by Summary:
Beneficial or Destructive?
Topics:
Steve Keen considers the following as important:
This could be interesting, too:
Beneficial or Destructive?
Topics:
Steve Keen considers the following as important:
This could be interesting, too:
NewDealdemocrat writes March JOLTS report: declines in everything, fortunately including layoffs
NewDealdemocrat writes Manufacturing treads water in April, while real construction spending turned down in March (UPDATE: and heavy truck sales weren’t so great either)
Eric Kramer writes Eric Segall tells us what he really thinks about the Roberts court
Angry Bear writes Supreme Court watchers mollified themselves (and others) with vague promises
| Beneficial or Destructive? |
100% with you Steve. MMT is ok with debt for constructive things not making the rich richers. Constructive stuff is: healthcare, education, small companies loans/grants, social housing, R&D, etc. Not speculation, large companies grants, illegal or unnessary wars, etc.
Usury is a big problem in the 90% of large democracies that are collapsing today. Not only in national debt, but in mortgages and therefore mortgage-backed securities as well.
The reality of national debt is:
1) Presidents are always going to hire Central Bank Chairs that print money in advance of elections (to make the economy look better than it is – to cement re-election – like Nixon, Trump, and Trudeau did).
2) When debt becomes unserviceable, it gets forgiven – like Germany 52, most countries in Europe in 1934, Greece, etc. Poof – no more debt. Magic right?
Much ado about absolutely nothing – for all of you noobs that falsely believed that money is real – for (high income?) countries.