Enslaving future generations to debt is the only viable solution for latter day Keynesians
Kurt Nimmo
Not to worry. The Keynesian liberal and New York Times op-ed scrivener Paul Krugman has put it all in focus. Those silly Republicans in the House have it all wrong. The debt will not destroy us. In fact, debt is a good thing. It produces wealth. Mr. Krugman has a chart – furnished by none other than the Bank of England – that proves excessive debt grows GDP. He flaunted it proudly on the pages of the New York Times:
“You might think that these data, and the relationship they show — or, actually, don’t show — should have some impact on our current debate, especially given the tendency of many players to reject modeling and appeal to what they claim are the lessons of history,” writes the London School of Economics prof. “Or are they claiming that this time is different?”
Modeling by the Bank of England, the bankster institution responsible for creating fractional reserve banking back in 1694. Nobody ever said the devil is in the details.
Mr. Krugman and similar bankster boosters believe cranking out mountains of devalued dollars – they call it quantitative easing – will resuscitate the economy flattened by a particularly deadly Federal Reserve spawned asset bubble. The Fed, of course, specializes in creating these economic steam rollers. It did so with the farmland asset bubble that led to the so-called Great Depression. It was engineered by the Federal Reserve, a fact Ben Bernanke admitted on Milton Friedman’s 90th birthday.
It does not strike Krugman as the least bit peculiar that the source he cites acted as one of the first great progenitors of debt. The Bank of England was, after all, established as a government sanctioned Ponzi scheme to build up William the III’s war machine following his defeat at the hands of the French. William had a dismal credit rating and the City of London and its merchant and financial class were more than happy to oblige in the centuries long effort to establish an empire the sun never set upon.
But, really, for the banksters, Mr. Krugman’s argument is superfluous. Despite a minority of squawking Republicans in the House, there never was any doubt the government would jack up the so-called debt ceiling and, as Obama read from his trusty teleprompter, “pay our bills on time.”
“Members of Congress and the public were told the debt ceiling increase was necessary to prevent a government default and an economic crisis. This manufactured fear supposedly justified voting on legislation without allowing members time to even read it,” Ron Paul wrote earlier this month.
“A failure to increase government’s borrowing authority would not lead to a default any more that an individual’s failure to get a credit card limit increase in would mean they would have to declare bankruptcy. Instead, the failure of either an individual or a government to obtain new borrowing authority would force the individual or the government to live within their means, and may even force them to finally reduce their spending. Most people would say it is irresponsible to give a spendthrift, debit-ridden individual a credit increase. Why then is it responsible to give an irresponsible spendthrift government an increase in borrowing authority?”
For the Krugman and the latter day Keynesians – so firmly wedded to the idea that only valid monetary policy is one lorded over by a central bank and banker cartel institutions like the Federal Reserve – endless debt slavery for future generations is the right solution to a dire situation created by their master.
