YouTube - Quantitative Easing Explained (Not So Fast, Not So Fast)

This video is funny in places. It tries to get it right. In many places, it does. However, it's not the whole story. It leaves things out that matter very much.

Quantitative Easing I (that's one) didn't do what they said it would because it didn't go to the right place: Main Street. It went to banks that parked the money at the Fed. It went to bonuses. It went to consolidation (monopolistic deals). It went to huge corporations with little to no oversight. It didn't go to stop foreclosures. The list is long. It went to people who simply used the money for the carry trade where they borrowed here (the U.S.) near zero and invested in countries paying higher interest.

That of course harms those other nations while not helping America much at all, especially not compare to how much direct investments in Main Street would have helped.

It could have gone to public jobs and projects like the WPA & CCC did only better: full employment. It could have gone to high-skills jobs training (on the job). It good have gone to public work now!

Keynesianism worked extremely well in spite of what the laissez-faire people want you to believe. In fact, continued government spending for WWII (military Keynesianism) put huge numbers of people to work (tens of millions actually) in the U.S. and Germany, so much so that there was a shortage of workers.

Now, if the same emphasis had been put on a war against something other than each other and a war where the products produced more rather than destroyed and killed, products and services that would have created a multiplier effect in productivity, the sky would have been the limit. Rather than that though, the war ended, and the Cold War ramped up where neither side got it right.

The Soviets got spent under the table, and the U.S. then squandered the peace dividend and shipped its jobs overseas after a deregulation frenzy — not bright at all, as the consequences show.

This only scratches the surface. I've given the real solutions in recent posts and posts going back years (long before the crisis started to show through to those who need an anvil to hit them in the head before they realize anythings happening).

Now, if we can only get the common people to think beyond the disastrous Austrian School of Economics that loves to point out how the Federal Reserve System is a scam (which it is) but veers off into its own nightmare creation....

Let me say it very emphatically. Greed is not good!

Oh, and we don't need a Gold Standard. In fact, going back to that would only enrich those who have tons of it and would only increase the ecological disaster that is gold and other mining. If you're going to mine, do it for practical reasons, not for the mistaken notion that "gold is money and nothing else is" sort of thinking.

Fiat money worked fine for hundreds and hundreds of years. Bill Still has done some nice work documenting this in his videos.

We just need interest- and tax-free United States Notes at this point and pegged to real productivity. I don't understand why people don't realize how to do that, but I do.

They partially understood it during the Populist Era.

Let me say it in the simplest terms so that those who have obviously been reading my blog but for some reason just can't bring themselves to writing my name, attaching it to the concept, you decide what's productive first, then you fund it. Look, I'm talking about socialism (albeit uncoerced) here, not capitalism, and leading to a moneyless society. To Hell with the mark where if you don't have it you can't buy or sell or eat or whatever. Everyone eats!

We're talking about a total transformation of the heart, the spirit of society, where everyone has pitching in instilled within, where everyone loves to help and to cooperate and to work for the common good. We're not talking about a communist dictatorship where everything is top down. We're talking about the consensus of the people whose desire is the highest and best for every member of society, the world.

Look, capitalism is a mindset. If you're going to choose a mindset, why choose that when the best is right there to be chosen?

The Robber Barons crushed the common, decent, hardworking people. We still need to fix that and can. The power of the common mind can be elevated to the point where the elites are by-passed and are obsolete and will want to change so as not to be inferior stock, so to speak.

We can end poverty and war and do all sorts of great things if we change the heart, if we soften rather than harden.

As I mentioned, look back at some of my recent posts for more details.


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)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in United States Notes. Bookmark the permalink.