[Steve_American]

Yes, before noticing Western bankruptcy, it's important to read at least a thousand books that you propose.

Once I'm finished reading those books, I will FINALLY understand how the magic money machine works, and why it's so important to watch sitcoms and other entertainment products instead.

1] No one has offered any insight in this thread, only obfuscation.
Par for the course. A pickpocket is very slippery and is always ready to provide distractions.

1] This assertion that I have provided only obfuscations is a lie. Sorry that I have to say that, but what else can I call it?

In this thread I provided 3 links. Two were about Fed Chairman Greenspan's testimony under oath, that the US can create money in unlimited amounts and pay it to someone, and the other was to a paper by Dr. Werner about how he had proved with an experiment that banks create money when they make loans. Before that part, he talks at length about the 3 theories of how banks make loans.

And I explained how the bank loan system works step by step and showed how it must include the creation of new dollars. After your reply, Crantag replied and functionally agreed with everything I said, except my word "licensed".

I didn't reply to your inflammatory post about hyperinflation because, what is the use?

BTW -- being bankrupt or broke implies that you lack the ability to get cash to pay your bills. One is not bankrupt if one can sell an asset to pay the bills. Governments with their own fiat currencies can create money to pay bills so they can never really be bankrupt or broke.

Also, I have said many times that Gov. are constrained by real resources and labor, and creating more money beyond that constraint or limit can cause inflation.
Your examples of hyperinflation are just examples of what can happen when a Gov. keeps creating money beyond the limit I just said exists.
.

[QatzelOk]

...Governments with their own fiat currencies can create money to pay bills so they can never really be bankrupt or broke...

This is great news for Argentina and for Weimer Germany.

You should print up some more money and get yourself a time-machine, go back a century, and tell everyone not to worry about debt accumulation. The government can just print more money.



Bankruptcy in 10... 9 ... 8... (Netflix is waiting for you....)

[Steve_American]

This is great news for Argentina and for Weimer Germany.

You should print up some more money and get yourself a time-machine, go back a century, and tell everyone not to worry about debt accumulation. The government can just print more money.

[img]ht%20%20%20tps://media.giphy.com/media/TjgTIM1RIxguPvHzT2/giphy.gif[/img]

Bankruptcy in 10... 9 ... 8... (Netflix is waiting for you....)

It is useless to reply to you.

Argentina and Weimar owed money denominated in francs, pounds or dollars. This is different.

And, I never said that debt accumulation doesn't matter at all. I have said that it can be a problem.

But, you just ignore what I say.
.

[Steve_American]

It seems like Crantag and Puffer_Fish have nothing to say.

I'll take this opportunity to explain some things to those who are following this thread.

1] It has been said that Neoliberal economics, aka Liberal Econ., was mostly formulated in the late 1900s. At that time the world was solidly on the gold standard, so it was true that all Govs. had to get gold before they could spend gold. In the US the law that created the Fed. was passed in 1913 and in 1971 Nixon ended the final element of the gold standard. This should have ended neoliberal economics, but the rich make the choice to double down.

In the late 1960s the so-called Noble Prize in Econ. was created. The 1st one was awarded in 1969. Econ. claims to be a science, BUT its method would never be allowed in any true science. You see, MainStream Econ. uses simplified assumptions in its proofs. It is well known in law courts and in logic that with the right false premises (that are still accepted as true) one can prove anything. This is why courts make such a big deal about truth.

I assert that Economics was formulated by choosing what was to be proved and creating a system to seem to prove those things. However, one false premise in a proof makes it invalid. In formal proofs the standard form is "If A, B and C are all true, then D is true." So, the proof says nothing about the case where A and C are false.

I just showed Crantag and you that there is no sense in which banks lend their depositors' money. The money that was created and then loaned is then used to meet the "reserve requirement" that the loan created on all banks as a whole, and there are systems in place for the bank that made the loan to borrow reserves to meet its reserve requirement.
. . . So, banks can always make another loan. There is no case in which Gov. deficit spending can keep a bank from making another loan. Yes, economic conditions may discourage additional loans, but they can't stop them.
. . . This makes it false that the Econ. simplified assumption, aka premise, that Gov. deficits crowd out available savings for investment. In fact, Gov. deficits increase savings.

Because the order of events is 1] the Gov. deficit spends dollars into the banking system and then 2] it later sells the bonds to cover the kitted checks, the dollars to buy the bonds are 1st put into the economy, and then those dollars can be used to buy the bonds that the law requires to be sold to cover the kitted checks. Because money is fungible, it doesn't matter if different dollars are used to buy the bonds.
. . . So, here again Gov. deficit spending can not suck up savings and keep dollars of savings from being used to make business investments.

Agin, it is false to assume that Gov. deficits suck up savings and so keep those savings from being used to make investments in businesses.

Other false premises used in MainStream Econ. are that every player in the market knows everything about what they are in the process of selling or buying, also that people know what the effects of their actions and also their Gov's actions will have on the economy in the future, that supply and demand means that more dollars added to the economy will drive up prices, and that raising interest rates has little effect on driving up prices and does have a large effect on driving down prices without causing a recession.

Another thing MS Econ. gets wrong is that a Gov. should pay off its national debt using tax revenue from a surplus. Note that I said "pay off". In fact, even trying to "pay down" the national debt with a surplus has caused a recession or bank panic all 7 times it was tried in US history. The last example was when Clinton's surplus caused the dot com bubble recession around 2000. This always happens because there are just 3 sectors in an economy. They are the Gov. sec., the private sec. and the foreign sec. The total of these 3 is always zero. So, a Gov. surplus must make the non-gov. sec. be in deficit and that deficit will always cause a recession because people have debts that they then can't make the payments on. In an extreme case it may be possible to pay down the national debt if the nation has a huge trade surplus. The US always has a trade deficit, though.

I assert that Pres. Trump has shown us all how lies, aka false premises, can be used to prove anything, that lies have no place in politics or in science. Yet, MainStream Economic Theory is based on microeconomics and uses simplified assumptions and are obviously false to prove its conclusions. I assert that this alone should send you looking for a different theory of economics that is not based on lies, aka false premises.

I suggest you read about Modern Monetary Theory. Stephanie Kelton's book, "The Deficit Myth" is a good place to start.
Or google MMT and any of these names. Mitchell, Wray, Mosler, Kelton. etc.
Dr. Steve Keen and Dr. Micheal Hudson are also good heterodox economists.

_______________________________________._______________________________


BTW --- economists led the charge to discredit in 1972 The Club of Rome report, "The Limits to Growth". It correctly predicted the mess we are in now with resource depletion, pollution poisoning the biosphere, overpopulation, and climate change. It predicted the crisis would be in mid century. I can see that it was right, and we are right on track to collapse civilization in about 2050.

So, I don't have much good to say to or about most economists. They are all liars, and they led the charge that is leading us toward a cliff, and they seem to be determined to make us charge right over that cliff to our doom.

.

[QatzelOk]

...In the late 1960s the so-called Noble Prize in Econ. was created. The 1st one was awarded in 1969. Econ. claims to be a science, BUT its method would never be allowed in any true science. You see, MainStream Econ. uses simplified assumptions in its proofs. It is well known in law courts and in logic that with the right false premises (that are still accepted as true) one can prove anything. This is why courts make such a big deal about truth. ..

Exactly. A Nobel Prize in Economics is like a Nobel Prize in Pickpocketing. The pickpockets would demontrate, with this prize, that they control the Nobel structure with their pickpocketed loot (and extortion, and media smearing of opponents, etc.)

So would a U.S. default really be that bad?
Yes — And here's why
...
1. The reputation of the U.S. would take a hit — an expensive hit
...stiffing creditors would be expensive. The U.S.' reputation for always paying its debts has helped the country borrow trillions of dollars at very low interest rates from investors and governments around the world...

2. The shock to markets could spark a global financial crisis
..."That means there's no more borrowing, businesses stop investing and the markets go absolutely haywire."...

3. No money for schools, roads, Social Security checks
...if the U.S. defaults and there's no more money to spend, the government suddenly wouldn't have cash to run basic operations, things like schools and roads...

4. A U.S. recession would be likely, and the world would suffer
...unemployment could spike, lending could freeze up and the economy could shrink...
"It's the most critical part of U.S. national economic security that the government can fund itself," he says...

The above article is from this year, but numbers 2 and 4 on the list refer to "global problems" that would be caused by the bankruptcy of the USA as a trading nation.

Perhaps this is why the BRICS are quickly exiting our economic sphere: in order to protect their own economies and societies from going down the drain with the West and its crooked financial predator elites and their gullible, Netflix-obsessed working class drones.

[Steve_American]

Exactly. A Nobel Prize in Economics is like a Nobel Prize in Pickpocketing. The pickpockets would demontrate, with this prize, that they control the Nobel structure with their pickpocketed loot (and extortion, and media smearing of opponents, etc.)

NPR wrote:
"So would a U.S. default really be that bad?
Yes — And here's why
...
1. The reputation of the U.S. would take a hit — an expensive hit
...stiffing creditors would be expensive. The U.S.' reputation for always paying its debts has helped the country borrow trillions of dollars at very low interest rates from investors and governments around the world...

2. The shock to markets could spark a global financial crisis
..."That means there's no more borrowing, businesses stop investing and the markets go absolutely haywire."...

3. No money for schools, roads, Social Security checks
...if the U.S. defaults and there's no more money to spend, the government suddenly wouldn't have cash to run basic operations, things like schools and roads...

4. A U.S. recession would be likely, and the world would suffer
...unemployment could spike, lending could freeze up and the economy could shrink...
"It's the most critical part of U.S. national economic security that the government can fund itself," he says..."

The above article is from this year, but numbers 2 and 4 on the list refer to "global problems" that would be caused by the bankruptcy of the USA as a trading nation.

Perhaps this is why the BRICS are quickly exiting our economic sphere: in order to protect their own economies and societies from going down the drain with the West and its crooked financial predator elites and their gullible, Netflix-obsessed working class drones.

Well, given that a US default would have to be totally voluntary, it would be stupid.

I suppose the MAGA Repuds in Congress might be that stupid. Still, a default can never be forced on the US except by stupid MAGA Congressmen in the US Congress.

.

[QatzelOk]

Well, given that a US default would have to be totally voluntary, it would be stupid.

This idea that the USA is a self-contained nation that produces all it needs.... is a false one.

Imports require that your currency has some kind of value.

Contemporary Americans import their lives from elsewhere - thus its continued wars (that require currency and imports to finance).

Much of what you type is theoretically true, but the "big picture" you project in this thread is pure magic money tree.

This is normal. Our economy depends on the collective stupidity of everyone reading your posts.

When the USA economy tanks, its population might be under attack by the rest of the world - thus cancelling any kind of awakening of the magic-money-believing media viewers.

[late]

This idea that the USA is a self-contained nation that produces all it needs.... is a false one.

Imports require that your currency has some kind of value.

Contemporary Americans import their lives from elsewhere - thus its continued wars (that require currency and imports to finance).

Much of what you type is theoretically true, but the "big picture" you project in this thread is pure magic money tree.

This is normal. Our economy depends on the collective stupidity of everyone reading your posts.

When the USA economy tanks, its population might be under attack by the rest of the world - thus cancelling any kind of awakening of the magic-money-believing media viewers.

Whatever gets you through the night...

(Btw, we are in the first stage of a boom...)

[Steve_American]

This idea that the USA is a self-contained nation that produces all it needs.... is a false one.

Imports require that your currency has some kind of value.

Contemporary Americans import their lives from elsewhere - thus its continued wars (that require currency and imports to finance).

Much of what you type is theoretically true, but the "big picture" you project in this thread is pure magic money tree.

This is normal. Our economy depends on the collective stupidity of everyone reading your posts.

When the USA economy tanks, its population might be under attack by the rest of the world - thus cancelling any kind of awakening of the magic-money-believing media viewers.

Like I have said, what you think might happen IS POSSIBLE.

I just object to you calling it being bankrupt or broke.

Just because it is possible doesn't mean it is likely, or more than very unlikely.

The US exports food and oil, etc. It also has a huge stock of gold which it could use to import things.

Besides which, I'm quite certain that the problem will be caused by ACC and not the economic collapse of the US.

.

[QatzelOk]

Like I have said, what you think might happen IS POSSIBLE.

I just object to you calling it being bankrupt or broke.

The only way to avoid having its bluff called by its international creditors... is to continue to terrorize the world with wars of predation.

The USA has been doing this for my entire lifetime, but infortunately, these wars have drained the treasury more than they have enlarged the empire.

So it looks like Weimar will end the same way this time around...

[Steve_American]

The only way to avoid having its bluff called by its international creditors... is to continue to terrorize the world with wars of predation.

The USA has been doing this for my entire lifetime, but infortunately, these wars have drained the treasury more than they have enlarged the empire.

So it looks like Weimar will end the same way this time around...

Oh, my fucking God.

You just compared the US to Germany after it was defeated in WWI.

This comparison is utterly and totally insane.

The US navy can fight every other navy as a combined force and win, so the US is safe from invasion.

The US also has nuclear weapons, Germany didn't.

.

[QatzelOk]

You just compared the US to Germany after it was defeated in WWI.

The USA was defeated from within, just like Germany in WW1.

And international financiers were very active in both defeats.

Printing money ferociously while starting wars all over the world... this is the comparison point, and it's an important one.

***

America's 30 trillion in debt was run up by fighting wars instead of developing modern infrastructure and industrial independence. Notice that the expansion of the 13 colonies into the current USA... happened with every bankruptcy of the orginal landmass. Expansion and the resulting genocides of locals... was mandated by the rules-based-order of frontier brinksmanship.

Only there's no one left to exterminate in order for banksters to "kill their way out" of their horrible governance of the USA. They are now against the wall and all of our lives are at risk because of their games.

[Steve_American]

1] The USA was defeated from within,
2] just like Germany in WW1.

3] And international financiers were very active in both defeats.

4] Printing money ferociously while starting wars all over the world... this is the comparison point, and it's an important one.

***

America's 30 trillion in debt was run up by fighting wars instead of developing modern infrastructure and industrial independence. Notice that the expansion of the 13 colonies into the current USA... 5] happened with every bankruptcy of the original landmass. Expansion and the resulting genocides of locals... was mandated by the rules-based-order of frontier brinksmanship.

Only there's no one left to exterminate in order for banksters to "kill their way out" of their horrible governance of the USA. 6] They are now against the wall and all of our lives are at risk because of their games.

1] Ok, I can see what you mean here. That is one way of seeing it.

2] In WWI, Germany was not defeated from within. It had lost the war in a military sense. All its allies had surrendered, and its armies were unable to hold ground.

3] I can agree with this for the US, but I'm well read on the history of WWI, and I doubt financers of any kind were involved in its surrender.

4] Germany didn't start printing money ferociously until after the war. All the warring nations went deep into debt selling war bonds, though.

5] I have no idea what you mean with that. The locals (your term) could not go bankrupt, because they didn't use money.

6] Like I said above and in many threads, yes, we, aka humanity, are up against the wall or headed over a cliff (take your pick of analogies) and it is the fault of financiers, economists, and the rich. But, for me the problem is ACC and not financial.

.

[QatzelOk]

...But, for me the problem is ACC and not financial...

If commercial media is covering (protecting) the institutions that are driving the West into bankruptcy, they would invent emotional distractions - other things to worry about - so that they can continue to pillage and eventually "take over" all economic control levers.

This "protection racket" commercial media would have us worry about wars, epidemics, the sins of climate change... ANYTHING BUT the fact that the commercial media's "friends and sponsors" are driving everyone else into debt slavery.

[Steve_American]

If commercial media is covering (protecting) the institutions that are driving the West into bankruptcy, they would invent emotional distractions - other things to worry about - so that they can continue to pillage and eventually "take over" all economic control levers.

This "protection racket" commercial media would have us worry about wars, epidemics, the sins of climate change... ANYTHING BUT the fact that the commercial media's "friends and sponsors" are driving everyone else into debt slavery.

Well, after sleeping on this post that has no evidence, this is my reply.

OK, we can agree that the US can be caused to collapse only from within.

I still assert that private debt can make us debt slaves, especially if the Constitutional requirement that there be a good bankruptcy law is not honored, and this is already so for students.

I still assert that the US Gov. can not go broke or bankrupt unless it starts borrowig in a currency other than the US$. Yes, there can be hyperinflation, but this is not going "bankrupt". Like you assert, if idiots from within are stupid eneough, there can be hyperinflation. MMTers are not such people. They assert that the US Gov. needs its economist beaurocrats and other beaurocrats to ask if the real labor and other resources are available to do what the proposed new program will reqiure, before they advise the Congress if the program is wise or not. As long as the new prgram will not cause shortages it will not cause inflation.

.

[Puffer Fish]

Argentina and Weimar owed money denominated in francs, pounds or dollars. This is different.

Inflating your way out of your debt obligations is kind of similar to not paying your debt.

But you're going to claim that the government can print and spend lots of money without that causing inflation. So that's what this entire argument with you comes down to.
And we can debate that with you in another separate thread, of your choosing. Because constantly repeatedly having that debate with you in every other thread would derail those thread discussions, wouldn't they?

I still assert that the US Gov. can not go broke or bankrupt unless it starts borrowig in a currency other than the US$. Yes, there can be hyperinflation, but this is not going "bankrupt".

Hopefully you understand the death spiral of higher inflation rates pushing interest rates higher, and higher interest rates making debt more expensive, causing government to print more money to pay for it.
If you have the Central Bank trying to suppress interest rates, that also requires printing money, so that's not a way out of it either.

[Steve_American]

Inflating your way out of your debt obligations is kind of similar to not paying your debt.

But you're going to claim that the government can print and spend lots of money without that causing inflation. So that's what this entire argument with you comes down to.
And we can debate that with you in another separate thread, of your choosing. Because constantly repeatedly having that debate with you in every other thread would derail those thread discussions, wouldn't they?


Hopefully you understand the death spiral of higher inflation rates pushing interest rates higher, and higher interest rates making debt more expensive, causing government to print more money to pay for it.
If you have the Central Bank trying to suppress interest rates, that also requires printing money, so that's not a way out of it either.

This thread has 3 thousand to 5 thousand views a day. This is because of the debate between you'all and me. This thread is not derailed. It is popular.

Why should I give up and let you have the floor unchallenged? I could say the same to you. Why don't you stop posting and leave the floor to me?

_____________________________._______________________________________


As usual, you post and just make assertions.

Inflation is coming down. So, the risk of hyperinflation is going away.

The San Francisco Fed has said that less then half the inflation was caused of covid spending. Maybe as little as 25% of it. The rest was caused by shortages, supple chain problems, corps choosing to price gouge, and oil prices increasing because of OPEC and the Ukraine War. And, the San Francisco Fed is not a bunch of MMTers, it is neoliberal like you guys.

I don't see that the covid spending confirmed the money supply theory of inflation.

You guys don't use evidence to support your assertions. At least that I see. You just keep making the same assertions over and over.

For example, I don't see you guys doing some data analysis to show how the money supply and inflation are linked with a 0.8 correlation.

I try to provide an argument or other evidence in most replies. And, you guys don't seem able to refute my facts. You don't seem able to show how my arguments are just wrong. You just assert that they are wrong.

I keep harping on my claim that Mainstream Economic theories are all bullcrap.
They are proven using logic and not by looking at historical economic data. The problem with that is that in logic the Premises must all be true for the proof to be valid. It isn't enough to say that the premises are close to true or a good approximation of true. This is because Chaos Theory has shown that when using equations that are used over and over, month after month, for example, tiny errors will build up until the prediction is of zero value.
. . And, many of the premises used in economics to prove its conclusions are obviously false. And, not just a little false, totally the opposite of true.

Who really believes that every player in the market has equal info, let alone total and accurate info?
Who believes that banks lend their depositor's money? Crantag said that I got the details 100% correct, and that I only used the wrong word to describe the process, when I said that banks are "licensed" by the Gov. to create dollars that then become just like all other dollars in the economy. I provide the link to the paper that proved I'm right.
Who believes that everyone as a rational player can predict the future results of all Gov. policies? I can disprove it by asserting that I can't predict the future and ask you if you think that you can do so?
Who believes that the Gov. can calculate the NAIRU accurately enough to be a meaningful guide to present action? I assert that it is total bullcrap. Made up to let the neoliberals discipline the workforce to keep wages down and profits high.
. . . I googled "What is the formula for NAIRU?" I got this. Find the slope of the Phillips curve. Subtract the slope of the Phillips curve from the unemployment rate of the year you are trying to calculate the NAIRU for. The resulting number is the NAIRU. . . . . . . . OK, how is the Phillips curve calculated in real time for the present? What point on the curve, aka slope, is it talking about? . . . This info is meaningless for me.
Who actually believes that at some point in the future the Gov. of the UK after 329 ears of increasing the national debt will choose to start running a surplus to pay off its national debt? I assert that this is just a rhetorical demand to scare you. The UK has had a debt since 1694 and never had to pay it off. Most of this time the gold standard was in force and it still didn't need to pay it off. It lost 95% of its Empire and still didn't need to pay it off. What expert really believes that the UK can pay off its debt by having a surplus for dacades? If it can not be done, it will not be done. The same goes for the US. And now the dollar and pound are both floating fiat curriences. The gold standard is dead.

Added a day later.

All f you who are not MAGA Repubs should be able to see what happens when lies are accepted as truth. Former Pres. Trump got thousands of people to storm the Capitol by telling them lies.
Many of the premises of MS Econ theories are false and so are sort of lies. Lies because the economists who created the theory had to have known that. for just 1 example, it is false to assert that all rational actors in the economy can be 100% accurate about the future and do make many predictions about the future, and so will act in certain ways.

I'm referring to the MS Econ argument that during the GFC/2008 in the EU the Govs should use austerity because the rational actors, aka people, will spend more now because they know that the Govs will not need to tax more later to pay down their debts; and if the Govs did spend more (like the US had) that the people would have to save more now to have the cash to pay the higher taxes later. Some MMT expert reported that the IMF experts admitted years later that that prediction was just wrong. That people didn't spend more because their Govs spent less. They spent less.

.

[Steve_American]

Inflating your way out of your debt obligations is kind of similar to not paying your debt.

But you're going to claim that the government can print and spend lots of money without that causing inflation. So that's what this entire argument with you comes down to.
And we can debate that with you in another separate thread, of your choosing. Because constantly repeatedly having that debate with you in every other thread would derail those thread discussions, wouldn't they?


Hopefully you understand the death spiral of higher inflation rates pushing interest rates higher, and higher interest rates making debt more expensive, causing government to print more money to pay for it.
If you have the Central Bank trying to suppress interest rates, that also requires printing money, so that's not a way out of it either.

Again, Japan has been creating money for 3 decades and it still can't get inflation over 2% and usually not over 0.5%. Its debt/GDP ratio is over 240% and the BoJ holds a lot of that debt. [Having the central bank hold Gov bonds is claimed to be much worse than the public holding them. Yet, it doesn't seem to matter for Japan.]

So, for 30 years economists have been predicting that Japan would collapse and it hasn't. Thirty years is a long time to be making the same failed prediction. I've been told that many investors have believed those predictions and so shorted Japanese bonds and they aahve all ost their shirts. It is called "the widow maker trade." It is like the prediction that Jesus will return next year and he hasn't for about 1961 years now.

No, I have not been saying the US Gov. can "create a lot of money and not cause inflation".
I've been saying that the US can deficit spend more than it does and not cause more than 2% inflation. The Fed wants around 2% inflation so that is just right according to the Fed.

[BTW -- Why do you insist on using the phrase "print money"? The US doesn't print money. It creates electronic dollars by making deposits in private banks. So, it is not accurate to use the word print. The proper word is "create". Are you doing it just to scare people?]

.

[Steve_American]

I wrote: I keep harping on my claim that Mainstream Economic theories are all bullcrap.

I want to emphasize that former Pres. Trump has demonstrated what always happens when lise and false statements are accepted as the truth.

Nothing good can come from that.

A lot of bad and terrible things can follow from that.
In this case, when Gov. economic policies are based on invalid proofs of theories based on false premises, the policies are not likely to be the best possible policies and are likely to be counterproductive.

I call on you to do a little research to confirm my assertions that MS Econ is based on false premises.


Some links to better evidence than my say so are:


Heterodox economists, Steve Keen, shows that econ's definition of rational is really "futurely" clairvoyant.

Remove the [==] to view it. . . . [I'm sorry that long YouTube addresses show up as "This video can't be shown."]
https://www.you[==]tube.com/watch?v=TtOxLhwxYx8&list=TLPQMjExMTIwMjPoDenQE9PSFw&index=3


How Finance Capitalism Ruined the World -- Dr. Michael Hudson & Dr. Steve Keen, DSPod

[QatzelOk]

...All f you who are not MAGA Repubs should be able to see what happens when lies are accepted as truth. Former Pres. Trump got thousands of people to storm the Capitol by telling them lies. ...

This is only semi-related to the upcoming bankruptcy of the USA and many Western countries.

As we near bankrutptcy, our cleptocratic elite will use wars, epidemics, emergencies of all kinds, ... in order to steal as much money as possible before the whole Titanic goes down.

The USA's upcoming bankruptcy can explain most of American foreign policy atrocities of the last 20 years.

And the monopolistic nature of USA media explains why the normal people of the USA didn't see this bankruptcy coming ever. Our gullibility makes us easy to rip off, and easy to kill off. And that manufactured gullibility is another product of monopolistic media.