$$$$ for Hypno-Apes

Fiat money has been in existence in the U.S. of America since 1973, the year Pres. Nixon removed the nation from “the gold standard.”

So, why are we stuck in pre-1973 thinking about how the federal government spends money to achieve its political (foreign and domestic) agenda.

I have attempted to write about this topic, with little or no reaction from POM readers.  Let me try another tact.  How about another author with a similar message, and some examples that might awaken the hypno-ape masses?  See:  Mulga, Japanese artist; http://mulgatheartist.net/en/shop/?post=267.

Repetition is how apes learn.  I repeat my(ape)self:  “ ….there is no tax-payer money” in federal finance/appropriations.  https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/09/21/taxpayer-money-threatens-medicare-for-all-and-every-other-social-program/

It’s never a matter of being able to “afford” health care or a “pay for” a retirement program that keeps us from eating out of dumpsters.  It’s a matter of whether or not Congress can find it in its greedy, self-serving, soulless existence to give a shit or not.  Obviously, we have a lot of work to do.  Patience, grasshopper.

8 thoughts on “$$$$ for Hypno-Apes

    1. It’s such a relief to learn — thank you Throat — that the myths repeated incessantly about fiat money and government appropriations by media and politicians is common knowledge where “der” is spoken. Prost!

      Like

    1. Wallace, do you think the label MMT is helping, or hindering, the effort to simply explain how money works? I generally don’t like labels or titles, for fear of misunderstanding the main elements of the argument. I know why the pigs in silk need to put lipstick on their lies, but why does this (MMT) “truth-pig” need lipstick?

      Like

      1. I’m not sure the label makes a difference or really matters – It needs to be called something. Modern Monetary Theory or MMT is just what the academics call it. Although “Monetary Sovereignty” is another term that I’ve heard it called, but it’s a little different in theory according to Rodger Malcolm Mitchell I think. Read through the links above that I posted to learn more.

        Something to think about: Don’t you think it’s interesting that when the federal government needs money to wage war, there is more than plenty of funds to go around (… and no, citizens buying government “war bonds” is not necessary), but when money is needed for social programs to actually help people in peace time, it’s like pulling teeth to get the needed funds from government? See Rodger Malcolm Mitchell’s website: http://www.mythfighter.com. He writes a lot about this stuff that one may find quite enlightening.

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s