Modern Money Theory Thought Exercises

Modern Monetary Theory (MMT)

MMT is a different perspective of a modern monetary economy characterised by a fiat currency and a flexible exchange rate. Rather than trying to explain it all at once, I'll walk through some examples that aim to explain as we go. I've not provided any sources as MMT can be easily researched through Google. Also, some conclusions are my interpretations of the exercises, so don't takes any of this as MMT canon. In at least one case I come to a different conclusion than some MMT advocates. The mistake is of course almost certain to be my own.

If I have made mistakes please let me know so I can correct them. But keep in mind that a few mistakes and oversimplifications have been made intentionally.

Minimal supply examples

Single-year closed loop

Let's imagine an unrealistically simple government and economy. The government budget is $100, which they print into existence. There is no other money in existence. The entire government consists of one man, Gary. He runs all the government operations. For ease let's say the tax rate is 50%. Gary takes a $100 salary and has $50 left after taxes. He pays it all in room & board to Phil. Phil gets $25 leftover, and pays it all to Paul for maintenance. Paul gets $12.50 leftover and buys food from Pamela. Pamela gets caught peddling dope under the table and pays her entire $6.25 to the government.

The government has spent $100 into existence, and has collected $100 in taxes (and fines). The budget is balanced, and there is no private-sector savings.

Currency is issued by the government through spending and collected through taxation. The currency has no intrinsic value. It's value derives from the fact that the currency - and only the currency, can be used to settle tax obligations imposed by the government for various economic activities. Without the political policy of taxation, the monetary system would fail because the currency would have no value.

Single-year closed loop doubled

Gary's pay is increased to $200. Gary has $100 left, and he pays it all in room & board to Phil. Phil gets $50 leftover, and pays it all to Paul for maintenance. Paul gets $25 leftover and buys food from Pamela. Pamela gets caught trafficking weapons under and pays her $12.50 to the government.

In this case the government spending doubled, and so did all incomes, and presumably prices. The effect on the economy was nil, since resources are allocated exactly the same. In the real world things aren't so simple, since there are savings to contend with, industries are affected differently by government spending, and other reasons. But the lesson to keep in mind is that what matters is the relative proportions, not the total. Whether you say the economy is worth $100 or $100 trillion, if you have half it's the same amount of wealth.

Single-year closed loop with barter

Paul makes 100 widgets, Phil makes 100 sprockets. Paul trades 50 widgets to Phil for 50 sprockets. That government determines that, because the production of widgets and sprockets was the entirety of economic production, and the money supply is $100, each item is valued at 50¢, so each owes $12.50 for the income from $25 in sale of products. Phil sells his remaining 50 sprockets to Gary for $25, the government take half, and then Phil uses the remaining $12.50 to settle his existing tax obligation. Paul does the same with sprockets. The budget is balanced, and wealth allocation is as follows:

Gary: 50 widgets, 50 sprockets
Paul: 50 sprockets, capacity to produce 100 widgets per year
Phil: 50 widgets, capacity to produce 100 sprockets per years

Note that while Gary contributes no direct economic production, he accumulates twice the wealth of Paul and Gary. I'm not sure if there is a general lesson or that is a quirk of this particular scenario.

Single-year open loop

Original scenario but Pamela wises up and doesn't get caught. At taxation time the government collects less than it spent. This is the budget deficit and becomes the national debt. The $12.50 the government is shorted equates to $12.50 that the private sector has in savings.

The government must incur a national debt for public saving to occur. 

Single-year closed loop with bonds

Same as before, but Pamela uses her $12.50 to buy a government bond. The balance sheet of the government is 0 at tax collection, and the amount of money in circulation is 0. But, the government owes an IOU to Pamela, which entitles her to $25 after some maturation, say 7 years. Assume nothing else in the government budget changes, nor does the underlying wealth of the economy. In 7 years, the government issues the normal $100. There are two scenarios here.

1. The government uses $25 of it to pay Pamela. That means $75 is used to pay Gary, who took a large pay cut. Gary can only pay $37.50 to Phil, who pays 18.75 to Paul, who pays $9.38 to Pamela. Now Pamela has 34.38% of the $100 economy, as opposed to her earlier %12.5. All other participants have lost wealth.
2. The government spends the normal $100, but spends an extra $25 into existence to pay off Pamela. Gary still gets $100, Phil $50....Pamela $12.50 plus her $25. She now owns $37.50 out of a $150 economy, or 25%. All other plays lose market share, but not as much as scenario 1, and the currency has been inflated.

The second scenario would appear to be more preferable, because it causes a smaller transfer of wealth for the same effect. But the effect would also be that it would decrease the profitability of the bonds, meaning the rates would have to be increased to attract investors and leading to additional transfer of wealth towards bondholders.

Capital investment

Year 1

Gary spends his excess $50 to buy sprockets from Paul. Paul pays $25 in taxes, spends $15 in expenses (ultimately taxed), but keeps $10 and uses it to buy sprocket machinery. The budget is balanced.

Year 2

Because of Paul's investment, the value of the economy is 10% higher than the previous year. The government has two choices.

1. Issue the same nominal $100. Because the value of the economy is greater, this means each dollar will have more value, so there is deflation of the currency.
2. Issue $110 in currency, to keep the real value of the currency steady.

Governments will always choose the second option, because they avoid deflation. Thus economic growth must be matched with increased spending, or some other tool to expand the money supply.

Capital investment with savings

Year 1

Paul wishes to make a capital investment, but he needs credit to do so.

Gary pays his $50 tax and buys $40 in sprockets. Paul pays $20 in taxes, spends $20 in expenses, and invests $10 in machinery thanks to his bank loan. The government is running at a $10 deficit, so they sell a bond to Gary for $10.

Year 2

The government issues $110 in currency. $10 is used to repay the bond paid, and joins the other $100 in liquid currency. But that's not enough, because Gary demands interest for his bond, so another dollar is issued. Now there are $111 in currency, so the currency has inflated. This example over simplifies, but the result of the inflation will be a transfer of wealth to the bond seller from everyone else. 

Let's add to this scenario that Pamela has cash saved. From her perspective, the government's decision to run a deficit to provide the savings needed for capital investment is effectively a tax.

This scenario follows from MMT theory that there must be sufficient private savings for capital investment to occur. They observed that historically, periods of government austerity resulted in economic depressions. They have determined that the economy cannot reach its production potential if the money supply is tight.

Excess money supply scenarios

The budget is $100, and there is $100 already in circulation.

Steady economy

They government issues $100, and collects $100 in taxes, so the budget is balanced. However, since there is an extra $100 in circulation, we know there is a national debt. The debt was financed with bond purchases, and interest is due. The government has two choices:

1. Allocate 5 dollars of the hundred to the debt, and reduce Gary's salary to $95.
2. Spend an extra 5 dollars to pay the debt. The money base is now $105, and has been inflated, resulting in an effective transfer of wealth.

In response to bond financing, the government must decide whether to reduce non-finance spending or to inflate the currency. 

Foreign investment

The government has sold $100 in bonds to Elbonia to finance the debt. The budget consists of $100 to Gary, and $5 to Elbonia in interest. The government takes in $105 in taxes.

The economic production consists of Paul cranking out 105 widgets a year. When Elbonia get their interest payment, they use it to buy 5 widgets. Thus ~5% of productive capacity is diverted to a foreign entity to finance the national debt that is required to maintain a liquid monetary supply.

Foreign financing causes wealth to leave the country. (This is practically a tautology).

Bondless scenarios

The question quickly arises: why use bond financing at all? Can't the governent just spend money into existence and tax without the need for trading bonds?

Financed debt

The government budget is $100. There is an additional $100 in circulation, backed by $100 in bonds. The government has pledged to run a balanced budget.

 The hundred dollars that the government spends has obvious value. It is given value because that same $100 will be used as legal to settle tax debt owed to the government, and there is no other way to settle the debt. People need those dollars to stay out of jail, and they will give you things to acquire the dollars they need. 

So why does the extra $100 floating around have value? Because the government has a legal obligation to pay off its bonds. The extra money is the legal tender that will be used to pay the bonds. The interest paid on the bonds serves 3 functions:

1. It incentivized the sale of the bonds in the first place
2. It reaffirms the government's obligation to the contract.
3. It provides incentive for the government to pay off bonds, to lower the interest burden.

Unfinanced debt

The government runs up a $100 national debt as before, but doesn't sell bonds to cover the rest. The government pays no interest on bonds, but reaps the benefits of a liquid money supply. It sounds ideal, but I'm sure you're catching on to the issue at hand.

Gary gets $100 from government salary, Paul has $100 stuffed under his mattress, and Phil produces 100 beautiful widgets. Gary pays $50 in tax, and $50 for widgets. Phil pays $25 in taxes, and pays $25 to cover his expenses, which is ultimately returned to the government in taxes. At this point the government is whole. It has received $100 and there are no more outstanding tax debts.

Now suppose Paul wants some of those widgets. He offers to buy $50 worth. Phil thinks about it, and realizes that there are no more tax obligations out there. So if he takes the cash, is there anyone out there willing to give him things in exchange for the currency? They have no specific need for it. Phil ponders keeping the money to pay off his taxes next year. But in our scenario there is only income tax, so for Phil to owe money he would have made more than enough to cover it. And what if all taxes get settled again next year and he gets stuck holding the bag of unneeded paper? Phil tells Paul to come back next year before taxes are settled to buy widgets.

MMT advocates state that the value of money stems from being the sole legal tender in state-enforced taxation, yet some also advocate the removal of bond financing. These ideas appear to be contradictory. It must be concluded that interest payments are a feature, not a bug, of fiat currency. Interest payments are the cost of keeping a fluid money supply, and there is inherent inefficiency.

Overfinanced debt

The budget is $100, the money supply (i.e. national debt) is $100, and the interest rates are 10%. Thus 10% of currency must be allocated to interest payments. This is the cost of keeping a healthy money supply under a fiat currency. Many citizens will complain that the 10% going to financiers would be better served on social programs or in tax breaks, and they will have a good point.

Let's say spending gets out of hand. The budget is $100, but the money supply is $500. At 10% interest, half of the budget is allocated towards financing interest. People realize there is not way the government can tend to its responsibilities, and make the interest payments, and pay off the bonds. That is, the promise the underlies the value of the money supply, the bond contract, comes under question. People will begin to suspect that the national debt will never be repaid. They lose faith in the currency and invest in commodities like gold. We run into effectively the same scenario as in the unfinanced debt scenario: people lost faith in the value of the money supply.

The government has an option: they can increase spending. MMT theorists love to say that a sovereign nation that prints its own currency can never default on debt.

The government massively increases spending. Say up to $500 per year. The government is able to easily start buying back bonds. But the financiers are pissed. The government just drastically slashed the value of their bonds. The government credit rating tanks, making it harder and more costly for the government to finance in the future. And remember what we saw before: finance is absolutely necessary to the fiat currency.

Also angry are citizens holding savings, as their value has been slashed as well. on top of their growing distrust of the monetary system. They exert great pressure on the political establishment, and may end up rejecting it entirely. The only people happy are those invested in gold, lead, and steel.

MMT advocates tell us that a sovereign nation that issues fiat currency can't default on its debt by principle. But that doesn't mean the system can't be driven to catastrophic failure. The monetary system does not exist in isolation, and the fiat currency requires finance, a complementary political structure, and the trust and faith of the citizenry.

Their counter-argument, I'd bet, is that I've concocted a ridiculously extreme example. The argument is basically, "well they'd never really let it get that bad." I'd be skeptical of the assertion. Even in our own country we're reaching the point where many people believe exploding national debt can never be repaid.

Central banking

I've been speaking of "the government" or "the state" in monolithic term, but in reality there are two entities. The central bank handles monetary policy, and the political system handles fiscal policy. I've not created any instructive scenarios yet because I'm not certain that understanding the central bank is necessary to understand the basics of MMT.

Fractional reserve banking

Mortgage scenario

$100 budget, $100 excess money supply, ten of which is in the bank, and $90 Paul keeps in a fire-proof safe in his steel-reinforced SHTF bunker. Pamela wants to buy a $100 house, so she goes to the bank and they loan her the $100, using the $10 in deposits as the reserve. (Fortunately they neglected to perform a criminal background check.) The economy now has $100 from spending, $100 from the excess money supply, and the $100 of bank credit.

Up to now I've been modeling the dynamics in such a way that individual actions affect the amount of tax collected. In this example it would be tempting to imagine that the $100 created by bank credit will enter into the economy and be absorbed through taxation. Thus the government would collect $200 in taxes. However in reality individuals don't have such an effect. A person's decision to save or spend is insignificant in the whole, and if there are large trends of people in changing their savings habits, the government will alter its fiscal policy. Thus we can conclude that the amount of tax collected is determined by the government, not by the private sector.

The created currency remains in circulation, but it's value is backed by the debt obligations of the loan. We now have a total money supply of $300, so inflation has occurred. Paul's $90 cash stash will buy far few widgets that it would have before.

Year 2

Pamela works hard mugging little old ladies and acquires the $100 in bank credit floating around. However, she must acquire an additional $10 to pay her interest charges. She sells some bulk ammo to Paul and he gives her $10 of his bunker bucks, which she uses to settle with the bank. The total money supply goes back to $200, and Paul's disaster dollars regain their previous purchasing power.

I had intended this scenario to lead to the conclusion that these debt-based transactions would demonstrate long-term inflation of the currency and the requirement for the underlying economy to always be growing in value. Instead the exercise indicates that bank credit is not inflationary and that the total effect of the borrowing was that the house was transfered to Pamela (in exchange for her labor), and some of the money supply was transfered to the bank and their shareholders.

While the transaction was not inflationary in the long run, in the short term there was. In the real world there are many small transaction cycling continuously, rather than a single event that doubles the money supply. Instead the money supply is increased by bank credit, but it does so at a fairly steady state, so it does not drive inflation.

Bondless lending

Earlier we decided bonds were necessary to provide the excess money supply needed for the functioning of the economy. But we just saw that the money supply can be grown through lending. So we should be able to use that ability to remove the inefficiencies of bond financing. Let's see how that would play out.

The budget is $100. There is no excess money supply (or it would have to be backed by bonds). Gary puts $10 in a bank account. The banks makes a loan for $100 and the house is purchased. The government comes to collect $100 in taxes. Gary withdraws his $10 from the bank, but now the bank is violating the reserve requirements. In the real world the bank would borrow the reserve and pay interest, but there is no one who can lend.

The bank can't loan money is if there isn't excess money supply created by the government bond-financing a national debt. It would work if the reserve requirement was removed, but that would quickly drive the value of money to zero. The conclusions is that, even though the central bank can expand the money supply by making it cheaper to create bank credit, it is leveraging excess monetary supply that can only exist through bond financing and an accumulated national debt.

Notes, Conclusions, Caveats

• MMT only applies to governments that issue their own fiat currency. It does not apply to local governments or states that don't issue their own currency, such as countries operating under the Euro or the US dollar.
• The monetary system does not inherently cause inflation, but bond financing does.
• I have not confirmed that the US money supply reflects the national debt, or explained away any differences. I don't know what the "high-value" money supply is, i.e. the size of the money supply that does not include bank credit.
• The government spending equates to 20% of GDP and tax collection is 17%. By that account new bond should be at 3% of GDP, and its resulting inflation as well. (This is not the same as 3% inflation). I have not been able to confirm the numbers fall in line.
• I will follow up in another post analysing the current US fiscal and monetary environment in the view of my entry-level understanding of MMT.
• I will also follow up on why my thought process took me to the conclusion that bond financing is necessary, which runs counter to the position of many modern money theorists.

Don Lemon, Head Clown of the Media Circus

Don Lemon is a prime-time CNN anchor. I don't watch him, but r/the_donald loves to play clips of him exercising his right to be a moron. For a laugh, watch this clip of him inadvertently blowing the cover on a CNN fake news segment. I think I commented at the time that if you could sum up CNN in one short clip, that one would do.

There's nothing wrong when a person is not intellectually inclined, we all excel in different areas, but he certainly seems cognitively underpowered for his role. But what's worse is that he is an ideologue. His bias is simply unrestrained. Frankly I'm surprised that CNN would continue to employ a spokesman so poor at hiding the propaganda, but then again CNN doesn't generally try very hard in that regard. (see my 20-minutes of CNN coverage post).

Today that bias was exposed to epic proportions when he made the following comments on the recent events in Chicago.

I don’t think it’s evil. I don’t think it’s evil,” Lemon responded. “I think these are young people, and I think they have bad home training.” 

The host continued:
And I say, “Who’s raising these young people?” I have no idea who’s raising these young people, because no one I know on earth who is 17 years old or 70 years old would ever think of treating another person like that. It is inhumane. And you wonder, at 18 years old, where’s your parent? Where’s your guardian?


So that's pretty incredible by itself. You're talking about a group of people kidnapping and torturing a mentally handicapped man for 48 hours because of his race, and livestreaming it, and you don't see that as evil? I've never heard a more convincing argument on the need for religion in my life. I'm almost afraid to ask, but Mr Lemon, what is your threshold for evil? Do I even want to know?

Now let's give him the benefit of the doubt. Let's assume that these legal adults have no concept of right and wrong, and "home training" is to be blamed. Sure they're legal adults, but they're teens, right?

Dylann Roof was 19 when he shot and killed several in a black church in Charleston. So Lemon must have shown the same restraint, yes? Declined to call the act evil, question the parenting, etc.

No, he called Roof a terrorist.

Both acts were clearly hate crimes, as they were racially driven, but the Chicago Kidnappers were closer to terrorism, as they were using violence for political objectives. If Roof is a terrorist, then undoubtedly the Chicago Kidnappers are. So I wonder, to those who might defend Mr. Lemon. Is he saying that terrorism is not evil, or is he just using whatever words are available to promote his ideology at all times, with zero concern for consistency or objectivity? Keep in mind this is CNN's prime-time anchor. Does he lack a moral compass, or is he just a blatant propagandist with zero journalistic integrity?

A note on coverage

Just one other point I'd like to tag on to this. I completely blame the media and our political "leaders" for this. They've created an environment where so many people have bought the "whites are racist" narrative that these kidnappers actually livestreamed their crime. Why would they want the world to see the deeds if they didn't think they'd get praise from their peers?

I can hear it now, "well if you blame BLM and the media for Chicago then you have to blame white supremacy promoters for Charleston." But the difference is, the KKK don't have media sympathizers broadcasting to a national prime-time audience. Skinheads were never invited to the White House. With great power comes great responsibility. To compare the the tiny corner of the internet dedicated to white supremacy with a vast media empire and the top ranks of our political establishment that promote the leftist BLM narrative is not even an apples-to-oranges comparison. It is an apples-to-planets comparison. And to even make the equivocacy doesn't say much for said media/political establishment, does it?

The Fall of [Neconservatism and the Liberation of] Aleppo

Liberated vs Fallen

When a city or nation is successfully invaded by an outside entity, we tend to phrase the act differently depending on who the invader is. If the invader is an ally, or someone we empathize with, then we term it as a liberation. Iraq was liberated from Saddam. The Philippines were liberated from imperial Japan. Gondor was liberated from Sauron.

When the sides are switched, we talk about how our preferred side has fallen. We speak of the fall of Rome, not Rome's liberation by Visigoths. If you search the term "fall of Jerusalem" you will find references to its invasion by Saladin, but if you search for "liberation of Jerusalem" it will return references to Israel's successful 6 Day War of 1967 or to its occupation by Crusaders in medieval times. In the Anglosphere we know that the Fall of France refers to its invasion by Germany, and that the Liberation of Paris was the reactionary invasion by English speaking forces.

There is some fluidity of usage, but normally the opinion of the author can be determined by the phrasing used to describe these kinds of military actions.

Aleppo

In that context, the media's portrayal of the recent ousting of ISIS from Aleppo by the Syrian Army (with Russian support) is telling. Compare the news sources on the first page when searching the following terms in Google, at the time of this writing.

"Liberation of Aleppo"

• OffGuardian
• RT (Russian)
• Mehr News Agency (Iranian)
• PressTV (Iranian)
• Globalresearch.ca (anti-MSM source)
• Katehon
• Southfront

"Fall of Aleppo"

• Daily Beast
• The Atlantic
• New Jersey Herald
• The National Review
• The Telegraph
• NPR
• VOX
• Jerusalem Post
• Newsweek

The conclusion is clear: the mainstream media sides with the previous occupiers. Their sympathies lie not with the House of Assad, the de facto government of Syria, nor with Russia, the only foreign military force invited by the Syrian government. No, the sympathies of our mainstream media are with ISIS. The Islamic State. The most cruel, barbaric, and despicable state in all of existence. You can't get worse than ISIS. North Korea is not nearly so depraved, so hostile, so cancerous. And that is who the mainstream media is openly siding with. It's so incredible I really do find myself at a loss of words. But let the conclusion be clear:

THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA ARE SIDING WITH ISIS

This is an interesting development for us who have been saying for a while that Obama has aided ISIS, using them as a tool of US foreign policy. This suggestion has some undertones of conspiracy theory, but with the mainstream media, who have done nothing but carry water for Obama's disgraceful foreign policy, now openly aligning with ISISian interests the argument is totally freed from attempts to smear them as wild conspiratorial fantasy. It is not so wild to claim that Obama has aligned with ISIS whenever useful after his media puppets have openly aligned with them as well. And that is something to note is that the media stance is more in defense of Obama's foreign policy than it is explicitly pro-ISIS. The ongoing US-backed invasion of ISIS-held Mosul is being touted as a liberation by his cheerleaders. And of course they aren't going hysterical about the humanitarian casualties of that operation.

Obama's Neoconservatism

Neoconservatism as I understand it can be summed up by the following three principles.

1. American global hegemony must be extended into the 21st century to ensure world stability.
2. No regional hegemonies will be tolerated. No national players who reject global US / Western hegemony will be tolerated.
3. America will use any military, intelligence, political, and economic weapons at it's disposal to preempt the emergence of any power that might contest her empire.

While most associated with the Bush regime, Neoconservatism did not begin or end with W. US Empire At All Costs has been the de facto policy since World War II. (For those who aren't sure what I'm talking about, there are many analyses on the subject. I would suggest Noam Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent as a great starting point.) The CIA has long been covertly sabotaging opponents, the IMF strangling them. The difference with Bush was that pre-emptive military attack became the stated policy. It has long been the de facto policy, but it was largely excluded from the public policy debate and was done as discreetly as possible. Under Obama the Bush Doctrine was alleged to have been overturned, and he was awarded a Nobel peace prize before the farce could be revealed. In reality all the old tricks were on the table, but they were used more aggressively, more openly, more deceitfully, and with greater incompetence. 

For example. it is not new for them to use US air power to influence a foreign war, as Bill Clinton did in Yugoslavia. Nor is it novel to secretly aid rebel groups to overthrow disliked rulers, as happened extensively in Latin America and other places. So it wasn't totally unusual that the Neocon policy would be implemented in Libya, which relied on US bombs and her aid to Islamic rebels/terrorists. But how it occurred was much more in line with the Bush Doctrine. There was no illusion that this was not a US operation. This was official state policy. Obama himself went on the record to demonize the Libyan government and advocate for war. There were UN resolutions passed, which only occurred because they lied to Russia and said the No-Fly Zone would not be used for regime change. Well regime changed did happen. It was brutal. It included Gadaffi being sodomized with a knife by an angry mob. It ended with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton smugly ridiculing his demise on national television. And the outcome was a Somali-level failed state in North Africa, a disastrous refugee crisis in Europe, and ISIS free to commit mass beheadings on the beach.

To reiterate, Obama pretended to roll back Bush's stated Neocon policy but did not, and wielded the normal tactics only more aggressively, more openly, more deceitfully, and with greater incompetence. 

Fall of Neoconservatism

Aleppo is the first great defeat of Neoconservatism. The Russians, duped in Libya, resisted the US in Syria, and outfoxed us both militarily (in secretly setting up air dominance over Syria) and diplomatically (in defusing the situation after the "Red Line" which was being used as a pretext for direct military action). The US has used ISIS as a tool to reduce Assad. This is how desperate they are. The removal of Assad, a secular leader who wears a suit and speaks English, is worth supporting the scourge of the Earth who don't even concoct a pretense of being civilised. The Russians demonstrated for all the world to see that the US bombing campaign against ISIS was a ruse. It was used not to destroy ISIS, but to steer them towards Syria and away from Iraq and other allies. Under US bombing ISIS oil business proceeded unhampered. Under US bombing ISIS boomed. But under Russian attack they're being dismantled. The fall of Aleppo (or should I say liberation?) is not only a blow to Neoconservatism strategically in destroying their dream of removing Assad, who resists US hegemony, but is also devastating in the philosophical or moralistic realm. Now world observers must come to one of two conclusions.

1. The US is no longer capable of keeping the world safe from terrors like ISIS (but Russia is).
2. The US is willing to unleash terrors like ISIS on the world to get her way.

It can be debated which is the more damning conclusion, but the point is moot since either conclusion is damning. It could also be debated how Neocons will respond. Will they blame it all on Obama's inept leadership? Will they turn on themselves or become more resolute in defeat? I suspect that point is also moot, because our incoming administration is not friendly to them at all. The only question of importance now is whether Trump will be able (and willing) to dismantle the deep-state apparatus for enforcing Neocon foreign policy in four or eight years. The last president to attempt something like that was publicly assassinated. That is a discussion for another time, but for now it's safe to speculate that Aleppo may be the Battle of Saratoga for all in the world who oppose US Neoconservative imperialism. And any media outlet that uses any language to indicate support with the defeated are illegitimate propaganda outlets that should be immediately discredited by all rational humans who are not Islamic fundamentalists. In fact this may become my new litmus test for sorting the different outlets out. It is a proxy measure for evil that can be quantified.

Predictions and Outcomes of the Left

From what I can tell, the best that can happen for 2020, to Trump's perspective, is for the left to predict he will lose, and for Barrack Obama to campaign on the behalf of his challenger.

Note: apologies for the formatting issues. I intend to migrate this to Wordpress pretty soon.

Political-analytical bifurcation in the mainstream media

This article that just came out of Salon is interesting because it is effectively two separate articles, one embedded inside the other. To pull them apart, take the title, subtitle, first paragraph, last paragraph and the sentence immediately before it, and put them in their own article, which we’ll call the outer article. Then take the remainder and call that the inner article.

 The inner article is a sober and revealing look at the US foreign policy in Yemen. This policy has occurred within Obama’s time in office, so it can’t be attributed to the Bush legacy, and the prognosis is not pretty. This is the kind of analysis I would want to see promoted to the American populace, particularly the left, who don’t seem to always grasp the cold reality of US foreign policy.

 The outer article is all about Trump. It is not friendly. It contains the normal mindless and trivial name calling. And while it doesn’t quite outright blame Trump for the US foreign policy, it does display an extraordinary eagerness to transfer that blame onto him, still more than a month before he steps into the driver’s seat.

 There are two things I’d like to highlight:

 (1) This is a beautiful example of the cognitive dissonance that is occurring on the left. You see they actually have the analytical ability to sift through the public propaganda and unveil the reality of the situation. This is somewhat relieving, as many of us were starting to wonder if the left-aligned media had lost the ability of objective reasoning. The more correct prognosis is that many of these journalists are still capable of higher reasoning, and it is not forbidden from mainstream publication, just as long as the conclusion is politically congruent with ideology.

 Typically this is done by suppressing the analysis where the conclusion is undesirable. This is not a tendency reserved to the media or politics. It is common in academia, in intelligence, etc. This is the first that I’ve noticed where the analysis is allowed to be published, but it is wrapped in more desirable conclusions. This is what I’m calling the political-analytical bifurcation. The two components of the article, the analysis and the conclusion, are allowed to proceed nearly independently of each other.

 Of course I may be overanalysing it. This is just one example, it doesn’t indicate a broader trend. But, such an article is only possible in an environment that includes a healthy dose of doublethink (where mutually opposing thoughts can be held simultaneously, or as I like to think of it, an immunity to cognitive dissonance) and where avoiding undesirable conclusions is the de facto standard. I say de facto standard because the nominal standard is always “we go wherever the facts take us”, but in reality that is not what usually happens.

 (2) This would indicate that mainstream critique of US foreign policy will, after an 8 years lapse, be back on the table again. The media that has never taken Obama or Clinton to task for the utter catastophes unleashed in Lybia and Syria, will be more than happy to do so if it can be pinned on Trump. I for one will take the trade. If Trump is blamed unnecessarily for situations he did not create, but at the same time the supposedly peaceful and anti-war left will again start calling out the bullshit of a foreign policy where no humanitarian disaster is spared in their zeal to maintain US global political and economic hegemony, that will be a positive change.

Some afterthoughts:

•  I suspect someone might be able to write a best-selling book that critiques Obama's foreign policy legacy, but replaces all instances of Obama's name with Trump.
• This article indicates just how quickly Obama has become irrelevant in the public eye.
• You won't see them publish an article called "Hey President Obama, Do You Know Where Your Bombs Are Falling?" (which is what the title would be if the conclusions synced with the analysis).
• If I was to write a satire of media in 2016 it would read a lot like this. A solid overview of the reality of some issue, coupled with a totally bizarre conclusion.
• If I wanted to discreetly redpill liberals I would write articles like this, with headlines that are pure clickbait for Drumpf haters, but would subtly expose them to rational discussion.

The Ultimate Virtue

There seem to be two types of people. Some seek happiness. They’re easy to spot. They say phrases like “you need to do whatever makes you happy” or “all you need is love”. These people are usually warm and empathetic.

On the other hand are people who seek truth. They might be analytical or competitive, but ultimately they are of a similar mold. The analytical mind seeks logical consistency to know what is right. The competitor seeks the judgment of action in the world to know what is right.

Sanity is the ultimate virtue. Sanity is the combination of the two types, happiness and understanding. People of the first type can easily slip into insanity. These empathetic people shun uncomfortable truths that may offend someone and harm the path to happiness. Thus they become shut off to aspects of reality. They lose feedback from the world, which is the definition of delusion.

But the truth seekers face their own peril too. They can become zealots, egotistical, or cruel. They share the opposite conundrum; they may become jaded when human nature interferes with the pursuit of truth, or forget about the world outside their arena. They shut themselves off from the spiritual energy of the universe, and they are often disturbed or miserable.

Sanity is the ability to both comprehend reality as it is, as opposed to how one wishes to to see it, combined with the ability to cope with that reality. Sanity is getting dumped but knowing that it was for the best. Sanity is smelling a skunk and realizing their can be a strange pleasantness to the odor. Sanity is being screamed at by your boss and understanding that he is emotionally ill, and that you won’t be infected by it. Sanity is the ability to couple Machiavellian shrewdness with Christian forgiveness.

The world is full of people who only comprehend one half of the sanity equation. They will tug you in their direction. If you don’t follow the path towards pure happiness they will call you hateful. If you don’t follow the path towards pure truth they will call you stupid. The sane person will understand the dynamic and handle the encounter gracefully. It requires both the willingness to fully perceive reality, and the empathy to relate with the other person.

Without sanity nothing matters. Worldly success without sanity is a loss. The love of others without sanity is a loss. Sanity and nothing else is bliss. But with sanity, success, love, and all the other good things are likely to follow.  

A few thoughts on pregnancy abortion

I used to be against abortion. Now I'm not. I was against it because I thought it was the taking of a viable life. I still believe that to be true. I was against it because I believed that a number of people use abortion in lieu of effective birth control. I still believe that to be true. I used to be against abortion because I thought many women (or all feminists) support abortion primarily as a political action, as a way to really stick it to what they see as an oppressive patriarchy, which is most often an expression of cultural Marxism. I still believe that to be true.

I am no longer against abortion. Two things have changed. And they are not the facts, but my perspective.

First, I've realized this is a dangerous territory for a man to delve into. I am typically not one to hesitate too much to delve into topics and opinions that are social suicide (one of the many perks of a minimalist social life), but I decided that, with all the landmines, and with some understanding of the dynamics, it's best to let women lead this issue. And mostly I do.

As I've taken the mindset of more or less deferring to women on the issue, I've realized that I trust one side more than the other. For the the pro-abortion crowd, I see ulterior motives. As mentioned before, I think many of them are less concerned with the moral, ethical, and logical arguments, and just want to use abortion as a way to really express that men have no power over women. That is, I don't think they are isolating the question at hand, and I think their conclusions are heavily corrupted by outside forces. On the other hand, the anti-abortion women are resisting great social pressure when they stand by their convictions, and I tend to respect their courage and confidence to do so. It has always amazed me, and still does, that so many women make such a show of expressing their right to kill the fetus, the most vulnerable and precious form of human life.

Second, my mentality has shifted somewhat from focusing on the individual to focusing on the group. Focusing on the individual, the termination of the aforementioned innocent life is a felony of the highest order. However, looking at society as a whole,  I realize that those abortions serve a social benefit: they reduce the breeding rate of those amongst us who should be breeding less. Another argument, made by a friend of mine, has had some impact: "I don't see human life as that sacred." This is a Sea Wolf kind of brute mentality, and came from a very kind and giving person. The fact that he could say such a thing reminded me that I actually harbor such sentiments myself, but pretended I didn't.

So I'm in the weird place that I am not anti-abortion, which liberals would approve of, but for reasoning that would make them cringe.