A Lesson in POLITICAL OPERATIONS: Who Runs the Pentagon, & By Default, Much of The Treasury Budget

   (Commentary posted by Roger Erickson)



Those interested in Fiat Currency Operations would be well advised to learn more about POLITICAL OPERATIONS from the likes of Chuck Spinney (who forwarded this article) and other members of the legendary Pentagon Reform Movement (PRM). And also from their associates. People like Winslow Wheeler.

As with fiat currency operations, there are subtle simplicities to the basics of Political Operations. Those who refuse to dig into actual political operations end up, just like Deficit Terrorists, making life harder for themselves and all others, by uselessly adding frictions where there are already more than enough.

The PRM peaked in the 1980s, and was largely ignored by younger activists, but the key members never stopped working, even in retirement.

The Men Who Really Run the Pentagon

Deficit Terrorist: Al Qaeda Leader calls for renewed attacks to "bleed America economically"

Story at the Telegraph:

Ayman al-Zawahiri, the Al-Qaeda leader, has called on followers to commit attacks inside the US to "bleed America economically", in a speech marking the anniversary of the 9/11 strikes.

In an audio message released yesterday, Zawahiri laid out a plan of attack, saying he wanted a "few of the brothers" to commit small-scale strikes to trigger big spending by Washington on security, while awaiting the opportunity for a major onsalught later.

"We should bleed America economically by provoking it to continue in its massive expenditure on its security, for the weak point of America is its economy, which has already begun to stagger due to the military and security expenditure," he said.

Good thing for our country this is not the way it works operating under a system of state currency; and in reality the strength of our economy throughout the last decade is in no small part due to the increase in leading $NFA injections in the form of increased fiscal spending on national security projects.

Hopefully our U.S. national security apparatus is smart enough not to fall for this type of balderdash propaganda whether it comes from these foreign bloodthirsty terrorists or our domestic fiscal morons, and continues to ask for what is truly needed for our security.

Columbia U Restricting Public Access to William Vickrey Articles [that should be in the Public Domain]

JSTOR, Springer Verlag & Columbia U all want $10-$40 each, to read ~20 year old William Vickrey articles.

See this list at http://findingaids.cul.columbia.edu/ead/nnc-rb/ldpd_5455879/dsc/3/

Does anyone have links to existing copies of these articles?

It's a complete travesty. How are we supposed to have an "informed electorate" when basic information is subject to this kind of gate keeping?

This problem is biblical in scope, and reminscent of the Prodigal Son story, rephrased as the PARABLE OF THE PRODIGAL INSIGHTS.   In that parable, all of our best minds labor in public service.  Yet when they go away and leave their insights to us, do we distribute those insights far and wide, as fast as possible - so that they can be put to work for the general welfare of the public? NO! We let some idiots lock them up and charge a fee to anyone wanting to access publicly owned knowledge. @#$%^&!  Talk about a cruel, pious fraud!*

It's no surprise that there are so many gold-bugs and Deficit Terrorists in a supposedly educated, 21st Century USA, when such useful information as Vickrey's many essays are so thoroughly banned from public access!

Every highschool kid in the USA - nay, every single voter - should have free & timely access to this and similar papers. They should all be in Wikipedia or similar archives.

Is Columbia University purposely going out of it's way to limit or deny public access to these articles? Does this constitute racketeering between CU and publishers such as JSTOR and Springer-Verlag?  Personally, I think they should all be brought up on charges of High Treason against the USA, for preventing distribution of insights and arguments which would obviously alter public policy.

I called the Columbia U Rare Book Library, and was offered the alternative of having a copy of each paper copied "for my personal use only" for the price of ... get this ... $50 for the first (30?) pages, and $12 for each (10?) pages after that.

Aside from the price, it was the "personal use only" claim that stood out to me.

Was William Vickrey's research funded by US Government grants? Is it a gross perversion of public purpose to purposely shield and otherwise limit a Nobel prize winning economist's published work from public access?

If you feel the same, please register your suggestions with the Columbia U rare book library. http://findingaids.cul.columbia.edu/contact/nnc-rb

ps: Specific articles I'd like to be able to read, at will, whenever needed, are as follows.

All That Anguish Over a Phony Number, letter to editor, 12 Dec. 1995
(which editor, at which journal or news outlet?)

Averting Unemployment and Inflation in Transition to Market Economy, paper, 1992

Balanced Budget is Not the Answer, paper, 2 June 1992

Balancing the Budget is a Recipe for Economic Disaster, paper, Feb-May 1995

* Budget Balancing: A Cruel, Pious Fraud, letter to editor, undated

Chock-full Employment without Increased Inflation, paper, Jan. 1991
[For presentation at session entitled "Achieving High Employment without Inflation", New Orleans, 4 Jan. 1991.]

Debt Limits Throttle the Economy, essay, 14 Nov. 1995

Debts, Deficits, and Delusions, paper, 14 Dec. 1990

Effective Fiscal Policy, paper, 23 May 1993

Fifteen Fatal Fallacies of Financial Fundamentalism, paper, 7 Sept. 1995
(note that this one escaped the censors somehow, and is online; http://www.columbia.edu/dlc/wp/econ/vickrey.html)
(Note further: in another ironic twist, I called the CU Economics dept, which displays this page; they had forgotten about it, and said that if anyone knew, they'd probably take it down. So please, copy the text and archive it yourself, while you can.)

 (Meanwhile, the PNAS version is sometimes available here for free.)


A Growing Debt is a Necessity, not a Threat, letter to the editor, 31 May 1995

[Response to letter by Congressman Mark W. Neumann, 24 May 1995.]
(which editor, at which newspaper?)

How Big a "Deficit" Do We Need?, essay, 28 June 1993

How to Get Real Full Employment (Jobs for All), paper, 8 Aug. 1996

Letter to Senator, 1 June 1993
[Discusses government deficit.] (Which Senator?)

Necessary and Optimum Government Debt, paper, March-April 1993
[Discusses optimum government normal economy without capital but with money.]
(only a tease available, here; a very few used print copies at Amzon aren't so expensive, but copyright prevents quick and wide distribution of an electronic copy - go figure!)

Social Pathologies, Unemployment, and the Fatal Obsession with Debt Reduction and Other Fallacies, paper, 14 July 1994

Three Degrees of Separation between Budgets and Reality, paper, 9 March 1996

We Need a Bigger Deficit, paper, Aug-Sept. 1993

Why Balance the Budget?, article, 1959-1960 [Published in Challenge Magazine]

The Balanced Budget: DEFENSE AGAINST INFLATION?

 Challenge, Vol. 8, No. 7 (APRIL, 1960)



This tribute to Vickrey by Rick Arnott mentions Vickrey's use in 1986 of the familiar economic sector equation,
C + S + T = C + I + G , or D[eficit] = G − T = S − I,
and his opposition to a balanced budget amendment.

Finally, yet another review asks of Macroeconomics: Was Vickrey Ten Years Ahead?  David Colander  Challenge, Vol. 41, No. 5 (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER 1998)

  (again, $30 from JSTOR)