An economics, investment, trading and policy blog with a focus on Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). We seek the truth, avoid the mainstream and are virulently anti-neoliberalism.
War is big business, and some people are making a ton of money out of it and don't want it to end. David Swanson says that the discussion he is having here with Rick Sanchez would never occur on mainstream television, or in the rest of the media, where it is blacked out.
Two thirds of the military in Afghanistan are private contractors. The generals get to eat the best steak and drink the best wine while Afghans get pounded and U.S. troops die.
The U.S. got Bin Laden a long time ago where they killed a lot of people trying to get him, but the Afgans who lost family members picked up arms to fight the U.S. to get them out of their country, and so it continues indefinitely with a new generation now doing the fighting.
Rick Sanchez discusses a recent decimating attack that wiped out an entire company of Afghan Security Forces, part of a consistent pattern of the retreat of US and its proxies in the face of a resurgent Taliban. He reports on the grotesque reason for continuing US presence in Afghanistan – that no matter the death and suffering in the conflict, US military contractors and the politicians in their pocket make millions of dollars in blood money. In this “privatized war,” there are twice as many military contractors as there are soldiers. He is then joined by activist, author and journalist David Swanson, who argues that the real enemy is “the institution of war” and not the supposed “bad guys” designated by any government.
Kennedy and King Family Members and Advisors Call for Congress to Reopen Assassination Probes
Mark Crispin Miller writes: I’m proud to be among the signatories calling for a new investigation—a real investigation—of the four assassinations that created the America we’re living in today: a rogue state hooked on war, its people either crushed by poverty or struggling to get by, ripped off and poisoned by the same cartels, yet bitterly divided.
We’re on the brink today because we’ve all been living this Big Lie for over half a century: that the United States is a democratic republic, where government is chosen by the people in their own best interests, guided by great movements of dissent, and always well-informed by a free press.
This lie was traumatically exploded by those four assassinations, which made all too clear that the United States was to be governed not by We the People, through their duly educated votes, but by hidden interests using violence to wipe out any candidate or activist who might dare thwart their plans.
Although it’s long been crystal-clear to everyone who’s bothered to look into it, and even clear enough to most Americans, this fact has been perversely obfuscated both by “our free press” and in the nation’s schools at every level, through endless iteration of the state’s “lone gunman” narrative, with all contrary evidence ignored and/or derided as “conspiracy theory.”
Enough is enough. Please join us in demanding that this lethal cover-up now cease—because the truth will set us free, but only if we face it at long last.
Trump and Pence say they care about the Venezuelan people who they say are suffering under a socialist dictatorship even though the Nicolas Maduro's government got voted in through a fair election.
Venezuela's political crisis deepens - with the U.S. reportedly considering throwing its full weight behind the opposition leader, after rejecting the legitimacy of Nicolas Maduro's presidency.
To combat inequality and oligarchy, we need to tax the accumulated wealth of the billionaire class, not just income.
Reintroducing high taxes on the rich seems to be popular now, even in the U.S. with 45% of Republican voters supporting the idea. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says the 70% tax will only kick in after someone has earned over $10 million. Wow, that's going to be some fight!
Anyway, no more worry that some people raise about the oligarchs capturing all the MMT deficit spent money with those sort of taxes. Problem solved!
Taxing the rich is popular—and makes good economic sense
In the fallout from Ocasio-Cortez’s interview, economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman was quick to point out that her view of optimal tax rates was far from controversial.
A flight of prominent academics, including Nobel laureate Peter Diamond, whom Krugman describes as “arguably the world’s leading expert on public finance,” have concurred that a top tax rate of over 70 percent would be entirely reasonable. “Some put it higher,” Krugman noted. “Christina Romer, top macroeconomist and former head of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, estimates [the optimal rate for the top tax bracket] at more than 80 percent.”
America indeed long had tax rates on the rich that reached the levels Ocasio-Cortez proposed or higher, while the nation experienced massive economic expansion. In fact, she understated the rates from the past: For two decades after World War II, until 1964, the marginal tax rate on the highest bracket hovered around 91 percent.
Some progressives—notably advocates of Modern Monetary Theory, a brand popularized by the economists Stephanie Kelton and L. Randall Wray—dispute the necessity of such funding. They argue the government need not be preoccupied with raising taxes, as it can comfortably borrow to stimulate the economy and make socially productive investments. But a higher tax on top earners is not just about generating revenue. Rather, taxes on the ultra-wealthy can be seen as goods in their own right, as tools for fighting runaway income inequality.
I attempted to link directly to the source of the post, which ZH crossposted, but got the message that the site''s bandwidth limit had been exceeded. Apparently MMT is going viral. AOC is a big deal. She has changed the national conversation.
The "criticism" is pretty standard, from the gut rather than the head. Dealing with the truth is hard.
Strain and Veuger never try to meet the burden they set for themselves with their frenzied rhetoric. The key test of a theory’s validity is its predictive ability. A theory that is so weak that it is a “joke” made by “luna[tics]” should collapse as soon as its predictive ability is tested. What predictive failures do Strain and Veuger demonstrate MMT scholars have made? None. What predictive failures do they attempt to show MMT scholars have made? None. That failure even to attempt to show MMT scholars’ predictive errors is extraordinarily telling. First, you know they would have attacked even a minor predictive error by MMT scholars – if they could find such an example. Second, that means they could not find even a minor predictive failure by MMT scholars. Third, the AEI’s failure to find any predictive failure by MMT scholars is fatal to their assertion that the MMT – the basis for MMT scholars’ macroeconomics predictions – is such a “joke” that it invariably produces “lunacy.”...
New Economic Perspectives AOC# and MMT Spook the AEI William K. Black | Associate Professor of Economics and Law, UMKC
Things seem to come in cycles. We have been at this for some years now – trying to articulate the principles of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) in various ways in various fora. There is now a solid academic literature – peer-reviewed journal articles, book chapters in collections, and monographs (books) published by the core MMT group and, more recently, by the next generation MMT academics. That literature spans around 25 years. For the last 15 odd years (give or take) there has been a growing on-line presence in the form of blog posts, Op Ed articles etc. More than enough, perhaps too much for people to wade through.
Each period seems to raise the same questions as newcomers stumble on our work – usually via social media. The questions come in cycles but there is never anything raised in each cycle that we have neglected to consider earlier – usually much earlier. When we set out on this project we tried to be our own critics because our work (in this area) was largely ignored. So we had to contest each of the ideas – play devil’s advocate – to stress test the framework we were developing (putting together pieces of knowledge from past theorists, adding new bits or new ways of thinking about them and binding it all together with interesting and novel connections and implications). So it is continually testing one’s patience to read the same criticism over and over again.
Please do not get me wrong. When these queries are part of the learning process from a reader who is genuinely trying to work out what it is all about there is no issue. Our role as teachers is to see each generation safely through their educative phase in as interesting a manner as we can. But when characters get on the Internet, some with just a year, say of postgraduate mainstream study and start making claims about what we have ignored or left out or got wrong then it can be trying. Ignoring them is the best strategy. But then the genuine learners get confused. So this blog post is Part 1 of a two-part series seeking to help answer two major issues that we keep being asked about – (a) Does MMT only advocate tax increases to fight inflation?; and (b) How can any meaningful jobs be offered in a Job Guarantee if the workforce is ephemeral by construction? Part 2 will come tomorrow....
Bill Mitchell – billy blog Operationalising core MMT principles – Part 1 Bill Mitchell | Professor in Economics and Director of the Centre of Full Employment and Equity (CofFEE), at University of Newcastle, NSW, Australia
The neocon metamorphosis is nearly complete as many of the neocons, who started out as Democrats, have returned home, where they are being welcomed for their hardline foreign policy viewpoint.
Philip Geraldi seems to making the mistake, as some people on the right do, of equating all liberals as evil, conflating those, say, who run the porn and gambling industry with those who are evirenmentalists, the trade unionists, the LBGT community, the left, the psychological profession, etc. Anything left of them that has liberal values is seen as evil. But much of what he considers to be the left, I consider to be the right.
Peter Stringfellow, who runs a seedy nightclub in London - which has topless barmaids - is a staunch conservative who is well received within Conservative Party circles because he is successful businessman who despises the left. And I could never see the bosses who run the gambling and porn industries voting for Jeremy Corbyn, or Tulsi Gabbard, or Bennie Sanders, or joining Greenpeace, etc. Their industry may be liberal, but they are arch capitalists who belong on the right, even if they are not traditional conservatives. And there are grey areas too, like Hollywood and Silicon Valley.
Philip Geraldo has a different view of how the Neocons came about to the one I have read in the past, which was that the Neocons were originally on the left, even communists, but when they found that the left tended to be pro-Palestine and anti-Israel they swapped sides to become Republicans while keeping many of their social liberal values. But Philip Geraldi says they were communists who thought the left were taking too long to overthrow the world with their liberal values so they moved to right to use the Republican Party as a way of doing it through endless war.
Just the same, this is another excellent article by Philip Geraldi.
Ovid framed his narrative around gods, heroes and quasi-historical events but if he were around today, he would no doubt be fascinated by the many transformations of the group that has defined itself as neoconservative.The movement began in a cafeteria in City College of New York in the 1930s, where a group of radical Jewish students would meet to discuss politics and developments in Europe. Many of the founders were from the far left, communists of the Trotskyite persuasion, which meant that they believed in permanent global revolution led by a vanguard party. The transformation into conservatives of a neo-persuasion took place when they were reportedly “mugged by reality” into accepting that the standard leftist formulae were not working to transform the world rapidly enough. As liberal hawks, they then hitched their wagon to the power of the United States to bring about transformation by force if necessary and began to infiltrate institutions like the Pentagon to give themselves the tools to achieve their objectives, which included promotion of regime change wars, full spectrum global dominance and unconditional support for Israel. When Trump was elected, it, therefore, seemed that the reign of the neocons had ended, but chameleonlike, they have changed shape and are now ensconced both in some conservative as well as in an increasing number of progressive circles in Washington and in the media. Against all odds, they have even captured key posts in the White House itself with the naming of John Bolton as National Security Adviser and Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State. Bolton’s Chief of Staff is Fred Fleitz, a leading neocon and Islamophobe while last week Trump added Iran hawkRichard Goldberg to the National Security Council as director for countering Iranian weapons of mass destruction. Goldberg is an alumnus of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, which is the leading neocon think tank calling incessantly for war with Iran. DDT is a prime example of how the neoconservatives and traditional liberal interventionists have come together as it is in part funded by Pierre Omidyar, the billionaire co-founder of eBay who has provided DDT with $600,000 in two grants through his Democracy Fund Voice, also a 501(c)4. Omidyar is a political liberal who has given millions of dollars to progressive organizations and individuals since 1999. Indeed, he is regarded as a top funder of liberal causes in the United States and even globally together with Michael Bloomberg and George Soros. His Democracy Fund awarded $9 million in grants in 2015 alone.
Omidyar is what he is – a hardcore social justice warrior who supports traditional big government and globalist liberal causes, most of which are antithetical to genuine conservatives. But what is interesting about the relationship with Kristol is that it also reveals what the neoconservatives are all about. Kristol and company have never been actual conservatives on social issues, a topic that they studiously avoid, and their foreign policy is based on two principles: creating a state of perpetual war based on fearmongering about foreign enemies while also providing unlimited support for Israel.
In most ways, Modern Monetary Theory—Functional Finance—is just macroeconomic common sense:
We do not like high unemployment.
We do not like excessive inflation.
Thus the government should make it its first priority to use its tools of economic management so that we do not experience either.
And maybe the government needs to be a little bit clever in how it uses fiscal and when and how it uses monetary policy to keep the task of financing the national debt from becoming an undue or even an unsustainable burden.
So what can go wrong with MMT? Three things can go wrong;
MMT implicitly assumes that the debt market is efficient—that if the government debt gets on an unduly burdensome and unsustainable path, we will see that immediately in high interest rates. If that is not true, the government and the economy can face one hell of a mess should a bubble in government bond prices develop and then collapse. Cf. Greece.
MMT implicitly assumes that wealth-owners react rapidly when they see trouble ahead—that when investors conclude that the government cannot or will not balance its books without ultimate high inflation, inflation will jump immediately.
MMT implicitly assumes that extra financial leverage generated by the high values of collateral assets does not serve as a significant source of risk—that it is only on a small scale that investors will borrow foolishly just because they can....
"Implicitly assumes"? I'll be interest to see what MMT economists think of this.
More about Blanchard than MMT but worth a read since it provides more evidence that MMT is getting noticed — and attacked by the mainstream (read Establishment). Both are positive signs. When they can no longer ignore you, they attack you..
We spend an inordinate amount of time thinking about, and in various ways ‘styling’ our hair. It’s not entirely silly; we’re trying to tell the world – through the language of keratin strands – about who we are.
Gordon Dimmack explains why Luke Harding of the Guardian has been writing loads of lies and falsehoods about Julian Assange. It's because when Assange has to leave the Ecuadorian Embassy the UK police will be able to hold him for enquiries, and then the next thing you will know he would have been whipped off to the U.S.
And everyone in the U.K will go about their daily affairs not knowing anything had been done wrong, trusting the authorities.
Everything is mixed up. I'm in the left but I wanted Trump to win and my liberal leftie friends were appalled. I went to see an anti-war play at a local Quaker Meeting House, and I told them after the play had finished that Trump was better than Hilary, but they looked at me as if I was mad.
This conservative thinks that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez would be good for America.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a freshman Congresswoman from New York, is a really big deal. She has become a hate object for conservatives, which doesn't make much sense to me. You can check out a deeper dive on her signature policies in this week's blog post. #OcasioCortez#AlexandriaOcasioCortez#DonaldTrump
Thomas Fazi and I have been discussing the shape of our next book and I think it will be an interesting and worthwhile followup to Reclaiming the State: A Progressive Vision of Sovereignty for a Post-Neoliberal World (Pluto Books, 2017). We hope it will be published some time late in 2019. One of the angles that will be delved into is the way in which neoliberal narratives and constructs have permeated individual consciousness. Yes, sounds a bit psychological doesn’t it. But there is a strong literature going back to well before the recent period of neoliberalism that allows us to draw some fairly strong conclusions on how the process has worked. It also allows us to make some coherent statements about the dis-junctures that are going on across the world between the people and their polities, which have spawned the support for Brexit, the election of Donald Trump, the popularity of far-right movements, the electoral demolition of the traditional social democratic political parties, the election of the new Italian government, and the on-going trouble that the Gilets Jaunes are causing the mainstream political processes in France (and Brussels). The literature also provides a guide as to how the Left might break out of their current malaise based on their tepid yearning for cosmopolitanism, identity and their fear of financial markets to reestablish themselves as the progressive voice of the people. That is what I am writing about at present and here is a snippet....
Bill goes "there," where "there" is philosophy in the best sense as "the study of the wholes in terms of wholes," that is, in terms of systems and subsystems. Economics cannot be approached on than on a simplistic basis without considering its relationship to society. Society is a network of networks, and these networks are dynamic rather than static. That implies that history counts, which includes culture, traditions, and institutional arrangements that are fluid.
Without taking into consideration the considerable knowledge that has been developed in the various disciplines, the social sciences in particular, economics doesn't have much to say about society that is of any worth practically. And the world is looking for practical solutions to pressing challenges.
In other words the mechanistic models based on physics that assumes that human being are like atoms obeying laws of nature and that assume ergodicity are barren with respect to practical application. Reality is not like that idealized world, which is mathematically tractable but non-representational. The social world is non-ergodic; uncertainty and asymmetries are facts of life.
As managers of our lives and environment, we humans need appropriate models to approach human problems efficiently and effectively, and devise workable solutions to pressing issues of the day. The paraphrase management guru Peter F. Drucker, "Efficiency is doing things right; effectiveness is doing the right things." Business people figured out long ago that conventional economic theory is of little usefulness in management. Go figure.
Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) has been in the news again (and filled up my Twitter feed...). There have been a number of attempts to "explain" MMT by various American conservatives. As one might expect, those attempts have been pathetic; it is generally a good idea to have at least a reasonable grasp of a topic before attempting to explain it. Critics of MMT generally do not bother with that step. Since I am trying to work on other projects, I will only give a quick response to what I have seen, in case some of my readers are not familiar with MMT. (My working assumption is that most of my readers are, hence the brevity of this article.)...
Israel Shamir says it's difficult to get the truth out now, but the social media could have helped us, but, alas, they betrayed us too.
There is not a single newspaper in the US that supports the views of the US President. Nobody defended him when he was accused, brazenly, in-your-face, of being a Russian agent. Nobody supported him when he called to bring the troops home from Syria. Nobody came to his aid when he mulled parting with NATO. There are tens of millions of men and women who voted for him, but he has only his Twitter account at his disposal.
The media accuses Trump of paying too little attention to Israel’s needs. Israel needs US troops in Syria and in Germany, US jets in Spain and Qatar, US ships in Italy and the Gulf. Israel needs the US to lead NATO to contain Russia. If Israel needs it, the US should provide, says Daniel Shapiro, the ex-ambassador. Not a single American newspaper, not a single US statesman cared to reply that President Trump had been elected by the American people to do what is needed for them, not for Israel.
The US is not an exception. Millions of French people support the GJ, but not a single newspaper, not a single TV channel gives them a platform. They are called anti-Semites for they are revolted by Danny Cohn-Bendit and Bernard-Henri Levi, who are Jewish. They are also called homophobes because they want to ban same-sex “marriage”. They are being attacked by the bankers’ storm-troopers, the Antifa, and no media defends them.
Millions of Brits support Jeremy Corbyn, but all the mainstream media is against him, even the state-supported BBC, even the Labour Guardian. Corbyn is accused of anti-Semitism, for Corbyn speaks for the workers and against the bankers. Nobody defends him and there is no mainstream media to speak for him.
Only the minor Russian RT channel provides, up-to-a-point, some alternative views, defending the American, British and French people’s sovereignty, but they can’t do much. Paradoxically, RT does not broadcast in Russian and its English-language broadcasts can’t be seen in Russia. The rest of the Russian media doesn’t differ much from the Western variety.
The mainstream media from Tokyo to Paris to Los Angeles speaks in one voice. All other opinions had been pushed out of mainstream discussion. It is good that we have the internet and sites like Unz Review that allow us to express our views. The problem is with delivery. How can we deliver to the public? The real mainstream media has so many more views and viewers! For them, hundreds of thousands or even millions of views are not unusual.
In recent weeks Rachel Riley, a British TV celebrity, has tossed the Antisemitic slur in the direction of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, Noam Chomsky, Ken Loach, Aaron Bastani, yours truly and others. In her first extended Ch 4 interview it became clear that Riley isn’t exactly an astute political philosopher. You can watch the entire Ch 4 interview here.
The Britisher explains why most people don't want libertarianism. He seems to be a gentle, moderate conservative who values the state. I rather like him. This is a rather good comment someone left under the video.
Anarchocapitalism works perfectly in the same universe that communism works perfectly...you know...the one where human nature is irrelevant.
Mark Weber argues in the Unz Review why conservatism is finished. He says identity politics is the real deal and conservatives have nothing to counter it - because they're not even in the same league. He says on most social issues conservatives have now become liberal, which seems to be true. Even many people on the British far-right now defend gay and women's rights against 'intolerant Islam'.
On YouTube, The Britisher gives a good account about why the British Conservative Party has embraced liberal values; but he argues that some conservatism is still required to stop identity politics from running amok.
I think all societies will adopt more liberal values in time, because it makes sense- it's about being decent to and fair to people. But there are excessives, for sure, which need to be tempered.
Today not a single prominent politician who regards himself as conservative dares call for dismantling Social Security or Medicare. To the contrary, conservative politicians assure voters that they will “protect” these programs. Conservatives likewise fought the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. Although there is still some residual talk of repealing and replacing it, it appears that some form of the Act will remain in place. And just as they eventually accepted the once-despised Social Security and Medicare programs, conservatives very likely will come around to accepting some version of Obamacare.
Just what is it that conservatives want to conserve? One answer that’s often given is “freedom” – by which is usually meant “individual freedom.”
Well, if individual freedom is really important, those who call themselves conservative should be very pleased with the trajectory of the past century, because Americans today generally have more freedom and “rights” than those of earlier generations.
Consider life in 1930, for example – when nearly all Americans still regarded the US as a “great” country.
For one thing, employment and job opportunities were generally segregated and restricted by sex and race. Employment notices in newspapers appeared in separate sections, one for Men and another for Women. Women were effectively barred from a wide range of jobs.
There were no “gay rights.” Homosexual behavior was punished as a crime. Any suggestion that a woman might have the “right” to marry another woman, or a man another man, would have been regarded as offensive and absurd.
By law and custom, people of European ancestry could not marry persons of other races. In most states marriage between whites and blacks was a felony.
Abortion was not a “right”; it was a crime.
Americans could not buy groceries, tools or clothes on a Sunday. Stores across the country were closed on Sundays as an expression of respect for the Christian heritage and Christian sensibilities.
No one could legally order a glass of beer or enjoy a bottle of wine with a meal in a restaurant. The sale of alcoholic beverages was prohibited throughout the country.
How many Americans today who call themselves conservative would prefer life in the “great” America of 1930 to life in the “liberal” USA of our era? Is “freedom” really the most important thing that conservatives want to conserve? The Unz Review
The Britisher - How did UK politics become so 'progressive'?
David Bowie was awesome and pushed the boundaries! But the world is always more complicated than it seems at first glance. David Bowie was painfully shy as a young man and couldn't go onstage without dressing up. He felt boring, and wasn't keen on his voice, and so hiding behind a persona really helped him.
As an adolescent, I was painfully shy, withdrawn. I didn't really have the nerve to sing my songs on stage, and nobody else was doing them. I decided to do them in disguise so that I didn't have to actually go through the humiliation of going on stage and being myself. David Bowie
David Bowie never discussed politics, but he did refuse a knighthood.
I think the lovely Richard Wolff got quite a surprise when he came to do a lecture at this university. He was suppose to be debating Jordon Peterson about Marxism, but Jordon wouldn't come for under $50,000. Richard Wolff asked for nothing except for his expenses to be paid.
ProporNot are back, and if you use the words Neocon, neoliberal, imperialist, Zionist, warmonger, or establishment then you may a Russian propagandist, according to them.
The neoclassical foundational assumption of rational maximization and Buchanan's rational choice theory are "thin" theories of the actor. As a result the models created on the basis of such assumptions are simplifications. The questions is whether they are oversimplifications. That depends on the case. Such assumptions may apply generally in certain simple cases but not to all. Moreover, the assumption of methodological individualism on which microfoundations depends is similarly limited. These assumptions don't scale owing to social embeddedness and historical, cultural and institutional influence. Attempting to scale them beyond their limits results in the the fallacy of composition, that is, incorrectly assuming that a whole is the sum of its parts when the relationship of the parts supervenes.
Understanding Society The place for thick theories of the actor in philosophy Daniel Little | Chancellor of the University of Michigan-Dearborn, Professor of Philosophy at UM-Dearborn and Professor of Sociology at UM-Ann Arbor
Tom Luongo explains the real reasons behind the US attack on Huawei are part of the ongoing US hybrid war against China and Russia as competitors. It's about power and money, as always.
At 8:30 Steve Keen marvels at what the Chinese have achieved in 30 years. He says their society is liberal with an authoritarian government in the background, but it is more responsive to people's' needs than our 'democratic' governments are. With its mix of private and public banks, China has achieved a lot.
This will likely meet reciprocal response and result in a two-tier IT technology, with the West vassals using the Western system and the Global South using the Chinese system. A multi-polar world will result, especially with a growing cold war between the US/Global North and China-Russia/Global South.
If the government issues interest-bearing bonds to wealthy institutions to take money out of circulation to control inflation, then why not allow the general public to deposit their savings at the central bank in interest-bearing accounts as another way to control inflation? This would compete with the private banks, but would this be a bad thing?
The rest of the article is very MMT in all but name, and describes how the New Green Deal can be paid for while keeping inflation in check.
I believe that the ‘fintech’ revolution renders something like what I’m proposing here all but inevitable. The point for present purposes, though, is simply that once this thing happens we’ll have yet another quite powerful anti-inflationary and anti-deflationary policy tool – and therefore yet more reason not to be timid about moving ahead energetically with the Green New Deal.
Have I succeeded, then? Have I convinced you both that there isn’t a ‘pay for’ challenge and that there isn’t, thanks to a multitude of theoretical, empirical, and policy lever reasons, an ‘inflation’ challenge either? If you are bold, know finance, and care about our future, you probably didn’t need much convincing. If instead you are frightened, financially untutored, or cavalier about our economy or our planet, please buck up, wise up, and suit up. It is time to say game on for the Green New Deal.
