Group items tagged

Tim Worstall, writing in the UK Register, objects to Corbyn’s PQE (or OMF) on the ground that it cannot be “sterilized” the way QE can. When inflation hits, the process cannot be reversed. If the money is spent on infrastructure, it will be out there circulating in the economy and will not be retrievable. Worstall writes: QE is designed to be temporary, . . . because once people’s spending rates recover we need a way of taking all that extra money out of the economy. So we do it by using printed money to buy bonds, which injects the money into the economy, and then sell those bonds back once we need to withdraw the money from the economy, and simply destroy the money we’ve raised. . . . If we don’t have any bonds to sell, it’s not clear how we can reduce [the money supply] if large-scale inflation hits.

The problem today, however, is not inflation but deflation of the money supply. Some consumer prices may be up, but this can happen although the money supply is shrinking. Food prices, for example, are up; but it’s because of increased costs, including drought in California, climate change, and mergers and acquisitions by big corporations that eliminate competition. Adding money to the economy will not drive up prices until demand is saturated and production has hit full capacity; and we’re a long way from full capacity now. Before that, increasing “demand” will increase “supply.” Producers will create more goods and services. Supply and demand will rise together and prices will remain stable. In the US, the output gap – the difference between actual output and potential output – is estimated at about $1 trillion annually. That means the money supply could be increased by at least $1 trillion annually without driving up prices.

If PQE does go beyond full productive capacity, the government does not need to rely on the central bank to pull the money back. It can do this with taxes. Just as loans increase the money supply and repaying them shrinks it again, so taxes and other payments to the government will shrink a money supply augmented with money issued by the government. Using 2012 figures (drawing from an earlier article by this author), the velocity of M1 (the coins, dollar bills and demand deposits spent by ordinary consumers) was then 7. That means M1 changed hands seven times during 2012 – from housewife to grocer to farmer, etc. Since each recipient owed taxes on this money, increasing M1 by one dollar increased the tax base by seven dollars. Total tax revenue as a percentage of GDP in 2012 was 24.3%. Extrapolating from those figures, $1.00 changing hands seven times could increase tax revenue by $7.00 x 24.3% = $1.70. That means the government could, in theory, get more back in taxes than it paid out. Even with some leakage in those figures and deductions for costs, all or most of the new money spent into the economy might be taxed back to the government. New money could be pumped out every year and the money supply would increase little if at all.

Besides taxes, other ways to get money back into the Treasury include closing tax loopholes, taxing the $21 trillion or more hidden in offshore tax havens, and setting up a system of public banks that would return the interest on loans to the government. Net interest collected by U.S. banks in 2014 was $423 billion. At its high in 2007, it was $725 billion. Thus there are many ways to recycle an issue of new money back to the government. The same money could be spent and collected back year after year, without creating price inflation or hyperinflating the money supply. This not only could be done; it needs to be done. Conventional monetary policy has failed. Central banks have exhausted their existing toolboxes and need to explore some innovative alternatives.

Terminate all presumed powers of attorney

(for borrowing against one’s own credit).

I.R.S. (former Puerto Rico Bureau of Taxation).

End street assaults

for failing to exhibit a State-issued confession

End admiralty prosecutions

“commercial crimes” against the corporate State

corporations posing as the state

which confess the signer to be a legal fiction subject of the United States Federal Corporation (“U.S. person”

thereby transferring control to incorporated County registrars and tax assessors.

whereby incorporated “courts” presume the “right” to trespass on families and kidnap children.

Restore the People’s money and wealth from the banking institutions,

end all non-consensual and unlawful taxation

sacred rights of labor and privacy.

to enforce the Peoples’ divine rights of birth.

Reabsorb all de facto actors into lawful de jure capacity.

district court of the United States

Restore the de jure judicial institutions

without provoking alarm, controversy or armed conflict.

Quietly mirror the strategies of 1933

behind the scenes, without public proclamations or provocative actions

each regional organization (Caisse) is managed by a board composed 50/50 of representatives of labor unions on one side, employers associations on the other side, with the State playing the role of a referee

it is not accurate to call it a "socialized

when a family is expecting a child, it gets approximately 2,000 Euros in three installments (the first two of them corresponding to a mandatory medical visit, the third to the birth) ; then the family receives a monthly allowance till the child is 20 (for two children or more, around 100 Euros/month/child) ;

minimal pension (in the range of 750 Euros/month) to any person who has worked 40 years

For the French, it is just unthinkable that, if you lose your job, you also lose your health plan

all companies, whatever their size, must provide their staff with an annual visit to a doctor ; in big companies it is a in-house doctor, in small companies an external doctor who comes for the annual controls

(otherwise, you'll be reimbursed a little less)

SOS Medecin tel. 01 47 07 77 77 : very reasonably priced (around 70 Euros) and efficient, a doctor in your house in less than an hour

Basic tips for tourists you can see any doctor (they also make house calls for a small supplement) for a cost of around 22 Euros ($ 30) but you will not be reimbursed by Social Security if you are not part of the French Social Security system you can be treated by any French hospital in case of emergency (they will talk about money AFTER treating you...) you can buy certain drugs over the counter in a pharmacy but a lot of them require a doctor's prescription ; don't be surprised if you do not find US drug brand names, you are in another country ! If your French isn't good, there are two hospitals with English-speaking staff : the American Hospital, 63 blvd Victor Hugo 92202 Neuilly, Tel. 33-(0)1 46 41 25 25 ; Email : patient@ahp-paris.com the British Hospital, 3 rue Barbès 92300 Levallois Tel. 33-(0)1 46 39 22 22 Public or private ? For a serious case, it is often wiser to go to a public hospital, especially a CHU (Centre Hospitalo-Universitaire). In case of a (real) emergency call SAMU (this is a day and night emergency service tel. 15) or les pompiers (fire-brigade) who provide 24 hour-emergency service (tel. 18). Useful numbers for emergencies (other than 15) :

The World Health Organization (WHO) has ranked the health system of its 191 member countries and France tops the list for providing the best overall health care (UK ranks 18 and USA ranks 37) (source : International Herald Tribune June 21,2000).

Health coverage by Social Security ("Sécurité Sociale") is mandatory and paid both by the employee (1/4) and the employer (3/4).

In the USA the Emergency staff is a driver whose job is to take you as fast as possible to the hospital, whatever your condition, in a fast ambulance. In France, the SAMU team includes a MD whose job is to do as much as he can before taking you to the hospital in a more heavily-equipped ambulance. Both ways have their pros and cons, but dont be horrified if you see an ambulance NOT moving....

DID YOU KNOW THAT....? In France, the maternity leave is 16 weeks minimum (of course paid 100% of the salary!), plus one month minimum if the baby is breast-fed ; "paternity" leave is two weeks ; new mothers spend 3 to 6 days in the hospital.

French doctors are not very different from American doctors, except they make much less money (three or four times?) and are probably much more accessible, less protected by a dragon-secretary.

All expenses are paid by the company and of course the employee does not pay a cent. The 20-minute visit includes whatever check-up seems appropriate (heart, eyes, stress, depression...). The doctor cannot prescribe medecine but can prescribe a visit to the doctor is something new that is wrong or needs a more thorough check is detected.

You have to pay ONE Euro more (not reimbursable) for every visit to the doctor

The system is threefold : Health, Family and Retirement, each of them has different structures and financing ; each of them is financially autonomous (no taxpayer's money -

The system is threefold : Health, Family and Retirement, each of them has different structures and financing ; each of them is financially autonomous ( no taxpayer's money

Now according to Tom Runiewicz, a US industry economist at IHS Global Insight, if oil stays around $56 a barrel till the middle of the next year, companies providing services to oil and gas industry could lose 40,000 jobs by the end of 2015, while oil and gas equipment manufacturers could slash up to 6,000 jobs.

The situation in other oil-extracting states could be even worse. In a study published last year, the Council on Foreign Relations warned the largest job losses caused by sharp decline in oil prices are going to take place in North Dakota, Oklahoma and Wyoming, where the number of drilling rigs is decreasing.

Currently cheap fuel is still believed to be providing an overall boost to the US economy, as consumers can spend less on gasoline and more on shopping and services. But for the American energy sector the future looks less bright. It’s effecting places like Alaska, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas, the New York Times reports. US oil experts recall the 1980s oil price downturn, accompanied by economic disasters around the globe and arguably becoming one of the causes of the fall of the Soviet Union. Some experts are positive and say America’s oil-producing states won’t suffer too much because they “diversified their economies.”

These workers can earn more than $1,700 a week, much higher than the average $848 a week payment for other workers, the WSJ reported. When experienced workers lose their highly paid jobs, they stop paying their bills. There are also fears of a house-price slump. Fitch Ratings has already warned that with the price of oil continuing to plummet, home prices in Texas “may be unsustainable.”

"The presumption of openness requires the presumption of posting," said Archive director Tom Blanton. "For the new generation, if it's not online, it does not exist." The National Security Archive has conducted fourteen FOIA Audits since 2002. Modeled after the California Sunshine Survey and subsequent state "FOI Audits," the Archive's FOIA Audits use open-government laws to test whether or not agencies are obeying those same laws. Recommendations from previous Archive FOIA Audits have led directly to laws and executive orders which have: set explicit customer service guidelines, mandated FOIA backlog reduction, assigned individualized FOIA tracking numbers, forced agencies to report the average number of days needed to process requests, and revealed the (often embarrassing) ages of the oldest pending FOIA requests. The surveys include:

The federal government has made some progress moving into the digital era. The National Security Archive's last E-FOIA Audit in 2007, " File Not Found," reported that only one in five federal agencies had put online all of the specific requirements mentioned in the E-FOIA amendments, such as guidance on making requests, contact information, and processing regulations. The new E-FOIA Audit finds the number of agencies that have checked those boxes is now much higher — 100 out of 165 — though many (66 in 165) have posted just the bare minimum, especially when posting FOIA responses. An additional 33 agencies even now do not post these types of records at all, clearly thwarting the law's intent.

The FOIAonline Members (Department of Commerce, Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Labor Relations Authority, Merit Systems Protection Board, National Archives and Records Administration, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, Department of the Navy, General Services Administration, Small Business Administration, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and Federal Communications Commission) won their "E-Star" by making past requests and releases searchable via FOIAonline. FOIAonline also allows users to submit their FOIA requests digitally.

THE E-DELINQUENTS: WORST OVERALL AGENCIES In alphabetical order

Key Findings

Excuses Agencies Give for Poor E-Performance

Justice Department guidance undermines the statute. Currently, the FOIA stipulates that documents "likely to become the subject of subsequent requests" must be posted by agencies somewhere in their electronic reading rooms. The Department of Justice's Office of Information Policy defines these records as "frequently requested records… or those which have been released three or more times to FOIA requesters." Of course, it is time-consuming for agencies to develop a system that keeps track of how often a record has been released, which is in part why agencies rarely do so and are often in breach of the law. Troublingly, both the current House and Senate FOIA bills include language that codifies the instructions from the Department of Justice. The National Security Archive believes the addition of this "three or more times" language actually harms the intent of the Freedom of Information Act as it will give agencies an easy excuse ("not requested three times yet!") not to proactively post documents that agency FOIA offices have already spent time, money, and energy processing. We have formally suggested alternate language requiring that agencies generally post "all records, regardless of form or format that have been released in response to a FOIA request."

Disabilities Compliance. Despite the E-FOIA Act, many government agencies do not embrace the idea of posting their FOIA responses online. The most common reason agencies give is that it is difficult to post documents in a format that complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act, also referred to as being "508 compliant," and the 1998 Amendments to the Rehabilitation Act that require federal agencies "to make their electronic and information technology (EIT) accessible to people with disabilities." E-Star agencies, however, have proven that 508 compliance is no barrier when the agency has a will to post. All documents posted on FOIAonline are 508 compliant, as are the documents posted by the Department of Defense and the Department of State. In fact, every document created electronically by the US government after 1998 should already be 508 compliant. Even old paper records that are scanned to be processed through FOIA can be made 508 compliant with just a few clicks in Adobe Acrobat, according to this Department of Homeland Security guide (essentially OCRing the text, and including information about where non-textual fields appear). Even if agencies are insistent it is too difficult to OCR older documents that were scanned from paper, they cannot use that excuse with digital records.

Privacy. Another commonly articulated concern about posting FOIA releases online is that doing so could inadvertently disclose private information from "first person" FOIA requests. This is a valid concern, and this subset of FOIA requests should not be posted online. (The Justice Department identified "first party" requester rights in 1989. Essentially agencies cannot use the b(6) privacy exemption to redact information if a person requests it for him or herself. An example of a "first person" FOIA would be a person's request for his own immigration file.) Cost and Waste of Resources. There is also a belief that there is little public interest in the majority of FOIA requests processed, and hence it is a waste of resources to post them. This thinking runs counter to the governing principle of the Freedom of Information Act: that government information belongs to US citizens, not US agencies. As such, the reason that a person requests information is immaterial as the agency processes the request; the "interest factor" of a document should also be immaterial when an agency is required to post it online. Some think that posting FOIA releases online is not cost effective. In fact, the opposite is true. It's not cost effective to spend tens (or hundreds) of person hours to search for, review, and redact FOIA requests only to mail it to the requester and have them slip it into their desk drawer and forget about it. That is a waste of resources. The released document should be posted online for any interested party to utilize. This will only become easier as FOIA processing systems evolve to automatically post the documents they track. The State Department earned its "E-Star" status demonstrating this very principle, and spent no new funds and did not hire contractors to build its Electronic Reading Room, instead it built a self-sustaining platform that will save the agency time and money going forward.

Among its other critics, Sen. Elizabeth Warren has slammed the idea of ISDS provisions as a surrender of democratic ideals to corporate interests. According to Warren, ISDS would simply “tilt the playing field in the United States further in favor of big multinational corporations.” By having unchallenged input on secretive TPP talks, Warren argued last month, these large companies and financial interests “are increasingly realizing this is an opportunity to gut U.S. regulations they don’t like.” According to Grayson, putting Wednesday’s ISDS briefing in a classified setting “is part of a multi-year campaign of deception and destruction. Why do we classify information? It’s to keep sensitive information out of the hands of foreign governments. In this case, foreign governments already have this information. They’re the people the administration is negotiating with. The only purpose of classifying this information is to keep it from the American people.”

Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, America's trade deficit with Korea has grown more than 80 percent, equivalent to a loss of more than 70,000 additional U.S. jobs.

The new-style global corporate agreements mainly enhance corporate and financial profits, and push down wages.

Trans Pacific Partnership -- the giant deal among countries responsible for 40 percent of the global economy.

also guard their overseas profits.

even more patent protection oversea

And it would allow them to challenge any nation's health, safety and environmental laws that stand in the way of their profits -- including our own.

White House strategists seem to think such corporations are accountable to the U.S. government. Wrong. At most, they're answerable to their shareholders, who demand high share prices whatever that requires.

For companies such as Severstal, which exports nearly 20 percent of its output, the benefits of devaluation are obvious: All of the costs that go into producing steel in Russia—iron ore, manganese, nickel, labor, electricity—are priced in rubles. That means the companies’ costs relative to their international competitors’ have plummeted. At the same time, any steel they sell abroad is priced in either U.S. dollars or euros—both of which have risen in value against the ruble. When the companies bring those sales dollars home, they are worth far more in rubles than they were a year ago.The same phenomenon applies in a big way to Russia’s vast energy sector. Moscow exports huge amounts of oil and gas, and brings in dollars for it. That’s why Rosneft, a huge oil producer with close ties to Putin’s Kremlin, reported a revenue increase of 18 percent last year, compared with an increase of less than 1 percent for its international competitors, according to Bloomberg data. This is a big part of the reason why Russia’s tax revenue has not fallen off a cliff, mitigating somewhat the pain of last year’s crisis. Russia’s oil output is still near record highs—one of the reasons, along with continued full-tilt Saudi output, that prices remain so weak.

The world shouldn’t have been surprised by what has happened. More or less the same thing happened in 1998, when the Asian financial crisis spread to Russia and Moscow both defaulted on its international debt and devalued the ruble. There was an immediate negative economic shock, followed by an import substitution-led recovery that was sharper than most international economists at the time believed would occur. “This argues for an economic recovery now similar in nature, if not necessarily in magnitude, to the one after 1998,” says Ivan Tchakarov, an economist at Citicorp.

When oil prices crumbled last year, there was a fair bit of hope in Western capitals that the pain would do what sanctions hadn’t yet: force a Russian climbdown in Ukraine, and perhaps prompt Putin to turn back inward and tend to his troubles at home.Maybe that was wishful thinking. Whatever the case, it’s now a moot point. The Russian economy is showing enough resilience that it appears unlikely to check Putin’s behavior abroad. Public opinion surveys at home provide little evidence that the people have turned on him. For Washington and its allies, the time for wishful thinking is over. Vladimir Putin is not going anywhere.