I see much more inflation than deflation. What about you?
Officially, it is also up 8.51%. That's right; based on the official CPI-calculation methodology in use prior to 1982, the year-over-year inflation rate would be soaring north of 8%. (Deflation looks nothing like that). This fascinating insight emerges from the always-fascinating work of John Williams at Shadow Government Statistics.
If the Shadow Stats inflation data would fail to convince the Chairman that inflationary phenomena are at least as prevalent as deflationary ones, he could take a peek at commodity prices (up 11% yoy) or at health insurance costs (up 12.5% yoy). Easier still, he could examine his grocery bill.
"It's getting harder and harder for Americans to put food on the table," The Classic Liberal reports, "our basic food costs have increased by an incredible 48% over the last year (measured by wheat, corn, oats, and canola prices). From the price at the pump to heating your stove, energy costs are up 23% on average (heating oil, gasoline, natural gas). A little protein at dinner is now 39% higher (beef and pork), and your morning cup of coffee with a little sugar has risen by 36% since last October...
"You don't need a Harvard PhD in economics to understand what this means," The Classic Liberal concludes.
Very true, but you do need a Harvard PhD in economics to not understand what this means. "You can always tell a Harvard grad," the century-old saying goes, "you just can't tell him much."
Regardless though, the economy is slow, very slow. Jobs are not being created at the rate that's needed.
Stimulus is fine provided it comes in the right forms. Bernanke has chosen the much more roundabout way. He's trying to avoid the people realizing that he's protecting and promoting the superrich, which is his job. They hired him to do that.
What we need to do is put the unemployed to work with all that "stimulus" money. Rather than have the Federal Reserve buy bonds, or even having a Federal Reserve at all, all the money being created should be going directly into paying people to do necessary work. There are endless jobs waiting to be filled. All the infrastructure of the country requires maintenance and improvement and replacement. The environment needs cleaning. Green energy plants need building. Trees need planting. The list is literally endless.
People would be willing to do the work for a solid living wage that pays for all the basic necessities and allows them to save on top of that.
It's not impossible at all for the government to create that work nearly instantly and to pay for it with new United States Notes that would be interest-free, tax-free, full legal tender (used to pay off the National Debt), and require zero gold holdings or anything else. So long as the money is issued to match real productivity and not speculative bubbles doomed to burst, there would be no inflation or deflation.
Not only that but the people could pay themselves in housing and energy and clothing and food and all the other things including healthcare. Actually money could become a thing of the past.
Together, the people would decide what they want to accomplish and then just do it — all for one and one for all, as the saying goes. The only things standing in the way are the greedy, violent ones.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)