Greece should have defaulted on that fraudulent sovereign bond debt ---and would then have been able to control the rebuilding of Greece. Now, if you are right wing believing the mantra of Greece as a social capitalist nation needed to be turned global neo-liberal---then watch as the same comes to your neck of the woods in US.
The amount of global banking fraud is incredible.
Greek debt crisis: Goldman Sachs could be sued for helping hide debts when it joined euro
Exclusive: A leading adviser to debt-riven countries has offered to help Athens recover some of the vast profits made by the investment bank
Goldman Sachs' current headquarters Getty Images
Goldman Sachs faces the prospect of potential legal action from Greece over the complex financial deals in 2001 that many blame for its subsequent debt crisis.
A leading adviser to debt-riven countries has offered to help Athens recover some of the vast profits made by the investment
The Independent has learnt that a former Goldman banker, who has advised indebted governments on recovering losses made from complex transactions with banks, has written to the Greek government to advise that it has a chance of clawing back some of the hundreds of millions of dollars it paid Goldman to secure its position in the single currency.
The development came as Greece edged towards a last-minute deal with its creditors which will keep it from crashing out of the single currency.
The deal is based on fresh economic reform proposals submitted by Athens which bear a striking similarity to the creditors’ offer rejected by the Greek people in a referendum last Sunday – sparking claims that Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras has effectively executed a huge U-turn in order to avoid a catastrophic “Grexit”.
Greece managed to keep within the strict Maastricht rules for eurozone membership largely because of complex financial deals created by the investment bank which critics say disguised the extent of the country’s outstanding debts.
Goldman Sachs is said to have made as much as $500m from the transactions known as “swaps”. It denies that figure but declines to say what the correct one is.
The banker who stitched it together, Oxford-educated Antigone Loudiadis, was reportedly paid up to $12m in the year of the deal. Now Jaber George Jabbour, who formerly designed swaps at Goldman, has told the Greek government in a formal letter that it could “right historical wrongs as part of [its] plan to reduce Greece’s debt”.
Mr Jabbour successfully assisted Portugal in renegotiating complex trades naively done with London banks during the financial crisis. His work helped trigger a parliamentary inquiry and cost many senior officials and politicians their jobs. It also triggered major compensation payments by banks to the Portuguese taxpayer.
Mr Jabbour, who now runs Ethos Capital Advisors, has also helped expose other cases including allegations against Goldman Sachs and Société Générale over their dealings with Libya relating to financial transactions that left the country’s taxpayers billions of dollars out of pocket. Both banks deny wrongdoing.
Based on publicly available information, he believes the size of the profit Goldman made on the transactions was unreasonable. Scrutiny and analysis of the documents and email exchanges could give Greece grounds to seek compensation and assess if the deals were executed for the sole purpose of concealing the country’s debts.
Antigone (Addy) Loudiadis
Greece’s membership of the euro gave it access to billions of easy credit which it was then incapable of paying back, leading to its current crisis. Lenders took its euro membership as a stamp of creditworthiness, but the true state of its economy was far less healthy.
Under Ms Loudiadis’s guidance, Goldman swapped debt issued by Greece in dollars and yen for euros which were priced at a historical exchange rate that made the debt look smaller than it actually was. The swaps reportedly made about 2 per cent of Greece’s debt disappear from its national accounts.
The size and structure of the deal enabled the bank to charge a far bigger fee than is usual in swap transactions, and Goldman persuaded Greece not to test the transaction with competitors to ensure it was getting good value for money.
As this article states---Trump was installed to do just that --default on all that US Treasury bond debt sending all US assets to those bond holders and creditors. Of course there is a pecking order so the global 1% and global corporations will get all of US assets.
What WE THE PEOPLE across the nation must do LOCALLY is the same-----that municipal bond debt as with the US Treasury debt was not ours in the making----Baltimore simply defaults on all that 30 years and more of bond debt. Keep in mind-----there is no pretty way out of massive public malfeasance like this ====we are all going to be hurt. What WE THE PEOPLE THE 99% MUST THINK ABOUT-----is it better to shed debt now and get control of local development----building that local small business economy to recover----or will we hand all to those global 1% who no matter the default by Trump will MOVE FORWARD with all our national, state, and local assets and tax revenue.
If Americans want to maintain US economic structures with whatever version of KEYNESIAN, SUPPLY SIDE, NEO-LIBERAL ECONOMICS we must say NO TO ILLEGAL SOVEREIGN DEBT. MOVING FORWARD simply brings old world laissez faire by a global 1% having all our nations' wealth.
THINK NOW ABOUT WHAT A NATIONAL, STATE, AND LOCAL DEFAULT OF SOVEREIGN DEBT WILL LOOK LIKE TO PLAN OUR PROACTIVE RESPONSE!
If a 'labor and justice' organization has not been shouting against all this sovereign debt ---but promoting it----if they do not have that plan for the coming economic crash and default---they are working as that 5% to the 1% wanting to hand all our US, state, and local wealth to those global 1%. This means no sovereign local economy.
I hear no talk in Baltimore about the debt---about how we will respond to debt----no 99% plan---only a Baltimore City Hall and mayor ready to hand Baltimore to global banking.
Of Course the US Government Will Default on Its Debt
Last week Donald Trump set the financial punditry class aflame with his suggestion that the United States may end up asking lenders to take a haircut on its debt obligations. The resulting firestorm created a race to see who could come up with the strongest condemnation of Trump, David Ader of CRT Capital Group told Bloomberg the comments were “stupid and ridiculous,” while Business Insider’s Josh Borro labeled them “insane.” Vox’s Matt Yglesias described the proposal as a threat to “incinerate the world economy.”
While Yglesias is correct that a US default would have major ramifications for the global economy, lost in all this hand wringing is the fact that the damage has largely already been done. As Jim Grant noted in his Time cover article this month, the United States debt situation is far more serious than most "experts" would like to believe. By accumulating a debt that now towers over $19 trillion, the United States government has written a check it will not be able to cash.
Of course the irony here is that many of the same pundits attacking Trump for his comments today are those who have encouraged on the fiscally reckless policies that have led us to this point. For example, The Weekly Standard described Trump’s comments as a “Plan to Destroy the U.S. Economy”, highlighting the pain that Americans would feel from such a move. Of course, this publication was perhaps the loudest cheerleader for the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars, which could end up costing taxpayers over 6 trillion dollars, and continues to campaign for further expansion of America’s military presence that currently costs over $700 billion a year. Meanwhile, conservative estimates of the cost of bailing out Wall Street — actions that would still be defended today by most of the mainstream financial class - weighs in at over $3 trillion dollars.
These expenditures, added on to firmly implanted and growing welfare state managed by a political class lacking the courage required to make serious attempts at debt reduction, has always made default, in some form, inevitable. As Congressman Ron Paul (who was discussing the reality of US insolvency during his last presidential campaign in 2012) was always fond of pointing out, government spending is itself a form of taxation. So while the Weekly Standard is correct that a debt default will hurt the pocketbook of American families, this is an inevitable consequence of the spending it advocated — an insidious form of tax collection, the consequence of electing politicians who followed the publications own advice.
So the real question about an American default has always been less a matter of if, and more a matter of how and when.
While it is still popular to claim that the United States has never defaulted on its debt, this is a myth. The US has been forced to default a couple of times throughout history, the last of which being when Richard Nixon&rsquo closed the gold window. By cutting the ability of foreign governments to redeem US dollars for gold, America was allowed to pay back past debt with devalued fiat money. This form of default has long been a popular option for governments with debt obligations it can’t or won’t honor.
Of course, as Peter Klein wrote last week, even Trump’s suggestion of the US restructuring its debt isn’t the doomsday scenario CNBC talking heads have made it out to be, noting that:
[T]he idea that the US can never restructure or even repudiate the national debt — that US Treasuries must always be treated as a unique and magical "risk-free" investment — is wildly speculative at best, preposterous at worst.
Murray Rothbard himself advocated for outright repudiating the national debt, arguing:
The government is an organization, so why not liquidate the assets of that organization and pay the creditors (the government bondholders) a pro-rata share of those assets? This solution would cost the taxpayer nothing, and, once again, relieve him of $200 billion in annual interest payments. The United States government should be forced to disgorge its assets, sell them at auction, and then pay off the creditors accordingly.
Trump himself has even touched on the possibility of selling of assets held by the Federal government as a form of debt reduction. This solution would have the added benefit of a number of additional benefits, including solving many of the issues that currently exist with the Federal owning of land used by ranchers. Plus, the country as a whole would benefit if Federal bureaucrats were kicked out of the various government buildings that pollute America’s capitol city — perhaps they could follow the lead of the old DC post office and be turned into Trump hotels?
Unfortunately, lost in the media firestorm over Trump’s comments about the debt is the rapid deteriorating hope that The Donald would offer a challenge to the reckless monetary policy that has helped facilitate the US government’s disastrous spending spree. As I touched on last week, Trump, in stark contrast to past comments, praised the work of Janet Yellen and fully endorsed a continuation of the US’s historically low interest rates. Even more troubling, he seemed to endorse some disastrous aspects of Modern Monetary Theory by suggesting that the United States could never default because it could simply print more money.
The ramifications for this are far more dangerous than his pointing out that the government has no real plans to pay back its debt.
We wanted to start this week's discussion of protectionism and building our local US economies by first KNOWING WHAT IS COMING.
Any economic policy group not discussing what is coming and being honest about its illegality and DELIBERATE HARM TO WE THE PEOPLE will not offer any good discussions for the future.
The last article I shared was from a LIBERTARIAN think tank MISES----this article is from a NEO-LIBERAL think tank MERCATUS------both are Austrian folks---can we get economic policy that is AMERICAN?
We wanted to start by showing a far-right wing global Wall Street discussion on WHAT IS PROTECTIONISM. Remember, the MASTER PLAN of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA was to send US corporations overseas these few decades growing wealth and power then bringing them back to US cities deemed FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES. Moving US corporations overseas created the TRADE DEFICIT OF EXPORTS FROM CHINA----so moving global corporations back to US Foreign Economic Zones will create the conditions of MADE IN USA EXPORTS ONLY. This is what global Wall Street neo-liberals support---and it is PROTECTIONISM.
MADE IN AMERICA TIED TO US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES BECOMES EXPORT ONLY----AND THAT IS PROTECTIONIST.
'The Mercatus Center’s “economic toolkit” draws from the work of Nobel laureates Friedrich A. Hayek, Ronald H. Coase, Douglass C. North, Elinor C. Ostrom, and George Mason University’s own James M. Buchanan and Vernon L. Smith'.
Stop Calling Cronyism Protectionism
Donald J. Boudreaux
Wednesday, May 10, 2017
Here’s a letter to the Wall Street Journal:
Uncle Sam’s scheme to punitively tax Americans who buy low-priced lumber from Canada is yet another instance of what is commonly called “protectionism.” The term, of course, refers to the protection from foreign competition that tariffs and other import restrictions bestow upon politically powerful domestic producers. Yet “protectionism” – with the sweet sound of the verb “to protect” – is far too kind and inaccurate a word for this policy.
It’s too kind because it masks the reality that the protection given to domestic producers is an attack on domestic consumers. To protect with trade barriers the incomes of some of its subjects, government preys upon the incomes of other of its subjects. (And, by the way, economics is clear that the total value of the incomes lost to such government predation exceeds the total value of the incomes that are protected.)
The word “protectionism” is too inaccurate because it hides the scheme’s illogic. If “protectionism” worked as its champions claim, it enriches nearly everyone in the domestic economy not by increasing people’s access to goods and services, but by decreasing this access. Protectionism is the theory that people are made richer when the flow of goods and services available for their consumption is artificially slowed or when the cost of acquiring goods and services for their consumption is artificially raised. Protectionism is the bizarre notion that government-induced scarcity is really government-induced abundance.
So let’s make the language honest and more revealing. George Mason University economics doctoral student Jon Murphy proposes that we replace the misleading words “protectionism” and “protectionists” with the words “scarcityism” and “scarcityists” – words that better expose the true nature of government-erected obstacles to people’s access to goods and services.
Donald J. Boudreaux
Professor of Economics
Martha and Nelson Getchell Chair for the Study of Free Market Capitalism at the Mercatus Center
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA 22030