Nouriel Roubini: Somewhat the Neoliberal-Zionist?

Is Nouriel Roubini a Zionist? He wrote, "While an outright military conflict between Israel and the US on one side and Iran on the other side remains unlikely, it is clear that negotiations and sanctions will not induce Iran's leaders to abandon efforts to develop nuclear weapons." Ummm, when did anyone show any proof that Iran has a nuclear-weapons program? Nouriel Roubini should not be making statements as if it is a foregone conclusion that Iran has such a program. He should at the very least call it a Zionist-alleged program (because that's all it is).

He sounds a bit like a neoliberal here (not the first time): "Fourth, many emerging markets – including the BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India, and China), but also many others – are now experiencing decelerating growth. Their "state capitalism" – a large role for state-owned companies; an even larger role for state-owned banks; resource nationalism; import-substitution industrialization; and financial protectionism and controls on foreign direct investment – is the heart of the problem. Whether they will embrace reforms aimed at boosting the private sector's role in economic growth remains to be seen." The Economic Fundamentals of 2013 by Nouriel Roubini - Project Syndicate

That last paragraph of his is a mixed bag. "...boosting the private sector's role in economic growth..." is certainly not necessarily the wisest thing to do. Is Nouriel speaking as someone stuck in a mixed-economic framework leaning way over to the laissez-faire?

Why not discuss public enterprises being run correctly for the maximum benefit of all rather than simply caving into private enterprise? Why, for instance, do we have a public/private hodgepodge called the Federal Reserve System when we should have one, public, central, non-profit bank?

We need United States Notes (Greenbacks) and Public Banking. Where's Nouriel Roubini on those?

Everybody has been so ready to discuss the trillion dollar platinum coin but not Greenbacks and Public Banking. Who's controlling the media if not those who don't want the bottom to rise?

See also: The Trillion Dollar Coin: Joke or Game-changer?


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 Libertarian Capitalism, Monetary Reform, United States Notes. Bookmark the permalink.
    • JallopyMacfurry

      I'm actually researching this fellow to see how left he is, since trying to work our predictions for gold. Even though he got the housing bubble burst correct (kind of obvious, actually) since he does seem to be on the Left, I am inclined to move on from him. The Left has gotten near everything, and I mean everything, wrong, for decades. So it's a pretty good general predictor as to the integrity of even an economist's predictions.

      • Tom Usher

        Was the "Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000" right or left? Was it right or wrong? What's right versus left?

        Was Lenin a left-Communist or right-wing?

        What are you, a "Libertarian"?

        "...predictions for gold"? Are you what's called a gold bug?

        Those are real questions, not merely rhetorical. In other words, if you comment again/reply, please answer them directly. Thanks.

        Short of Heaven on Earth, I'm for starting out with a debt-free currency. I've been calling for debt-free United States Notes for many years now. Gold isn't needed for that.

        The gold industry is loaded with problems: environmental, etc. It's a huge part of the problem, not any part of the prime solution. It does have utilitarian value, but that's really not as "money," per se.

        Anyway, Nouriel Roubini is quite often correct (much more often then not -- I'd say 99%+) within his range of economic interests. Mine are vastly wider -- the widest I know here on Earth, next to Heaven proper coming here, concerning which I am also very interested.

        • JallopyMacfurry

          Well, fair enough. I was bringing my own world view perspective on this into the mix, which includes presumptions about the word 'leftist', as in an ideology which is tied up with other presumptions of mine that are intrinsically linked to my faith in God, and as a Christian, frankly. Or, in a nutshell. i.e., there are things going on "behind the scenes", in a spiritual sense, which connect with patterns I discern which are unfair to suppose on another in this kind of speculation.

          But yes, of course Lenin was a leftist, but obviously to right of Stalin. That doesn't mean he was clear about prioritizing individual liberty over our decent instinct for egalitarianism; which of course makes him on the Left.

          Anyway, point being, I was totally vague and with a bunch of presuppositions apparent in words which can't communicate really what I'm thinking. Even the best of poetry, although awesome, is deftly lacking in respect to our current level or ability of communication.

        • Tom Usher

          Semantical theology is my deepest interest.

          Left versus right is understood differently one ideology to another. Many small-c communists will say that Stalin was a right-Communist -- to the right of Lenin. That sort of thinking isn't widely known in Libertarian circles, but many non-capitalist anarchists understand it.

          I am a communist but strictly voluntary, more voluntary (choice of the heart) than any anarcho-capitalists I've run into (save one) are concerning the degree to which they believe capitalism ought to be voluntary or state-protected/enforced. The vast majority do not believe that voluntary socialism should be allowed to compete head-to-head with even so-called anarcho-capitalism -- so much for economic freedom.

          Don't get me wrong here. I am comparing voluntary to voluntary, not fairly voluntary capitalism vs. compulsory socialism. In a straight up match or contest, socialism would win hands down. There's just no comparison. The cooperative spirit will beat (bring forth more and better) the individual competitive spirit every single time, provided the terms are understood. I've always found "capitalists" unwilling to delve into the terms -- where the terms ultimately lead.

          The debt-free United States Notes idea I promote includes 1) paying down the National Debt 100% nearly instantly and 2) using open-source software as the "Monetary Authority" vs. the current Federal Reserve. The first of those has caught on in United States Notes circles after I hammered on it for a few years. The second idea appears to be over people's heads for reasons that escape me. I've spelled it out in great detail in some venues, but only one person (a programmer) appeared to fully get it.

          The whole system would be bottom-up democracy. There would be zero austerity -- no poverty. Of course, Jesus said that the poor they would always have with them, but he was speaking to a particular generation. When Heaven and Earth are both New, when Heaven comes to Earth, there won't be poverty. I'm confident I'm not being inconsistent with Jesus's statement about the poor.

          Anyway, I want what I call the Christian Commons where Christians cooperate to bring forth farms they own and work, which feed them and the surplus feeds the area's poor. There's a great deal more to it than that, but that's the gist of it, the start.

          My biggest disappointment in life so far has been the unwillingness of people who call themselves "Christians" to throw in on it. There are some extremely rich-in-mammon people calling themselves Christians who could make my/our Christian Commons pop up in no time.

          I've had tens of thousands of people come across this site. The silence from people wanting to make it their cause has been deafening.

          I don't spend nearly as much time on this site as I used to. I've been censored and banned left and right across the Internet. People just don't want to hear it -- the consistency. They like hypocrisy. They like not being asked the "tough" questions.

          Oh well, it's a cross to bear. It's a temptation to fall. But... knowing that helps not to, not that I don't still slip up.


        • JallopyMacfurry

          I'm liking your thoughts and hopes for the "debt-free United States Notes" idea. Very cool! There is hope...just we're in a dark time I suppose...

      • Tom Usher

        I see nothing much wrong with his analysis:

        I agreed with him at the time about gold only I was even more bearish than he -- still am.