You are here
Gary Johnson: Libertarian for slavery
Some Americans wish that there could be three or more candidates running for office, so there would be an “alternative.”
Let’s forget for a moment that in most countries, no matter how many political parties there are, the structure tends to wind up with a duopoly consisting of a ruling coalition, plus an opposition that may or may not be an actual opposition. Let’s also forget that even when there are third party candidates, the public doesn’t vote for them, thinking this would be a “wasted vote.” (I voted for Cynthia McKinney in the 2007 Presidential election.) Finally, let’s forget that it is the electoral college, not the public, that votes for U.S. presidents.
We still have the problem of politicians being politicians. In most cases, third party candidates are exactly the same as duopoly candidates.
The Republican and Democratic parties always field Presidential candidates. So does the Green Party and Libertarian Party. I have not investigated this years’ Green candidate, but the Libertarian candidate is one Gary Johnson, former Republican governor of New Mexico. Mr. Johnson switched to the Libertarian party when the corporate media refused to let him participate in Republican candidate debates.
As a Libertarian, one of Johnson’s campaign slogans is “Live free!” All Libertarians have the same view.
In reality, they want slavery. Here is Gary Johnson:
“The greatest threat to our national security is the simple fact that we’re bankrupt. With $16 trillion in debt, $1 trillion deficits, and Congress’ inability to pass a budget, we have to continually borrow money. Many of the countries from which we borrow are not particularly friendly. We have lost sight of our constitutional duty to provide for the national defense. We need to reverse course and get spending under control so that we can focus on the issues that we face at home, and restore constitutional government.
I just did some checking into Mr. Johnson, and most of his views are equally odious. If I exposed them all, then this post would be so lengthy that no one would read it. So let’s stick with the above quote, and go over the Truth again for those of you who came in late…
LIE: The greatest threat to our national security is the simple fact that we’re bankrupt.
TRUTH: The USA cannot go bankrupt, since it creates unlimited money, simply by changing the numbers in computers.
LIE: With $16 trillion in debt, $1 trillion deficits, and Congress’ inability to pass a budget, we have to continually borrow money.
TRUTH: First, the $16 trillion debt is a good thing. It is a sign of U.S. strength. It is simply the amount of deposits at the Fed. All banks dream of being able to boast that “We have $16 trillion in deposits!” Second, the US government does not get its money from the Fed. Thus, the government does not borrow from anyone. It creates money from nothing. Third, the deficit is meaningless. If the Congress were to eliminate the deficit, and have a “balanced budget,” the USA would be destroyed. (I will explain this if anyone challenges me.) Finally, Congress always passes a budget, but makes a show of bickering, so that the masses believe all the other lies. As the disastrous “fiscal cliff” approaches (1 Jan 2013) the Congress will strut and fret. It will jostle and bicker. The corporate media will chatter endlessly about this silliness. Then, just in time for Christmas, the Congress will “miraculously” do away with the fiscal cliff. (Hooray!) In September 2013 when the U.S fiscal year ends, the entire charade will begin anew, as it does every year.
LIE: Many of the countries from which we borrow are not particularly friendly.
TRUTH: We don’t borrow! Anyway, consider China, which has trillions of dollars on deposit at the US Fed. What if China suddenly called all those dollars in? First, this would be no problem for the Fed, which would simply give back the deposits (like any other bank). Any interest would be created out of nothing. Second, China has no reason to demand all its deposits back. Even if a meteorite destroyed the USA, and all dollars disappeared, China, being monetarily sovereign like the USA, would simply create money out of nothing to make up for the lost deposits at the Fed.
As for the claim that “We have lost sight of our constitutional duty to provide for the national defense,” I agree if Mr. Johnson means sustaining a strong economy, and not lying like he does.
LIE: We need to reverse course and get spending under control so that we can focus on the issues that we face at home, and restore constitutional government.
TRUTH: We need to reverse course all right, and that means unleashing spending (i.e. genuine stimulus packages). We have a depression because Congress has drastically cut back spending, in ratio to the needs of the economy. (The Fed has nothing to do with this.) We desperately need a radical increase in spending, so that money gets into people’s hands. This will not cause monetary inflation, since monetary inflation has nothing to do with the money supply. We are talking about infinite fiat money in computers, not finite commodities like oil or gold.
SO... do you still think a third party candidate like Gary Johnson would make any difference? Do you think that Libertarians want liberty?
By spouting such garbage, Mr. Johnson keeps the public groveling before politicians. He maintains public cynicism, defeatism, and despair. When average people feel helpless and afraid, they become addicted to complaining. They only listen to what justifies their complaints. Hence they love to hear the lie that, “We are broke.” Meanwhile everyone bickers, since everyone is an “expert” on the emperor’s new clothes. (Anyone can be an “expert” on chimeras.)
For example, media outlets frequently note that the rich avoid taxes. (Which is a good thing.) This makes average people complain, thereby blinding themselves to the fact that federal taxes are destroyed upon receipt, and that federal taxes suck money out of the economy, worsening the depression. Since the average person prefers to complain rather than understand, he feels small and helpless. He becomes dependent on Obama to “fix things.”
Moreover, when average people feel helpless and hopeless, they seek revenge by demanding that the federal government cut spending on the “freeloaders,” whoever they are. This worsens the depression.
If every American understood the Truth, then all would see that there is enough money to do whatever we want. Cynicism would evaporate. Prosperity would spread. The public would be empowered. Politicians would have to work for their pay.
Average people pretend to want the truth, but most of them actually want nightmarish fairy tales. And most would rather be “right” than be prosperous.
And there is Mr. Johnson, hoping you will elect him so he can personally profit from the lies and the slavery.
(Typo. Should be "which is good.")
- Heydrich's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
Comments
Re: Gary Johnson: Libertarian for slavery
Heydrich, I'm in for the te-shirt if you can boil it down to a front and back. What's the slogan on the front? (and image). What's the hammer on the backside? Edison?
Re: Gary Johnson: Libertarian for slavery
Re: Gary Johnson: Libertarian for slavery
If what I suspect is correct and the USA is pledging state assets and the future labour of its citizens as collateral to borrow its currency, then it can very easily go bankrupt.
Debt is not a good thing when you are the debtor.
I'm still not at all convinced that the USA is any more or less monetarily sovereign than the UK, or any European nation for that matter.
Re: Gary Johnson: Libertarian for slavery
No. The USA does not borrow its currency. The USA creates its own currency out of nothing.
If you deny this, then show me how your suspicions are correct.
On the contrary, debt is a very good thing when it occurs as bank deposits. It acts as a reserve for banks so they can make fractional reserve loans. For every dollar in debt (i.e. deposits) a bank has, the bank can issue at least nine dollars worth of loans (which is credit, not currency) thereby making a huge profit.
If you deny this, then show me how you are correct.
The US and UK are monetarily sovereign because they create their own currency. The eurozone nations are monetarily non-sovereign because they cannot create their own currency. They can issue bonds, but this puts them further into debt. Since they are not monetarily sovereign, and cannot create their own currency, they cannot pay on the debts they already have.
If you deny this, then show me how you are correct. If you cannot show me, and if you base your beliefs on "suspicions," then, with all due resepct, you are behaving like people who worship the holo-hoax because they "just know it's true, that's all."
Re: Gary Johnson: Libertarian for slavery
What exactly is it that makes what you claim automagically take on the status of fact, unburdened with the requirements of proof that you expect of me?! As for the reference to the holoco$t, it is very cheap shot and one that I would not have expected of you.
Section 16 of Federal Reserve Act (ch. 6, 38 Stat. 251) speaks for itself.
Federal Reserve notes are otherwise known as US Dollars. The only money issued directly by the Treasury is specie money, which accounts for approximately 0.1% of the US money supply.
It is noteworthy that the same section of the Federal Reserve Act specifically states that, despite the Federal Reserve Note being issued by a private entity, it is "an obligation of the United States".
Obligation is a polite and obtuse way of saying "debt".
Re: Gary Johnson: Libertarian for slavery
Thank you again for your correspondence, and your desire to clarify this issue.
You said you based your claims on your “suspicions.” This is just like people who believe in the hoax. This is a fact. It is not a “cheap shot” to note a fact. A “cheap shot” consists of impugning someone for noting a fact. Furthermore, if I say that believing something based on “suspicions” is the same as believing in the hoax, then it is simply to point out an error in reasoning.
Thank you for proving my point. The US government creates and spends its own money by adjusting the numbers in computers, as I have repeatedly explained. The government does not do it by printing, even though the Mint and the US Bureau of Printing and Engraving are part of the Treasury. Federal reserve notes (which are 3% of the money supply at most) are issued at the discretion of the Federal Reserve Board for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents. This is strictly between the Fed and the banks. It is NOT part of the process whereby the US Congress and Treasury create and spend. Once the US Congress and Treasury create and spend money (by altering the numbers in computers, i.e. debiting and crediting) that money enters the banking system overseen by the Fed, as I have explained.
Since the Treasury creates its own money from nothing, it does NOT get its money from selling T-bills. It does NOT get its money from the Fed. It does NOT get its money from borrowing. It gets its money by altering computer accounts.
Quite simply, this means that if Fed depositors want their money back, and the Fed cannot pay the depositors, then the Treasury will create the money out of nothing to make good on the Fed’s debts. Again, this is done by pressing computer buttons. This provision of the Federal Reserve Act is necessary for the US currency to be backed by the “full faith and credit of the United States,” including the Fed, Congress and Treasury. It also means that the IRS (which is part of the Treasury) must accept taxes from people who use the regular banking system, overseen by the Fed.
Since the Treasury creates its own money from nothing, it does NOT get its money from selling T-bills. It does NOT get its money from the Fed. It does NOT get its money from borrowing.
By contrast, the Fed DOES get its money from borrowing, as does any bank. The borrowed funds are called “deposits.” Banks also borrow from each other. The US government depends on the Fed to keep the banking system going, but not as a source of funds. The banking system is necessary for funds to have any use.
The Fed sells T-bills, but the Treasury does not need or use any money from these sales, just as the Treasury does not need or use federal tax revenue. (See my latest post for more on this.) The process is simply to keep the Fed going. It is a Fed affair. A banking affair.
Since the Treasury creates its own money from nothing, it does NOT get its money from selling T-bills. It does NOT get its money from the Fed. It does NOT get its money from borrowing. It gets its money by altering computer accounts.
The Treasury is responsible ("obligated") for the debts of the Fed (responsible to cover Fed deposits if the Fed can’t), but this is not the same as being directly in debt. In any case, the Treasury can effortlessly pay any size debt.
Thus the USA does not have a “debt crisis,” and is not “broke.” Nor are Social Security, Medicare, etc. And the national debt of the Fed indicates strength, not weakness.
Thank you again for your comments.
Re: Gary Johnson: Libertarian for slavery
How is it any different than claiming a "learned friend" told you so?
I didn't prove your point. I contradicted it. The only money created by the US government is specie money (coinage). All other money is created as a result of a loan from the Federal Reserve.
How do you know the Treasury creates its own money from nothing? I've searched both the internet and academic databases and seen zero proofs for this claim? Do you have any citations that can back it up?
Re: Gary Johnson: Libertarian for slavery
I give explanations based on facts and logic, not "suspicions."
Like you, I used to believe the politicians and the corporate media. Like you, I believed that governments borrow all their money from banks, that money is the paper in your hand, and that national governments run on tax revenue. These false beliefs are common. Almost all web sites erroneously claim that the US government gets its money from taxation. (!!!) Even you don’t agree with that (I hope). But you do believe all the other lies.
States, counties, and municipalities get their money from taxes, from selling bonds, and from myriad fines, fees, etc. Monetarily sovereign governments do not. They create their own money. It took me a while to transcend the brainwashing and see this. Most people remain stuck in the trance.
Here is where you may be confused…
When the government issues a Social Security check, for example, the government creates that money from nothing. You imply that the check comes from the Fed (even though it has “US Treasury” on it).
When the recipient cashes the check at a bank, he makes a deposit. That deposit is a loan to the bank. The bank is now in debt to the depositor, in the amount of the deposit. The bank may use that lent money, but the bank does not “own” the money. The depositor owns it, and may reclaim his lent money upon demand. You claim that a deposit is not a debt. This error is one source of your many other compounding errors.
Also, since the Fed oversees the banking system, and all money, once created, enters the banking system, you think that the Fed creates or borrows all of the money, and the US government borrows all its money from the Fed. Here again you are in error.
Further, since most money in the US economy is credit (i.e. various forms of loans generated by fractional reserve lending) you think that the Fed is the source of all funds. For you, “most” means “all.” Once again you are in error.
Below is a rough breakdown of where government money goes. Note that toward the bottom, some of the money goes to the Treasury to pay interest on debt. That is, pay interest that the Fed owes on T-Bills the Fed auctions. According to me, the Treasury pays that interest out of nothing. According to you, the Fed creates everything. All money in existence is created and lent by the Fed. All of it. Even the interest on the Fed debt is lent by the Fed to…what? Itself?
If everything comes from the Fed, as you claim, then why do military contractors lobby the Congress, and not the Fed? (I asked that question before, but you ignored it.) I say there is limitless money for wars and bailouts, because the Congress and the creates it from nothing, via the process of federal spending.
And since you believe all the media and all the politicians regarding national finances, you must also believe them when they say the government bails out banks. And yet you imply that the government has no money. The Fed bails out everyone. Well, which one is the source of bailout money? The public government, or the private Fed? Which claims do you believe, and which do you not believe? How do you make your decision? Concerning national finances, I don't believe any politician.
I said the Congress creates it, and the Treasury assists in the process. No, you will rarely see the truth anywhere, because the brainwashing is so ubiquitous. How can we even make a dent in the brainwashing, when most people still believe that the US government relies on tax revenue, as though infinite fiat currency were a finite commodity?
Let’s start with the U.S. Constitution. Article I, Section 8, Cause 5:
The CONGRESS shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises . . . To COIN MONEY, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures . . . .
Nowhere in the Constitution is there a literal definition of the dollar, but in 1789 the term “coin money” meant to create money, by whatever means. Originally, creating money meant stamping an image in a coin. Later it meant stamping and image on any currency, paper or otherwise. “Coin” meant to create. In Shakespeare’s play “Coriolanus” (1607) we read, "So shall my Lungs coine words till their decay." That is, issue or create words. By the 1900s the term “coin a phrase” no longer meant inventing or creating a phrase, but quoting a pre-existing phrase.
So yes, the Congress does create money, simply by spending. And that means crediting computer accounts. You say the Congress only gets money by borrowing from the Fed. We disagree on this.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 2. “The Congress shall have Power…To borrow Money on the credit of the United States.”
You claim that having the power to borrow is the same as having total reliance on borrowing. Again, we disagree.
We’ll just have to agree to disagree on this. For you, the Fed is God. For me, it is just one part of the web.
Re: Gary Johnson: Libertarian for slavery
Incidentally the US Treasury was created in 1789, the same year as the US constitution went into effect. The Federal Reserve system is only 99 years old. Thus, if every bit of money comes from the Fed, then the USA apparently had no dollars for the first 137 years of its existence. Just a thought.
Re: Gary Johnson: Libertarian for slavery
The question is “Where does money come from?”
Sullivan and I have different answers to this, but both is us assume that there must be a correct answer. Money must come from some definite institution and / or process, right?
Actually there are competing theories about this.
Sullivan essentially subscribes to the fractional reserve theory, in which the Fed creates all the money. I subscibe to the chartalist theory, in which the Congress and Treasury create the money, and the Fed multiplies it through fractional reserve banking.
In addition to these two theories, there are the circuitist theory and the credit theory.
There are many who agree with me (e.g. adherents to Modern Monetary Theory such as Michael Hudson, L. Randall Wray, Warren Mosler, Bill Mitchell, and James Galbraith, and to some degree, Hyman Minsky).
There are just as many economists who agree with Tom, and reject chartalism and Modern Monetary Theory. Tom says that Ellen Hodgson Brown agrees with him, and that the Fed and the banks are strangling us with debt. I agree that we are being strangled with debt. As far as I can tell, Ellen Brown agrees with Tom.
Paul Krugman agrees with Tom, and says that chartalism is “just not right.” Krugman gives reasons for this, but I do not understand his language enough to agree or disagree.
Krugman often agrees with me that the USA is not like Greece, since the USA creates its own currency. But in this article, Krugman claims that the USA is indeed like Greece, and “could end up like Greece.”
This article from the London-based Centre for Economic Policy Research says Krugman is wrong. It agrees with me, saying that the USA cannot become like Greece, since the USA creates its own currency, and thus always has the option to buy its own debt. (That is, return all the desposits at the Fed to their depositors, with interest.)
One reader disagrees, saying that the London article above is “snake oil.”
This author agrees with me. It is he that I have put questions to in my debate with Tom. To me it seems that the answers are quite simple. But, because of competing theories, they are not. Reader reviews of that author’s book are at the extremes. So are the rejoinders to the comments. It is brilliant. No, it is absurd.
(As a side note regarding Jews, a perusal of various web sites shows that some Jews agree with me. Some agree with Tom.)
Influential Australian economist Steve Keen tends to agree with me. Others say Keen is wrong.
So what the truth? Take your pick. I just ordered four books from Amazon about this.
One thing I will not budge on is that austerity is not the answer to any economic problem. I think Tom will agree.
Re: Gary Johnson: Libertarian for slavery
Exactly. Austerity is nothing more than a wealth transfer from the have-nots and have-just-enoughs to the have-too-muchs.
Re: Gary Johnson: Libertarian for slavery
All of the economists who agree with me also agree about austerity.
But then, Tom agrees about austerity, and so do most of the economists who agree with Tom.
The issue is important, because we are in the middle of a depression (not a mere "reccession," as many claim). We all agree about the symptoms, but we disagree about the causes and the cure.
I will keep researching this, and in the future perhaps write a post that summarizes the books I have ordered. I will not take a side like I have done so far. Instead the summaries will be in the nature of, "A believes X, while B believes Y."
What perplexes me is that there are competing theories. It seems to me (and perhaps to Tom) that there should be clear answers. We have governments, central banks, and money. There has to be some definite way that the system operates.