Neo-Liberals to Bill Mitchell: "Let Them Eat Snake-Oil" (but that don't make no sense!)

   (Commentary posted by Roger Erickson)

In his latest blog, Bill Mitchell reviews data which does NOT support the std presumption of Neo-Liberals, i.e., that there is a "skills mismatch" leaving dynamic capitalists with jobs to fill, but no "employable" peasants to hire.

Overwhelming data indicates that there are not enough buyers to induce more production. Diners can't eat more when their belt is too tight. And vendors can't sell when main street buyers aren't allowed liquidity units to buy with. There's more to banking than just hoarding currency past the point of social utility. Fiat currency supply is supposed to automatically FOLLOW aggregate demand, and NOT be a tool for suppressing it. Is anti-fiat in our dictionary yet?

US labour market beset by massive job shortages

The Neo-Liberals claim the public is unfit to use it's own initiative?

How convenient, when those same oligarchs have maladaptively laid claim to the vast majority of our present capital - static, dynamic, human or otherwise - while also spouting an unending stream of dire messages warning us not to express any more Public Initiative, aka, fiat.

Marie Antoinette might be personally proud of their defiance, but I can't for the life of me understand WHY Marie or the present Neo-Liberals see any evolutionary logic in their own behaviors.

History suggests that it will not be kind to either flavor of venal hoarder, whether Aristocratic or Neo-Liberal.

These people are a mistake that's already happened. We can't gain by letting them or us just sit on the static measures of our Public Initiative. A culture sitting on it's collective butt is going nowhere. Especially if it's entire purpose for it's inactivity is to "save initiative." As any peasant would tell you, "that don't make no sense."

What kind of idiot truly believes that we as a people can run out of public initiative, aka, fiat, denominated as fiat currency units? Can math students run out of numerals? Can atoms run out of photons or bosons to exchange?

If the Neo-Liberals aren't that dumb, then they're that criminal, for trying to promote an idea that even they don't believe.

Either way, why on Earth does an electorate possessing so much American ingenuity put up with such idiocy?

We the people can make as much lunch as we want. We merely need Desired Outcomes worthy of our distributed talents. If we just continuously express our growing, distributed initiative, then even the 1% can't continue eating our lunch forever. They'll simply burst - or at least fail to capture it all.

They're already hoarding obscene amounts which are close to killing them just with the stress of guarding it.

And then they have the audacity to tell us that WE must cut back public initiative, so that their hoard of our initiative won't "decrease in value." Maybe exorcists could convince us to stop our head-spinning attempts to swallow their snake-oil logic?

Just what the hell is the Neo-Liberal measure of adaptive value? They can sit on all the static and dynamic assets they want. The only outcome is that they'll soon die with fat asses and sclerosed semi-brains.

Such brains are already obsolete. The rest of us just have to start acting like owners of our own Public Initiative, and find some Desired Outcomes (Public Purpose) that has more meaning than simply over-feeding Neo-Liberals waxing fat on dumb.

Let them choke on their snake-oil.

What An Obscene Concept - The NAIRU Straight Jacket

(commentary posted by Roger Erickson)

NAIRU Straight Jacket

It was malformed from the start, by starting from the unacceptable position that NOMINAL is equatable to REAL.

Hint to Uncle Milt. Try starting from an axiom based on the unceasing demand for unpredictable adaptation, rather than mal-adaptation. NAIRU is what you get if a rentier takes a stab at redefining reality.

An offshoot of Creationism?

How did Economic Creationism become "mainstream?" When Luddite rentiers made a stab for uber-merchant supremacy over nominal vs real policy? And the tail-end "succeeded" in wagging the Middle Class dog? (And thereby began to kill the Middle Class.*)

Watch “OECD NAIRU stupidity” on YouTube.

Then consider reconsidering EVERYTHING about how you vote.

For our Adaptive Rate to stay the same (or preferably increase), everything must change? Why? In order to adapt to unfolding reality ... NOT just to arbitrarily nominal imagination, or merchant preferences (which obviously must float, in order to continuously chase unpredictable reality).


* Note, a tail wagging a dog is equivalent to a parasite wagging the host it lives within. The parasites only real choice is to let both live, or kill both. Everything in between is tilted one way or the other.

The Depth of Interdependencies Which Have an Effect on "Economics"

(commentary posted by Roger Erickson)

If you read the following article, it's hard not to appreciate the cascade of events and policy decisions which can alter the economics of the outcome state.

A Canadian Looks At Decision-Making In American Policy Outcomes

If we make enough elected officials exempt from enough things .... then anything is possible, right? Even on Wall St.

If we imagine going even a little way further down that path, we can then easily imagine a situation when overt preparations for and outright practice of even the most heinous of crimes, physical or financial, are not technically illegal. Right?

So group success tracks the quality of ALL prior decision-making? Where have we heard that before? Evolution as the sum of all Adaptive Rates? No wonder current NRA leadership is hiding some of it's narrow-minded excesses behind the excuse of religion. It's not even easy to discover who NRA leaders are, except through critics of the NRA, so alternate views of NRA leaders are offered here.

It's always time to consider how and when and why we should be actively shedding maladaptive habits, as well as searching for the rare, new cultural tools that actually improve, not just complicate, our cultural adaptive rate. When considering the economics of a group adaptive race, shedding burdensome habits and policies is usually more important than adding new ones, just like shedding unnecessary weight from a race car is more productive than adding more engine power.

That immediately brings up the question of group-wide assessment methods. Without adequate assessment methods, how will we - as a culture - ever know if we're making progress ... or regressing? The quality of our distributed decision-making obviously tracks our ability to gather a NET assessment of the sum of our distributed outcomes.

At this point you may be wondering how measures as diverse as GDP, childhood deaths, mental health costs, interest rates, security costs, fiscal spending and net policy development all intertwine.  Good!

Is the return on coordinating all those things discussed by economists? If not, how do you quickly explain return-on-coordination to our legions of under-prepared politicians and policy staff?  It's obvious that no one person can answer that question adequately. It takes a nation to raise and select a productive policy office holder.

What else can we add to this discussion of policy interdependencies? Maybe the observation that group success and survival is not purely about our distributed methods and distributed rights? And that adaptive policy development is obviously also about how we collectively use those methods and right.  Do we use them in ways that make as a nation greater than the sum of it's parts, or as a disorganized mob? Answering that question also takes a nation.

Where can we start? Everywhere, of course. Here's just one of many places to start. Are all members of the NRA our enemies? Or is it just a question of - quickly - bringing them into our NET assessment methods? Can all citizens reach consensus on desired-outcomes? If so, adaptive usage patterns for all our methods and rights will fall into place. If not, we're already on the path to civil war. Chew on those economics.

Reverse Engineering Ourselves Back To A Less Perfect Union.

Commentary by Roger Erickson

Maybe we'll all go to jail soon, for trying to expose actual fiat currency operations?

There are growing numbers of clumsy responses, to citizen oversight of fellow citizens. Are these responses sliding to adaptive, or reverse social engineering?

We know about attempted prosecutions of Snowden & Assange. Yet there are many, less publicized citizen whistleblowers now facing prosecution, and/or already held in jail, uncharged.

Imagine a world where the only place where fiat can be safely expressed ... is under the protection of Russian gangsters! Oddly familiar?

Why is this happening? We can't hide everything from all the people, all the time?

Can anything adaptive come of it? That depends on our distributed assessments of our collective outcomes, and our subsequent, cultural adjustments. That is, if we're still capable of adjusting.

Is there a better way? Always has been. It's up to us to find yet another one.

What's that old saying?

No sub-group of bumbling bureaucrats is ever as smart as all of us?

So who says that prosecuting the smartest of us ever works out in the long run? Shoot the messenger just slows unavoidable adjustments, and is always maladaptive.

The issue is not whether various public agency bureaucrats are trying to do THEIR job as THEY see fit.

The issue is always their individual and group intelligence! If an electorate can't select the right people for the right jobs, AND PREPARE THEM WELL ... then everything gradually ends up in the crapper. 

Yet if citizens DO select well ... then something called a functioning democracy can occur. With byproducts like a functioning currency system, and functioning markets. Even a Middle Class!!! Remember that? We used to have one.

And what if an electorate can't or won't select to PREPARE it's own, budding citizens well? Literally everything just ends up in the crapper even faster?

Random examples:

Think EVERYTHING wired isn't bugged, at will?  Instead of going to any length to protect ourselves from people we tick off, it's leaner/faster/better to simply pay a bit more attention to not ticking people off in the 1st place? Ounce of prevention vs pound of cure? That's how evolution works.

Stratfor Works on Silencing It's Own Whistleblowers. (The story of one citizen is classic. Why not elect him, instead of jailing him?)

FDIC Prosecuting It's Whistleblowers too. (FDIC is silencing this whistleblower, Dwight Haskins.)

Whistleblowers can be everything from criminals to martyrs, but they always inform their public, and hence serve an adaptive purpose. By definition, efforts to prevent transparency inevitably cause more harm than good to every "system." If we aren't transparent, we aren't an agile system. If we can't expose our own operations, how can we keep finding better ways?