Now why by a deplorable? In case we forget, it was Hillary Clinton running for president of the United States in 2016, who during a fundraising speech called half of Donald Trump’s supporters “a basket of deplorables”. When we can recognize her Ideological tyranny, contempt and bigotry, also that coming from the liberal ideological elite that she represents, then such a designation is a badge of honor, because they have just proven that their intolerant ideological tyranny and its intent are true. She gave us a token of vindication.
This reminds me of the confederacy of Calvinist Dutch nobles in 1566. They came to the Court of the Governess, Margaret of Parma, who represented the Habsburg King Philip II of Span. There they were called Les Gueux which means beggars. The French Les Gueux became the Dutch ‘Geuzen’; because they asked her to stop the inquisition and persecution of the Protestants. They where people of no value to them, the ideological elite of the day; and then why should these beggars have tolerance? The name Beggars stuck, and it was used as their resistance identity that eventually defeated King Philip II in war and established the Dutch Republic. ...........
Probably the most misunderstood phenomenon in the world and one that leaves most people of the world feeling helpless is understanding money. Nevertheless I am now going to ask you to question the validity of conventional monetary policy and to make a choice. Could there be such a thing as a Monetary Covenant (constitutional monetarism)? What have we got today?
I first began to write about this after the Wall Street protest in 2011, by protesters on Wall Street in New York City who did not know what they were demonstrating for or against. Just being unhappy about something does not solve the problem. ....
I read several books by supposed experts on Globalism. They all began their book by trying to put globalism into a historic perspective, but right here at the beginning, they failed. They had no clue about the history of money or religion and its effects on human development.
The problem is not with the banks, lending money, and the economy; ..... The real problem is with money itself, and monetary policy, as money becomes a law of itself.
Prior to the mortgage crises in the USA in 2008, your house may have been valued at $200,000.00 resale value. Today in 2020 the retail value may be $600,000.00 to $800,000.00. This is not wealth; it is mostly monetary attrition. We can again leverage this attrition with borrowing to spend in the economy, which will inevitably happen when the house is sold. Stimulating growth in the economy while, at the same time, our children are finding out they cannot afford to buy a house. There is a problem with the monetary system.
Once we realized it was a crisis in 2008, interest rates were dropped to zero in order to encourage buying and stimulate the economy. However, this money suddenly available at almost no interest did not come from your or my savings (maybe some from China); it was all quantitative easing, created money; In effect increasing consumer debt on attrition as the collateral to flood out past debt with more debt. This does not solve the problem; it just puts some life back into the problem until a future crisis. Again the problem is with monetary policy.
If this is how we solved the monetary crisis brought on by the mortgage defaults, then why could we not have used the same method combined with higher equity requirements to prevent it from happening in the first place? It would have prevented a lot of misery for a lot of people.
Now with the amount of quantitative easing that was put into the economy, how do we know that this quantitative easing was adequate or excessive for the purpose? What is its real benefit? Isn’t the greatest benefit for global capitalists rather than for the people? Billionaires are having billions more added to their billions through the attrition of money in relation to their assets.
What about those people saving toward buying a house? It just puts that much farther out of reach. Then what of those who are tenants renting a house? Do we just give them rental increases? Is participation in the State now only for those who own property?
In Europe with their monetary crisis, Germany was trying to impose austerity measures on Greece, Italy, and Spain in an attempt to maintain value for monetary assets. However, the people of these countries were electing to government some very strong opposition to Germany and austerity. Austerity began to look like it would be suicide for the EU. As a result, austerity fell off the face of the earth; we never hear of it again and it was quickly replaced with quantitative easing, (attrition). Again the problem is not solved.
In politics, here in Canada where I live and hence am more familiar, all of my lifetime I have been hearing the same partisan economic, monetary rhetoric. The Liberals wanting to fund everything, deficit spending and debt accumulation, and Conservatives saying they will balance the budget and reduce the debt. This has been political rhetoric as long as I can member, for 50 years. Debt keeps accumulating to increase the money supply and attrition (devaluation) keeps moving forward. This political rhetoric has lost all credibility; it is astonishing that today it is still being repeated, always threatening that a future generation will need to pay. Actually we are that generation and are paying for it through attrition.
Today everyone knows that debt is paid by the creation of more debt, especially with public debt. When debt is paid with debt and debt can never be paid without drying up the money supply, then why is it debt? Debt that cannot be paid has no value. Then again why is it debt?