Part 1 is here.
On Bill Still's foreign policy, he has been advocating that European nation-states being subjected to austerity by banksters (my term; FDR's term) leave the euro and likely the EU. If there were no better alternative, I would agree. However, Bill knows that the US is facing many of the exact same debt issues as EU-euro states. Yet, Bill Still isn't advocating the breakup of the US federation into a number of separate nations is he? I haven't seen him say that he is, but I also haven't seen where anyone has asked him.
The EU and euro were poorly designed. Is the best answer to dump them? The US replaced its Articles of Confederation with the US Constitution. I'm not saying the system is perfect in the US, far from it; but it would still be better for Europe to be integrated so long as it reforms such that bankster consolidation is rendered impossible.
This LinkedIn group is about monetary reform, and right now, "contagion" is the global watchword. Germany is the strongest nation in Europe (leaving aside the issue of whether Russia is European, per se). Angela Merkel is weak, not because she lacks the office but because she is personally weak in the area where strength is required. Of course, many "libertarians" will disagree for ideological and other reasons. They will see her as Austrian-School leaning, which she is. However, Chartalism, Keynesianism, and Post-Keynesianism are far from the only alternatives. More to the urgent point though is that Angela Merkel must act federally just as those under the weak Articles of Confederation did in the Revolutionary War against the British Empire. She needs to reach out in emergency ways to all the states in the EU to rapidly transform them into a Federation based upon a shared American-System view versus a British-Empire (bankster) view. This is an emergency, and emergency measures are required. She must be as "decisive" as Ben Bernanke has been (for the banksters) but not for banksters, of course, but rather for right reasons and in right ways. The emergency can't wait for the EU to go through a long, drawn-out legal process of having each nation dicker about while "Rome" burns. It's been amazing how long they've had to do the right things but haven't taken even tiny steps yet.
Bill sees banker fascism being applied against Greece and Italy, et al. However, Germany, because of Merkel's weakness, is caught between a rock and a hard place. Her "fascism" is not her issue. She's not grabbing power. She's running from it and for the wrong reasons. She needs to exercise all the power she can muster to bring to Europe exactly what United States Notes (USN) could do today for the US, and she needs to do it ASAP!
The expedient, short-to-midterm answer, as a stepping stone to better things once the citizenry has been properly educated as to the possibilities (real options), is for the EU to do to the euro what most of us here and Bill and I have been advocating that is: United States money be as United States Notes; Federal Reserve Notes be either immediately nationalized and declared interest-and-debt free (and sufficiently increased to pay off legitimate National Debt) or replaced with USN; and governmental borrowing be made illegal (no bonds). Bill goes on to the issue of fractional-reserve lending, and rightly so; however, I have a mental block, or I'm right that 1-for-1, reserve lending is still unnecessary and retarding for a fully functioning democracy, including whether or not representative, republican, and/or limited, etc.
On Bill's advocacy for a border fence with Mexico, I disagree that this is the proper move, even temporarily. The problems in Mexico are steeped in American imperialism. I say that FDR's Good Neighbor Policy was heading the world in the right direction. The US federal government's recent obvious gunrunning into Mexico was an imperialistic foreign policy decision. The CIA and others being directly involved in drug trafficking and money laundering to use the proceeds for other immoral, imperial actions, including further destabilizations for reasons of the greed of the American Empire should not be tolerated.
America was not founded to be a new British Empire or an extension of it. What is called Anglo-Saxon Economics is not the American System. Rather than promote the "free market," we should focus on quality of life and do so democratically and as consensually as humanly possible. The so-called free market was "best" exercised by slave traders. Laissez-faire capitalism has sought to morph itself over the decades to accommodate competing "rights," such as the right not to be a slave; but there is a huge disconnect there.
I'm not advocating a private central bank here. I hold that the US Treasury Department is that bank but just isn't being used as such. Frankly, while I disagree with certain of Alexander Hamilton's tenets, he's received a bum rap from libertarian capitalists [Note: The Libertarian complaint was/is not entirely unjustified: "The First Bank of the United States was modeled after the Bank of England and differed in many ways from today's central banks. For example, it was partly owned by foreigners, who shared in its profits."]. They tied him to the British Empire; however, he was opposed to American dependence on the British and was opposed to the British colonial (slave) model. There you see why the slave issue still resonates. The slave states were opposed to the American System. The US Confederacy allied with the British Empire, which sought to break up America because America was a rising competitor and anti-imperial in many respects.
You will note that Bill Still does not dismiss the American System out of hand but rather appears to me to see where tariffs are the correct move. I hold with tariffs but not for selfish reasons but rather as a tool to break the world-banking elite's (plutocrats) parasitic stranglehold on the peoples of the whole world.
On Bill Still's endorsement of Ron Paul (interesting that a person running for President says during his campaign that he would vote for someone else for President; of course, that's assuming Bill doesn't win the election, which he's admitted he won't), Ron Paul is what Bill has termed a "gold bug." It's accurate. Therefore, why would Bill vote for Ron Paul when Ron Paul is not even as close to United States Notes as is Dennis Kucinich? Well, Dennis isn't running this time. Nevertheless, Ron Paul's positions are woefully inadequate to the moment, if ever. The Gold Standard would be a major disaster. I trust the vast majority of those commenting here, if not all of us, agree. Let's not promote Ron Paul in general. Let's say where he's right but also where he's wrong. I'm not prejudicing Bill's whole position vis-a-vis Ron Paul. There's only so much time in a day to answer all the questions in the world. Bill would no doubt have plenty to say in qualifying his endorsement.