A Reuters article today, “Obama says aiding economy trumps budget deficit,” also responds to 60 Minutes’ Obama interview, quoting the president-elect to state “we’re going to have to spend money now to stimulate the economy.” In other words, a perpetual effort to save the pretended economy will (in each successive phase) cost us far more, and far more again, than it would to rectify it (which would cost us nothing):
By Jeff Mason
CHICAGO (Reuters) — The United States government should not worry about deficits over the next two years while spending money to jumpstart the ailing economy, President-elect Barack Obama said in a television interview that aired on Sunday.
Obama, a Democrat who takes over from President George W. Bush, a Republican, on January 20, said consensus had emerged between economists in both major U.S. political parties that expensive measures were necessary to avoid a deep recession.- Advertisement -
“The consensus is this, that we have to do whatever it takes to get this economy moving again, that we have to — we’re going to have to spend money now to stimulate the economy,” he told the CBS television network’s 60 Minutes news program.
“And (consensus is) that we shouldn’t worry about the deficit next year or even the year after; that short term, the most important thing is that we avoid a deepening recession.”
The “consensus” of which Mr. Obama speaks of course is comprised solely of practitioners of a pseudo-science, which, without conclusive or even qualified argument, and without accountability, itself simply steadfastly supports perpetuation of a process which can only multiply artificial sums of debt all the further, until we succumb to a terminal sum of debt.
Obama’s campaign slogan pledged that he wanted us to believe in his ability to change Washington, he wanted us to believe, under his presidency, in ours.
There is of course no more appropriate or vital area of concern than the people’s right and ability to solve the present monetary issues. Where then will we see the manifestation of this pledge?
I frankly don’t know what would compel the man to pursue real solution. All evidence regarding my attempts to convey solution to the Obama Campaign and Transition team may be obstructed by “economic” insiders, who obviously can stand no challenge to the course they will stay, particularly if real solution is upheld by irrefutable arguments.
There is but one solution nonetheless to inflation, deflation, and inherent, irreversible multiplication of debt by interest. Given that solution either cannot reach our president to be, or that he cannot or will not assimilate it, let’s do the math of his proposed course.
The Gross Domestic Product is supposed to be $1 trillion. The federal government is already piling up a $1 trillion in deficits. So the prospect of “bailing out” a system which can only multiply debt ever further, is to increase the deficits, accumulating yet further debt on the federal side of the ledger. So, at the eleventh hour of the finite lifespan of an “economy” which, for the unearned benefit of a few, can only multiply debt in proportion to the sustaining circulation, we are going to contribute to the rate of multiplication.
Smart move? Absolutely not. What are the ramifications?
The whole reason “credit is drying up” however, is the system of exploitation inherently comprises two simultaneous processes, one of deflation, and one of replenishing the circulation of the deflationary process.
When the replenishing aspect cannot be performed to the equivalent of the deflationary aspect, “credit dries up,” and we go under. How does this happen; and is it even possible to recover from a terminal manifestation of conditions which make it impractical to loan sufficiently to maintain a vital circulation?
First of all, what are these necessarily simultaneous deflationary and replenishing aspects?