Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) is getting significant media attention these days, after Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said in an interview that it should “be a larger part of our conversation” when it comes to funding the Green New Deal. According to MMT, the government can spend what it needs without worrying about deficits. MMT expert and Bernie Sanders advisor Prof. Stephanie Kelton says the government actually creates money when it spends. The real limit on spending is not an artificially imposed debt ceiling but a lack of labor and materials to do the work, leading to generalized price inflation. Only when that real ceiling is hit does the money need to be taxed back, and then not to fund government spending but to shrink the money supply in an economy that has run out of resources to put the extra money to work.
Predictably, critics have been quick to rebut, calling the trend to endorse MMT “disturbing” and “a joke that’s not funny.” In a February 1st post on The Daily Reckoning, Brian Maher darkly envisioned Bernie Sanders getting elected in 2020 and implementing “Quantitative Easing for the People” based on MMT theories. To debunk the notion that governments can just “print the money” to solve their economic problems, he raise the specter of Venezuela, where “money” is everywhere but bare essentials are out of reach for many, the storefronts are empty, unemployment is at 33%, and inflation is predicted to hit 1,000,000% by the end of the year.
Blogger Arnold Kling also pointed to the Venezuelan hyperinflation. He described MMT as “the doctrine that because the government prints money, it can spend whatever it wants . . . until it can’t.” He said:
To me, the hyperinflation in Venezuela exemplifies what happens when a country reaches the “it can’t” point. The country is not at full employment. But the government can’t seem to spend its way out of difficulty. Somebody should ask these MMT rock stars about the Venezuela example.
I’m not an MMT rock star and won’t try to expound on its subtleties. (I would submit that under existing regulations, the government cannot actually create money when it spends, but that it should be able to. In fact MMTers have acknowledged that problem; but it’s a subject for another article.) What I want to address here is the hyperinflation issue, and why Venezuelan hyperinflation and “QE for the People” are completely different animals.
What Is Different About Venezuela
Venezuela’s problems are not the result of the government issuing money and using it to hire people to build infrastructure, provide essential services and expand economic development. If it were, unemployment would not be at 33 percent and climbing. Venezuela has a problem that the US does not have and will never have: it owes massive debts in a currency it cannot print itself, namely US dollars. When oil (its principal resource) was booming, Venezuela was able to meet its repayment schedule. But when oil plummeted, the government was reduced to printing Venezuelan Bolivars and selling them for US dollars on international currency exchanges. As speculators drove up the price of dollars, more and more printing was required by the government, massively deflating the national currency.
It was the same problem suffered by Weimar Germany and Zimbabwe, the two classic examples of hyperinflation typically raised to silence proponents of government expansion of the money supply before Venezuela suffered the same fate. Prof. Michael Hudson, an economic rock star who supports MMT principles, has studied the hyperinflation question extensively. He confirms that those disasters were not due to governments issuing money to stimulate the economy. Rather, he writes, “Every hyperinflation in history has been caused by foreign debt service collapsing the exchange rate. The problem almost always has resulted from wartime foreign currency strains, not domestic spending.”
Venezuela and other countries that are carrying massive debts in currencies that are not their own are not sovereign. Governments that are sovereign can and have engaged in issuing their own currencies for infrastructure and development quite successfully. A number of contemporary and historical examples were discussed in my earlier articles, including in Japan, China, Australia, and Canada.
Although Venezuela is not technically at war, it is suffering from foreign currency strains triggered by aggressive attacks by a foreign power. US economic sanctions have been going on for years, causing at least $20 billion in losses to the country. About $7 billion of its assets are now being held hostage by the US, which has waged an undeclared war against Venezuela ever since George W. Bush’s failed military coup against President Hugo Chavez in 2002. Chavez boldly announced the “Bolivarian Revolution,” a series of economic and social reforms that dramatically reduced poverty and illiteracy and improved health and living conditions for millions of Venezuelans. The reforms, which included nationalizing key components of the nation’s economy, made Chavez a hero to millions of people and the enemy of Venezuela’s oligarchs.
Nicolas Maduro was elected president following Chavez’s death in 2013 and vowed to continue the Bolivarian Revolution. Like Saddam Hussein and Omar Qaddafi before him, he defiantly announced that Venezuela would not be trading oil in US dollars, following sanctions imposed by President Trump.
The notorious Elliott Abrams has now been appointed as special envoy to Venezuela. Considered a criminal by many for covering up massacres committed by US-backed death squads in Central America, Abrams was among the prominent neocons closely linked to Bush’s failed Venezuelan coup in 2002. National Security Advisor John Bolton is another key neocon architect advocating regime change in Venezuela. At a January 28 press conference, he held a yellow legal pad prominently displaying the words “5,000 troops to Colombia,” a country that shares a border with Venezuela. Apparently the neocon contingent feels they have unfinished business there.
Bolton does not even pretend that it’s all about restoring “democracy.” He said on Fox News, “It will make a big difference to the United States economically if we could have American oil companies invest in and produce the oil capabilities in Venezuela.” As President Nixon said of US tactics against Allende’s government in Chile, the point of sanctions and military threats is to squeeze the country economically.
Killing the Public Banking Revolution in Venezuela
It may be about more than oil, which recently hit record lows in the market. The US hardly needs to invade a country to replenish its supplies. As with Libya and Iraq, another motive may be to suppress the banking revolution initiated by Venezuela’s upstart leaders.
The banking crisis of 2009-10 exposed the corruption and systemic weakness of Venezuelan banks. Some banks were engaged in questionable business practices. Others were seriously undercapitalized. Others were apparently lending top executives large sums of money. At least one financier could not prove where he got the money to buy the banks he owned.
Rather than bailing out the culprits, as was done in the US, in 2009 the government nationalized seven Venezuelan banks, accounting for around 12% of the nation’s bank deposits. In 2010, more were taken over. The government arrested at least 16 bankers and issued more than 40 corruption-related arrest warrants for others who had fled the country. By the end of March 2011, only 37 banks were left, down from 59 at the end of November 2009. State-owned institutions took a larger role, holding 35% of assets as of March 2011, while foreign institutions held just 13.2% of assets.
Over the howls of the media, in 2010 Chavez took the bold step of passing legislation defining the banking industry as one of “public service.” The legislation specified that 5% of the banks’ net profits must go towards funding community council projects, designed and implemented by communities for the benefit of communities. The Venezuelan government directed the allocation of bank credit to preferred sectors of the economy, and it increasingly became involved in the operations of private financial institutions. By law, nearly half the lending portfolios of Venezuelan banks had to be directed to particular mandated sectors of the economy, including small business and agriculture.
In an April 2012 article called “Venezuela Increases Banks’ Obligatory Social Contributions, U.S. and Europe Do Not,” Rachael Boothroyd said that the Venezuelan government was requiring the banks to give back. Housing was declared a constitutional right, and Venezuelan banks were obliged to contribute 15% of their yearly earnings to securing it. The government’s Great Housing Mission aimed to build 2.7 million free houses for low-income families before 2019. The goal was to create a social banking system that contributed to the development of society rather than simply siphoning off its wealth. Boothroyd wrote:
. . . Venezuelans are in the fortunate position of having a national government which prioritizes their life quality, wellbeing and development over the health of bankers’ and lobbyists’ pay checks. If the 2009 financial crisis demonstrated anything, it was that capitalism is quite simply incapable of regulating itself, and that is precisely where progressive governments and progressive government legislation needs to step in.
That is also where the progressive wing of the Democratic Party is stepping in in the US – and why AOC’s proposals evoke howls in the media of the sort seen in Venezuela.
Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution gives Congress the power to create the nation’s money supply. Congress needs to exercise that power. Key to restoring our economic sovereignty is to reclaim the power to issue money from a commercial banking system that acknowledges no public responsibility beyond maximizing profits for its shareholders. Bank-created money is backed by the full faith and credit of the United States, including federal deposit insurance, access to the Fed’s lending window, and government bailouts when things go wrong. If we the people are backing the currency, it should be issued by the people through their representative government. Today, however, our government does not adequately represent the people. We first need to take our government back, and that is what AOC and her congressional allies are attempting to do.
______________
This article was first published on Truthdig.com. Ellen Brown is an attorney, founder of the Public Banking Institute, and author of twelve books including Web of Debt and The Public Bank Solution. A 13th book titled Banking on the People: Democratizing Finance in the Digital Age is due out soon. She also co-hosts a radio program on PRN.FM called “It’s Our Money.” Her 300+ blog articles are posted at EllenBrown.com.
Filed under: Ellen Brown Articles/Commentary | Tagged: Bolivarian Revolution, hyperinflation, MMT, public banking, Venezuela |
WEB OF DEBT BLOG 
Dear Helen Brown; I would think you might be wary of gaining AOC’s support as she will turn us into Zimbabwe. I agree with you that the Treasury should issue currency and do away with the FED, but it doesn’t mean they can print uncontrollably. There has to be some kind of math to keep the currency valuable. AOC simply sees no end to what can be printed and that is the destruction of the Country as well as public banks. Joel Thornton
You have any proof that AOC will turn the country into Zimbabwe? From what I see the conservatives have done so many things that our currency is no longer valuable. When Ross Perot was running for president, he stated that our dollar was only worth 12 cents.
Conservatives or and politicians have no control of the currency because it isn’t currency – its a note – not a certificate.
So who has control? Read the whole Congressional Record
http://hiwaay.net/~becraft/mcfadden.html
Doesn’t answer your allegations about AOC turning the country into Zimbabwe.
First, I never said that. However, I do believe she could only attempt to do this because she has no sense of reality. Therefore she will never be permitted to present a plan of implementation for her brain farts.
She has a far sense of reality compare to all these brain farts American business leaders and conservative economists who have been wrecking the country and the rest of the world for the last 39 years.
You were implying that she will turn the country in Zimbabwe and again where is your proof?
What drivel. MMT doesn’t say anything of the sort, and neither does AOC. MMT acknowledges that printing too much money can lead to inflation. The question is whether or not the economy can produce more stuff (whether it is at full employment and at full productive capacity) and where that money goes. Does it get to people that will create more stuff to match the amount of new money in the economy, does it exit the economy, sit somewhere doing nothing? What AOC says is that we have an actual environmental crisis, so lots of stuff needs to be built, a new infrastructure, and we can build more stuff. So, the increased demand can be met by more stuff being made, and the impacts of the environmental crisis simply have no market values. If we were to avoid the collapse of human civilization, what value would you put on that? What value to you put on the massive impact of ocean acidification, or phytoplankton (produce most of our oxygen) dying off, dead zones in places like the Gulf of Mexico, or the countless impacts of global warming itself? Like, parts of the Mideast will be uninhabitable by the end of the century. Go ahead, put a price tag on that. Markets currently don’t. We have an infrastructure gap that is approaching two trillion dollars, we have lots of bad jobs being created, wages haven’t grown for most in decades, the costs of housing, education and healthcare have been far outpacing wage growth for decades now and we can build more stuff. Spending more on the Green New Deal makes sense all around. Arguments about Venezuela and Zimbabwe are incredibly ignorant of even the basics in regards to money creation and inflation.
MMT and the Green New Deal are good theories and ideas, but what we need is a paradigm change in economics and money systems that integrates all of the leading edge economic theories and Public Banking as well. My ebook Wisdomics-Gracenomics: The New Paradigm Theory of Economics, Finance and The Money System should up on its site within a week.
Joel, AOC is for spending that is much more frugal than what we do now. Our spending prioritizes are insane welfare for the rich to do insane and criminal things. Endless wars for no reason at all, a crazy and inefficient health care nonsystem, mass incarceration, etc etc. Spending on the not-rich to do necessary things like a Green New Deal.
Second, she is not for abolishing the tax system, not like our incessant tax cuts for the rich, tax hikes for everyone else. Increased GND spending would go through the system and be recaptured by taxation. We have a very strong tax system.
Third, she, along with many others wants to return to higher tax rates of 70% for $10,000,000+ incomes.
It’s Trumpism and Bushism that tried unsuccessfully to turn us into Zimbabwe. AOC is a miser like Hetty Green by comparison.
The wealthy already pay 70% all the taxes. make them pay more and they and their money leave again never to be taxed.
I don’t believe “The wealthy already pay 70% all the taxes” for a minute. The govt. is run by and for the rich, and the govt shovels as much money at the rich as the rich demand, so it’s meaningless anyway. It’s like the myth that nobody making $40k or below pays any taxes, and the myth that we mustn’t tax rich people because, in their god-likeness, they “create jobs”. We were much better off before Reagan introduced “trickle down”. And there are surely ways of preventing the wealthy from withdrawing their ill-gotten uber-treasures from the country.
They do not pay 70%. Governor Brown of California raise the tax on the wealthy people and corporations by 1 to 2% and guess what? There was no mass exodus of wealthy people and corporations leaving the state. You didn’t see Arnold Schwarzenegger pack up and leave California.
No, they do not pay more. Too many corporations and wealthy people are on the corporate welfare dole. Wrong, if businesses are leaving, then why is the Silicon Valley is not an economic disaster area like what happened in Kansas when the Republican governor cut taxes and de-regulation the state economy to the point that Kansas was starved of revenue and even his own party revolt against him? and California is still an economic powerhouse compared to Nevada and Texas. You have people in Nevada complaining about the cost of housing and their low wages.
“Hostile business environment” Business leaders seem to complain about government regulations; however, they don’t seem to complain about how they have driven up the cost of living in the cities and counties.
Tax whose labor? Yeah, Wisconsin and Kansas tried to cut taxes on their corporations and wealthy people and they ended up as economic basket cases.
The wealthy people and corporations have always been playing the various states against each other and they always want to send their jobs overseas or bring in imported labor to replace the American workers. When Ross Perot ran for president of the USA, he stated that unless the American corporations brought back the jobs, under no circumstances, he would not let their products come into the country
Wealthy people and corporations are not job creators and are not a productive part of the workforce despite all the money that has been given to them https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2gO4DKVpa8.
Corporations and wealthy people were heavily taxed during the 50s but you did not see them leave the country.
Wrong, the government has to tax even the workforce in order to pay for defense, inspect food products, etc.
Whatever happened to Aristotle’s Definition of Money?
I know it’s not “featherless biped”, but what is it?
It was changed to digital entries and credit cards
There is no shortage of money and the debt is not ours.
See Lien Documents Bank of America has the Quadrillions
https://yourhandsandlegs.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/doc21.pdf doc 1
https://yourhandsandlegs.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/doc12.pdf doc 2
The problem with AOC’s new deal has little to do with how you pay for it. Man made climate crisis is a myth created by the Club of Rome, it is a deliberate fiction designed by bankers out of thin air, just like debt based currency. The poorest people will suffer the most from carbon taxes and increased utility bills. Wealth will be concentrated at the top even more than already happens. Then there’s the basic engineering challenges of implementation. AOC can be excellent at economic theorist, on the ground it’s simply not doable or viable.
It should be pointed out, there is as much CO2 generated by producing the batteries for an electric car as driving a gasoline powered vehicle for eight years. No plan exists to recycle the batteries. Recycling old solar panels will produce 300 times more toxic waste than generating the same amount of energy using nuclear power. Then there’s the whole issue of toxic and green house gases generated by creating the panels in the first place. Companies get fined when birds land in tailing ponds for the tar sands, wind farms and even solar energy plants kill far more.
I could literally sit here and write hundreds of pages explaining why man made climate change is a myth that requires no action. As a personal aside, when I was in grade school in the 1960’s, my principal gave a talk explaining how if nothing was done about air pollution, all life on earth would die within 20 years. My dad told me that it was nonsense, when I told my principal what my dad said, the principal went ballistic on how it was absolutely true in no uncertain terms all life would die in 20 years without an end to air pollution. If Al Gore was right, the arctic would be completely ice free for the last decade. At some point you have to call BS.
The global climate crisis is real.
“AOC can be excellent at economic theorist, on the ground, it’s simply not doable or viable”
Yeah, and for decades, the conservatives economists have been proclaiming how tax cuts for wealthy people and corporations will create prosperity when for nearly the last 40 years it has not. So much for their theory when it has been proven that is not doable or viable.
The global climate crisis is not real, it’s been preached since I was a child. How many more tipping points of no return do we have to live through without any observable changes taking place before the doomsayers finally accept that fact.
Over 400 ppm atmospheric CO2 is 0.04% of the total earths atmosphere. The rise in CO2 since the beginning of the industrial era accounts for much less than 0.01% of the total atmosphere and does not provide even a tiny fraction of the forcing factor needed to drive rising temperatures. Over the last 40 years as measured by satellite the upper troposphere humidity has declined by 1%, causing 16 times the cooling effect of the rising CO2 level. For CO2 based man made climate change to be a real thing there can’t be a single negative feedback mechanism in effect, not one, because the warming effect from CO2 is statistically insignificant. That’s out of dozens of climate variables, there mustn’t be a single negative feedback that will kick in.
Do not conflate conservative economic theory with whether or not the AOC plane is technically feasible. Even if the financial planning is flawless, it’s a question of engineering and technology. It’s going to require an enormous spike in the usage of fossil fuels just to rebuild everything according to the plan, even more for when the wind isn’t blowing or the sky is too cloudy for solar. Then there’s the whole issue of battery storage. The whole thing is straight out of science fiction fantasy land.
Couldn’t have stated it better.
Also, we need to get the British contractor SERCO out of the seat management position they have in the US Trade and Patient Office and release all the Zero Point and near Zero Point technologies patients into production for the benefit of all.
Global climate is real and if the American corporations had not wasted the time, money and resources in protecting their own interests after the 1973 Arab Oil embargo, we would have solar and wind power plus electric/solar cars, trucks, and trains.
Global warming is not real, from the climategate emails, read carefully.
From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxx.xxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxx.xx.xx,t.osborn@xxxx.xxx
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
Pay attention to the sentence that ends with ‘hide the decline’. They were literally splicing two or more data sets recorded using different methods, where one data set had consistently lower temperature values than the other over the same time frame. They would take the data set with the lower values for the first half of the time scale, and then splice on the data set with the higher temperature values for the latter half of the time scale. The result is a graph that appears to show warming. They don’t get grant money if they demonstrate the world’s not on fire.
It is real.
From the climategate emails.
From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxx.xxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxx.xx.xx,t.osborn@xxxx.xxx
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK
Pay attention to the sentence that ends with ‘hide the decline’.
They used two graphs of the temperature record over the same period of time to create a new graph. Because both were constructed using different methods one had consistently lower temperatures. They created the new graph by using the graph with the lower temperatures for the early part of the time scale, and the graph with the higher temperatures for the last half of the time scale.
The wildfires were the result of forest mismanagement by the state of California, so in that sense it was a real man made crisis. The cold winter weather can be blamed on the sun going quiet, we are in the early stages of a period of lower solar output, expect to see lower average annual temperatures for another 10 years at the very least. The very forces responsible for debt money and debt serfdom are responsible for funding environmental groups and providing university grants via NGO’s for climate research. The climate scientists provide the pal reviewed research they get paid for.
No, the wildfires were caused by American utility companies cutting back on their tree-trimming and brush programs and not taking care of their power lines
She has a better sense of math than these so-called business leaders and conservative economists. Remember how these business leaders and economists keep saying that cutting taxes will put more money in the hands of people and in the government coffers. Well, it has not worked for the last 39 years and because of it the ordinary folks get poorer, less revenue for the government, no new job creations, no increase in wages for the ordinary folks, etc. You need to get your facts straight.
Where are you facts for these claims
[…] Ellen Brown Web of Debt […]
[…] Source: The Venezuela Myth Keeping Us From Transforming Our Economy | WEB OF DEBT BLOG […]
SOCIALISM AGAINST CAPITALISM DOESN’T WORK BECAUSE THE WORLDS MONETARY SYSTEM IS THE ROTHCHILD VERSION OF CAPITALISM OTHERWISE KNOWN AS CRONY CAPITALISM. AND THE FED AND WALL STREET PROVE THIS.
You cannot push a monetary theory that government needs to put money into the hands of people so they can spend and consume more stuff to energize the economy and then jump over on the Climate change side of the fence and scream to the heavens about there being to much CO2 emissions because people consuming and doing more stuff equals more CO2 being created . And by the way I’m tired of seeing all these windmills it looks like hell !!!!!!!!
Great Ellen
I have a location for bank In ca Confidential Call as soon as u can
Will u run in 2020
Sent from my iPhone
>
[…] Ellen Brown Writer, Dandelion Salad The Web of Debt Blog February 10, […]
[…] Republished from ellenbrown.com […]
[…] its progressive social banking model), explained straightforwardly by Ellen Brown in her article ‘The Venezuela Myth Keeping Us From Transforming Our Economy’ as well as alternative proposals to resolve the crisis, ranging from that by several governments to […]
[…] Go to Original – ellenbrown.com […]
[…] its progressive social banking model), explained straightforwardly by Ellen Brown in her article ‘The Venezuela Myth Keeping Us From Transforming Our Economy’ as well as alternative proposals to resolve the crisis, ranging from that by several governments to […]
[…] its progressive social banking model), explained straightforwardly by Ellen Brown in her article ‘The Venezuela Myth Keeping Us From Transforming Our Economy’ as well as alternative proposals to resolve the crisis, ranging from that by several governments to […]
[…] progressive social banking model), explained straightforwardly by Ellen Brown in her article ‘The Venezuela Myth Keeping Us From Transforming Our Economy’as well as alternative proposals to resolve the crisis, ranging from that by several governments to […]
[…] its progressive social banking model), explained straightforwardly by Ellen Brown in her article ‘The Venezuela Myth Keeping Us From Transforming Our Economy’ as well as alternative proposals to resolve the crisis, ranging from that by several governments to […]
[…] its progressive social banking model), explained straightforwardly by Ellen Brown in her article ‘The Venezuela Myth Keeping Us From Transforming Our Economy’ as well as alternative proposals to resolve the crisis, ranging from that by several governments to […]
[…] its progressive social banking model), explained straightforwardly by Ellen Brown in her article ‘The Venezuela Myth Keeping Us From Transforming Our Economy’ as well as alternative proposals to resolve the crisis, ranging from that by several governments to […]
[…] seu modelo progressivo de banco social), explicada diretamente por Ellen Brown em seu artigo ‘O Mito da Venezuela nos impede de transformar nossa economia‘ bem como propostas alternativas para resolver a crise, que vão desde vários governos para […]
[…] The Venezuela Myth Keeping Us From Transforming Our Economy […]
[…] its progressive social banking model), explained straightforwardly by Ellen Brown in her article ‘The Venezuela Myth Keeping Us From Transforming Our Economy’as well as alternative proposals to resolve the crisis, ranging from that by several governments to […]
[…] Komentarz ekspertki ds. bankowości Ellen Brown. […]
Anyone quoting AOC in a serious report is really suspect to their intellect …. or political motivation. This woman is seriously immature and may be mentally unstable (same thing with Trump on both counts).
There is so much fraud and government corruption (9/11, missing 21+ trillion anyone?) that there will be no fixes to this federal clusterf**K without starting from scratch. Simple fact: There is nothing salvageable in this federal regime. Nothing. They obey no Constitution and refuse to be bound by law. It’s way past time to sweep this solid-human-waste from our country.
Eric, much more than $21 trillion. Here is proof of it with the below 2 government documents.
Why and how does the FEDERAL RESERVE claim ownership of all American people and their land? See lien docs. in their words.
https://yourhandsandlegs.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/doc21.pdf doc 1
https://yourhandsandlegs.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/doc12.pdf doc 2
Yeah, and what makes you think that our top political and business leaders have been mature and mentally stable for the last 38 years? I agreed about sweeping the human waste; however, that waste is located in the boardrooms of American corporations since they can not be salvaged, refused to be bound by the law, and have contributed to so much fraud and corruption both in the private and public sectors at home and around the world not to mention telling the government to bail them out or they will let the economy crash and burn both at home and aboard.