Thursday, January 24, 2019

Jimmy Dore - SHOCKER: FBI Admits Sabotaging Progressive Politicians As Policy!

The FBI admits that's it's job has been to keep ELECTED progressives and lefties out of power. In other words, they are admitting that the U.S. is not a democracy because they're job has been to ensure only right-wingers gain key positions.

Well, if they are keeping elected progressives out of power, then that means they are putting unelected right-wingers in power.

The FBI has admitted the U.S. has a phoney democracy, and yet the U.S. lectures Venezuela on its democracy which intentional observers say was fair.



12 comments:

Konrad said...

I saw this. The FBI has always been dedicated to keeping genuine progressives and socialists out of political office. Only neoliberals and wannabe neoliberals are allowed in. Once in a while a human being slips through the cracks, but they are too few to make a difference.

The FBI digs up dirt on candidates. “Back in his early teens, he questioned Israeli policies, and is therefore an anti-Semite.” The corporate media outlets help out, as do pro-neoliberal-Democrat bloggers.

Bob Roddis said...

It's a good thing the government isn't revenue constrained by something as wacky as a Gold Standard! The government will always do the right thing with all of that limitless money.

Noah Way said...

The government is revenue constrained?

S400 said...

The government always did the right things under gold standard. The gold standard made the human beings flawless. Please give us gold standard so that everyone can be happy for the rest of our life.
Why haven’t anyone thought of that before?

Andrew Anderson said...

The government will always do the right thing with all of that limitless money. Bob Roddis

Equal fiat distributions to all citizens would allow THEM to do the "right" things with it - by definition, at least according to each citizen.

A Gold Standard, besides being unethical and ridiculous on other grounds, would prevent that by making fiat too expensive. So a Gold Standard is anti-reform.

But at least you've admitted the purpose of a Gold Standard is to limit the SUPPLY of fiat.

But you do know that the value of fiat also depends on the DEMAND for it? Then why do you not support that all citizens be allowed to USE fiat - via accounts at the Central Bank or Treasury itself? Instead of being forced to use private bank deposits or be limited to mere physical fiat, coins and bills?

Bob Roddis said...

The government always did the right things under gold standard. The gold standard made the human beings flawless

Actually, the US government dumped the ability to redeem in gold or silver in order to fund the Civil War with the Greenbacks. So, you don't know any history? I'm shocked.

Plus, U.S. entry into WWI was funded by artificial Fed credit expansion:

During World War I federal expenditures ballooned and although the new income tax was able to partially finance the war effort, most of the financing was done through federal borrowing and by the highly accommodating monetary policy of the Federal Reserve. The role of the Federal Reserve at this time was expressed unambiguously by the New York Federal Reserve Bank Governor Benjamin Strong, who told a Congressional committee in 1921 that ‘I feel that I, or the bank at least, was their [the Treasury’s] agent and servant in those matters’ and further added that the wartime inflation caused by the low interest rates maintained by the bank were ‘inevitable, unescapable, and necessary’ for prosecuting the war (Strong, 1930) [emphasis added}

https://bobroddis.blogspot.com/2012/08/daniel-kuehn-provides-factual-basis-for.html

So, yes. I'm completely right while you, S400, are unable to propound a single debating point. Staying on a strict gold and silver standard would inhibit politicians from going to war.

Your line of argument is so pathetic and contradictory. THE MAIN ANNOUNCED BENEFIT OF MMT IS THAT IT ALLEGEDLY REDUCES INHIBITIONS ON THE GOVERNMENT FROM SPENDING MASSIVE AMOUNTS ON BIG PROJECTS because "we're no longer on the gold standard". One of the wonderful things about a gold standard is that it does successfully inhibit government spending on big projects. I thought we at least agreed on that and that the dispute was over the necessity and efficacy of government funded big projects.

Noah Way said...

Debating points for RODDIS

Critiques of a gold standard:

As an economy's productive capacity grows, then so should its money supply. Because a gold standard requires that money be backed in the metal, then the scarcity of the metal constrains the ability of the economy to produce more capital and grow.

A gold standard means that the money supply would be determined by the gold supply and hence monetary policy could no longer be used to stabilize the economy.

The money supply would essentially be determined by the rate of gold production. When gold stocks increase more rapidly than the economy, there is inflation and the reverse is also true. The consensus view is that the gold standard contributed to the severity and length of the Great Depression.

In 2012 a poll of 40 U.S. economists in the IGM Economic Experts Panel found that none of them believed returning to the gold standard would result in "price-stability and employment outcomes [that] would be better for the average American." The panel of polled economists included past Nobel Prize winners, former economic advisers to both Republican and Democratic presidents, and senior faculty from Harvard, Chicago, Stanford, MIT, and other well-known research universities. The specific statement with which the economists were asked to agree or disagree was as follows: "If the US replaced its discretionary monetary policy regime with a gold standard, defining a 'dollar' as a specific number of ounces of gold, the price-stability and employment outcomes would be better for the average American."

Meltzer: "We don’t have the gold standard. It’s not because we don’t know about the gold standard, it’s because we do."

Bob Roddis said...

A gold standard means that the money supply would be determined by the gold supply and hence monetary policy could no longer be used to stabilize the economy.

All of that does indeed make up the standard Keynesian "critique" of the gold standard without the slightest understanding of Austrian concepts or analysis. One major purpose of the gold standard is to make "monetary policy" impossible. Along with making war funding very difficult.

Further, the idea that the money supply must expand along with a growing economy and population is totally baseless and absurd.

Joe said...

The only thing shocking is the guy was dumb enough to admit this on tv. It's common knowledge among most of us.

Noah Way said...

Austrian school:

Slavish adherence to a belief in "market efficiency" despite regular and repeated massive market failures.

FAIL

I'm surprised you responded at all. Usually you just turn tail and run when your position is blown out of the water.

Andrew Anderson said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Andrew Anderson said...

Further, the idea that the money supply must expand along with a growing economy and population is totally baseless and absurd. Bob Roddis

No it isn't since otherwise one could obtain a lazy, risk-free real return by burying his money in the ground or equivalent and free riding on the work and necessarily non-risk-free investment behavior of others. That's not a recipe for real economic progress but for economic stagnation and the exploitation of the young by the old.

But thanks for revealing the wicked core and intent of Austrian beliefs in a nut-shell.

Did I say wicked? Christians should read Matthew 25:14-30 for what the Bible says about money hoarding. And please note that a fixed money supply is absolutely worse than a Gold or Silver Standard since those, at least, allow new fiat to be created as gold and silver are mined.