The editorial authors of The Wall Street Journal would make Bill Buckley proud, given the regularity where they use words that are unfamiliar to many of us, providing the opportunity to strengthen our vocabulary thus. Weekend issue from last Oct was no exception A. Well, as one who has, sometimes, voiced opinions about such things as the Global Investment Performance Standards (GIPS), I would hope that my comments have not been likened to caviling. And while some may be annoyed by a few of the points I have raised, I don’t believe they have been trivial.
Irritation, if there’s been any, might stem from unwelcome or uninvited questioning, which I envision can become tiresome at times. But if we wish our rules to be as valuable and good as it can be, feedback and problems should be pleasant, yes? I believe with confidence that for the most part, those who oversee the Standards are available to such comments. But if I ever do cavil, I am hoping someone will I want to know!
The FED and IMF are outreaches of these Synarchists who get a bit of the action through arbitrage and other dastardly video games. David Guyatt is a previous financial wizard worth reading. John Ralston Saul, who is the hubby of the Governor-General of Canada and a former head of the Paris-based investment company, says the finish of the Bretton Woods Agreement was the one most important event of the 20th Century. George Orwells slogans like War is Peace and Love is Hate are eerily similar to the current War on Terra, which former CIA Director Woolsey telephone calls WWIV.
Plus the word debt has negative overtones. For the majority of the population, that is the only reason for wanting to decrease the debt. And of course it is a nonsensical reason. There are a few better reasons however. See the second last paragraph here. Also, none of them of the arguments FOR the government debt stand inspection. As described above, the stimulatory effect of a large-scale debt buy back again would need to be counterbalanced by some sort of deflationary measure, like increased fees.
But this tax increase, while it might be a political or psychological problem, isn’t any sort of financial problem. In particular, the tax increase wouldn’t normally reduce household living requirements (presuming a closed overall economy). Put another way, there is no justification why the buy back again should necessitate a decrease in aggregate demand.
And no change to AD means no change to the common home income. As distinct from household INCOMES, let us now consider home ASSETS. But be warned: the following section is abstruse! Assume the economy reaches capacity – (an assumption which is relaxed later). This assumption means that to repaying the debt prior, cash and other household financial assets must have been at a rate which induced households to invest at a rate which brought full employment.
- Did you ever want local rental property
- General Ledger
- The end result of the simulation analysis is
- Socially accountable investing (SRI)
If those possessions are expanded or made more liquid, home spending will rise too much (as pointed out above). The result would be inflationary. Put yet another way, additional spending at full employment results in NO ADDITIONAL SPENDING in real terms. Or even to put it another way yet, the additional cash in private sector hands that produces this additional spending is in an exceedingly real sense TOTALLY WORTHLESS!
100 expenses, 10% of which are obvious forgeries. The obvious forgeries are not well worth anything: the regulators may as well confiscate them (let’s say via a ploy called “tax”). It might appear from the above argument that in buying back debt, a portion of private sector assets (by means of government debts) has been converted from being in a little cents “real” to being “illusory”. And the latter point, if valid, would mean that the buy WOULD involves a decrease in private sector or home resources back again. However, the truth is that government debt is and always has been to some degree an illusory form of wealth and for reasons very similar to those set out just above.