Brought to the front from March 2009 to prepare the reader for the threads that are to come. Remembering always that Sinclair remains unforgiven for his lazy confirmation of the existence of the Keynesian multiplier ( when in reality it does not exist) during his presentation to the Senate. It was an incredibly lazy thing to do. As it drew on a crap post by Mankiw, ON A FUCKING BLOG, posted only days before Sinclairs own presentation to the Senate. Mankiw’s own useless opinion at least seems to have been on the basis of statistical work by Robert (THE PATSY) Barro.
Its pretty clear that there is no reaching these lunatics. Either they are too stupid to realise what a moronic idea this is. Or they are so disloyal to their ultimate paymasters that they are helping to continue this self-evidently moronic idea out of what the lawyers call “professional courtesy”. Professional courtesy is where the lawyer betrays his client and gets all chummy with the skanky idiot on the other side of the argument who is lying about you and trying to have you subjected to compulsion to reinforce these lies.
So the only answer is to sack them all and just save us a whole lot of money. Thats a few dollars to make up the two billion that traitor Kevin Rudd is throwing us more into debt every week.
It seems that our economics academy is weeding out anyone smart enough to not get involved in this gigantic emperors clothes phenomenon. So only repulsively stupid people like Nick Gruen and Mark Hill are making it through all the way to get their economics degree. Asking Mark Hill for evidence for this idiocy just shows why none of these people are fit to talk about economics. Because all this fuckwit does is keep on lining up people who agree with him that it exists. They are usually people who seem to have sold out. In that they probably tried to say it didn’t exist early on but were given such negative reinforcement that they had to somehow argue via some other mechanism.
We hold cash balances. And that money we receive that is not used to replenish cash balances is spent. Stealing money off one person doesn’t change this fact. It will not increase spending in any shape or form. It will simply alter what categories the money is spent on.
Now this ought to be obvious. But it is greatly helpful to lunatics like Rudd or Gruen, who want to get us into debt by 2 billions more every week, to think of the money as SANCTIFIED BY THE ACT OF GOVERNMENT STEALING.
You see if you are a parasite and a thief its greatly helpful to have this idea that stealing sanctified the money, and makes it special and somehow gives it great power.
It is this voodoo-economics, and other macromancy, that is the cause of our problems and so any economist who fails to repudiate this idiotic concept in the strongest possible terms must be fired and stripped of his government pension, for the sake of the rest of us. Because we have families to look after too you know. And we don’t need you guys betraying us when we are paying for your kids as well.
A policy to increase overall spending is an INFLATIONARY policy. A policy to decrease spending overall is a CONTRACTIONARY policy. But fiscal policy is neither inflationary nor contractionary, it is merely idiotic.
If you want contraction there is only one right and proper way to do this. And that is to increase the reserve asset ratio. You don’t sell bonds and retire cash-money because that increases our debt levels.
If you want policy to be more inflationary…. that is to INCREASE nominal spending overall, what you do is you produce new cash and you use it to RETIRE debt. Never is there any excuse to increase debt to increase spending. Since increasing debt does not increase spending, rather it is just the parasites stealing off you and your kids and betraying our country.
So we have monetary policy. And there is good monetary policy and pseudo-monetary policy which is really just more parasitism.
To review. Valid monetary policy is increasing the RAR when you want policy more contractionary. Valid monetary policy is debt retirement via new cash creation if-and-only if you want more spending… if and only if you want policy less contractionary and therefore more inflationary.
The above are the only two valid and ethical measures of monetary policy that there are under fiat currency.
What about cutting interest rates I hear you say? This is simply subsidising parasitism. And it doesn’t work either, expect by secondary effects, of either reducing the effective RAR or increasing the amount of cash or cash-substitutes out there.
So we ought not call these other measures MONETARY POLICY. Rather we ought to call them what they are which is bank subsidisation. Some confusion about this will exist in this country since we have the complicating factor of the variable home mortgage. But we shall gloss over this for our purposes here.
Now notice how our economists assist parasitism at every turn. First they want us to go into debt to shower money on the taxeater parasites. Next they want to lend money out to the financial sector parasites at bargain basement interest rates.
Only when things are in total crisis will they use authentic monetary policy. Which is either increasing the Reserve Asset Ratio or Debt retirement via new cash creation.
ALL OTHER MEASURES ARE BOTH INEFFECTUAL AND UNETHICAL.