An East Texas Swampland Economist in a World of Cognoscente’s: Like a Minnow in a Sea of Whales

I received the following comment from a reader of my last TPJ Magazine column dated 8/26/2012:

“I enjoyed reading Mickey Walkers' column in the current issue. So I decided to step back and read some of his past commentaries and I. learned something very quickly while doing so. I discovered that Mr. Walker lacks even a rudimentary understanding with regard to the FACT that the U.S. is a Monetarily Sovereign Nation. It is not like a member of the European Union, it is not like a local government nor a state government and it is certainly not like a household, you and me. Until he educates himself in matters economic and becomes cognoscente about Monetary Sovereignty and it's meaning he should avoid commenting on such matters. It is a FACT that those who fail to understand Monetary Sovereignty to not understand economics.”

Obsolete Italian cognoscente (now conoscente) from Latin cognoscere "to know"

Indeed. But the fair reader does make some valid points. I am not a cognoscente when it comes to economics to be sure. I do understand, however, that when a sovereign nation can and does print money that all bets are off when the leaders of a sovereign nation such as America prints excessive dollars just to cover its mistakes and departures from borrowing and spending too much. In short, a sovereign nation such as the United States can screw the country and its people to the wall if it wants to by printing vast amounts of new currency without adding one cent of value to each dollar fresh off the presses. On the contrary these new dollars plus the ones in your pocket become devalued and will not buy what they used to buy. Inflation begins to choke us down (been to Kroger or the Exxon pumps lately?). In short, a monetarily sovereign nation can screw its people. It can borrow trillions of dollars to start wars and never pay back the money borrowed nor even the interest on the money. That’s not cognoscente economics; that is a blight brought upon an innocent nation to fuel the Military Industrial Complex Ike warned us about, isn’t it? And social programs promised by candidates seeking election to public office. Many years ago Congress and many presidents set up elaborate social programs that cost trillions of dollars and helped bring our national debt to a stunning $15.5 trillion! Mr. Reader is correct that even if America did not have the cold cash to finance all these military expenditures or welfare programs no matter. America is a sovereign monetary nation and can print as much money as it wants to. But will there be consequences?

It is a fact that the United States as a sovereign nation can and does control the money supply. It can devalue our dollar; our houses can go underwater, our jobs overseas as the government pathetically tries to borrow more and more money from other nations. And when it does not get the money necessary to keep our government from shutting down guess what? The Fed buys the entire shortfall. That’s right, the Fed buys the US Treasury Notes and Bills that China and Japan did not want. Otherwise our government would shut down. And the Fed pays for the Treasuries with newly printed dollars. Monopoly money, anyone? If you got a printing press why worry? Is this legalized debauchery what Mr. Reader meant when he said, “It is a FACT that those who fail to understand Monetary Sovereignty to not understand economics?” I do not think many Americans would think this wanton abuse of the value of the dollar comes under the discipline of economics. But we all understand monetary rape. I think we would be better served if we understood the peril of not having checks and balances on our sovereign nation borrowing and spending and printing money.   

And if understanding that is to understand economics, I say bunk. That is grand theft America. And that is what has happened to us while all the cognoscente’s of economics were guiding the future of this great country and flushing it down the financial toilet. Maybe that is why so many Americans favor auditing the Fed, eh? Understanding basic arithmetic and the justifying the purpose of the secretive Fed seem like the number one thing that should top our “economic” agenda.

Sorry, but I could not help looking up such a $10 word such as “cognoscente” used in such a small, stuffy context (and come to find out it is an obsolete word as well.). From what tongue would such a word slide off so like a meandering serpent, seeking to intimidate and to evoke an image of an erudite messenger, maybe a scholar of economics or some other lofty discipline? Is this what Mr. Reader portends? Should I be impressed?  Or grateful that I am not “eat up” with the same demons that make him fixated on theory instead of reality and real people who would prosper or suffer due to sovereign monetary mistakes that hurt real Americans?  Like, why continue to bait up your trotline when you can see a 50-pounder thrashing a few hooks down? His solution for my redemption, he hints would be for me to develop even a “rudimentary” understanding that the “FACT” (all caps) that the U.S. is a “Monetarily Sovereign Nation.” I have no argument with him on that point: we all could stand some enlightenment on all subjects humans enjoy talking about. Except for the fact that his chosen word, “cognoscente” is a noun, not an adverb. Sorry to sound so tacky but what is more urgent, in my humble opinion, is Mr. Reader’s need to take a remedial crash course in 4th grade Mathematics so that he might grasp the FACT that economics cannot excuse nor cure our $15 trillion dollar debt (and counting).

Perhaps Mr. Reader you should try a taking a deep breath, relax and go slumming a bit by trying to explain the 8-year pestilence of Ronald Reagan’s “voodoo economics” he inflicted upon us taxpayers back in the 1980s.  You know, the Supply Side stuff, the Laffer Curve monstrosity that fueled Ronnie’s biblical “Evil Empire” witch hunt. You remember how he convinced the American people and Congress to follow his lead (trust me; I am in charge of the Monetary Policy of a Sovereign nation, wink, wink)? After all we needed to bring the Evil Empire to its knees, didn’t we?  The war corporations needed to sell some more $500 hammers. And borrowing the $3 trillion to that divine end was okay, right?  As a sovereign monetary nation we can just print more money to cover the shortfall of Treasury Notes we need to sell, but cannot. So we buy our own paper. Cheney said later that Reagan taught us that deficits don’t matter, and like a silly goose, Bush II obliged and attacked Iraq.  Ka-ching! $4 trillion more was borrowed and spent and added to our National Debt. Poor old Ike’s grave warning for us not to allow our government to be in bed with the Military Industrial Complex went poof in the night.

Mr. Reader, please help us all feel better and to understand Reagan’s spendthrift economics that plunged our country to an additional $3 trillion in the hole (not counting interest for 3 decades)? As a cognoscente of economics that should not be a hurdle for you.

Please tell us things will be alright now that we have fallen into the abyss caused by borrowing and spending to line the pockets of the Military Industrial Complex at a time when the U.S. was at peace with no need to spend money to fight anybody, or any Sovereign nation? Same goes for Bush II and his mindless attack on Iraq (duh, wrong target) Mr. Reader. Perhaps you could explain that little borrowing and spending spree of over $4 trillion that will be choking us Americans trying to make a living now in 2012 when the interest on that little piece of borrowing will haunt us and our posterity forever as our National Debt soars for eons. Where are the cognoscente’s when you need them?

Greenspan was an economist, a real cognoscente if there ever was one. He said he understood economics yet later on admitted that he had been totally and completely wrong. Poor baby.  You can read all about it by Googling “Greenspan admits he was wrong.” But the really damning video has been taken down from YouTube where once he admitted total guilt and now he is accepting “partial” fault for being wrong about his model for the economy. Duh, was he a “cognoscente?” Probably so, Mr. Reader because he believed we as a sovereign monetary nation could never fail. Note below: Greenspan says “Just print more money.”

http://www.cnbc.com/id/44051683/No_Chance_of_Default_US_Can_Print_Money_Greenspan

Laffer and his “trickle down” economics was a cruel joke that gave Americans burger-flipping jobs that Reagan labeled manufacturing jobs. I understand “Monetary Policy” all right.  Whoever has the keys to the United States Treasury can exercise his Sovereign Monetary philosophy so that he can borrow and spend trillions of dollars on whimsical folly. And never have to pay it back.

Obviously, Mr. Reader, you are an economic cognoscente. So do you approve of Ben Bernanke’s remedy for our running out of money when other Sovereign nations have refused to continue loaning the US more money? He is printing trillions of paper dollars, having no added value other than the ink and the paper. Do you understand borrowing and stealing? Oops, I meant borrowing and spending. How about Addition and Subtraction? You say that a sovereign monetary nation does not operate on a budget like you and me, and I give you that. But would that be so wrong as opposed to the shambles we find ourselves in?  Do you really believe we Americans will not suffer because our sovereign nation borrowed trillions of dollars that we will never pay back? Are you at all concerned that the US Dollar as the world currency is being replaced by other countries’ currencies, e.g., the Chinese Renminbi and Yuan? Do you think an ever-rising debt and interest on it all is not a concern because we are a sovereign monetary nation and can just print more money? Do you understand the aftermath of people without jobs, homes, and quality of life thanks to the cognoscente's who call themselves economists and leaders who with a wink and a nod brought us to the brink of financial bankruptcy? Do you empathize with the millions of senior citizens who are faced now with cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security? Or maybe you would prefer to debate the technicalities, and talk about theory, not the reality that is the catastrophe of what now lingers due to the trust we placed in our Sovereign leaders?  It is difficult to care about your textbook comments about how a Sovereign Monetary policy works when we all have been had by the leaders we elected and trusted to do the right thing. 

Oh, and you said you enjoyed reading my last column. Thanks. But I got to ask, what did you think about Reagan’s having Jimmy Carter’s solar panels taken down from the White House so we taxpayers could pay more taxes due to higher electric bills incurred at the White House? Is that an example of your Sovereign Monetary policy of a nation? Could it be defended without using doublespeak? And I do apologize for misusing cognoscente, not as a noun which most all world dictionaries agree is its given literary character. But when you used it as an adverb, well I never. Ergo, flippantly, I used it any which way it would fit into a sentence, and I hope you don’t mind because at present I am feeling a bit guilty for doing that. Meanwhile, thank you for your sincere comments and advice. I will take them under advisement.

HOW’D WE GET IN THIS MESS?

When seriously seeking solutions rather than constantly complaining, one has to diligently dig for the root reason. What caused 9/11? By knowing the root, could it have been averted? I believe so. Identifying the root opens the opportunity to eliminate or, at least, to contain the causation so the same horror wouldn’t be repeated.

As I’ve often stated, 9/11 wouldn’t have happened if Bush wouldn’t have stolen the election the year prior. On the other hand, it wouldn’t have been stolen if Al Gore would have shown some courage. Like Democrats’ spinelessness that lost 2000 & 2004 and almost all policy battles since – even when they manage to capture both branches – Al Gore only was a channel of the party’s tradition in cowering to bullies.

So, I believe the root problem is Democrats’ passiveness that allows for stolen elections, anti-environmental policies, anti-worker sentiment, illegal wars, a nation on the brink of depression, and a crushed global economy. If they only would have stood up to the right, most of these wrongs would never have materialized.

The solution is to put some spine into the spineless. That means influencing the party through a new grassroots drive. The Occupy Movement was a good start. Organized labor should also push the party hard to reform its ways and purge its weaklings. The Democratic Leadership Council, which does nothing but compromise with crooks, should be fired.

Without a stolen election in 2000, 9/11 wouldn’t have made the headlines in 2001. So, the root, stolen election, goes deeper than the GOP’s election fraud, voter suppression, and outright thievery; it navigates to the passive nature of the Democratic Party and why it feels compelled to appease enemies instead of please friends.

How many centuries did it take science to discover germs were the primary reason people become sick? Until that time, superstitions and myths were accepted because facts were buried. Meantime, millions died for lack of sanitation. The Black Plague swept Europe because people didn’t realize rats and fleas carried microscopic organisms called bubonic bacteria that were being transmitted to humans, killing them by the millions. Over 1/3 of Europe was wiped out. Imagine 1/3 of the U.S. killed by an incurable disease – 100 million people.

I’m not necessarily comparing the past ten years to the Dark Ages and Black Plague. But the comparison in not finding the root cause in time to save us from terrorists’ attacks, unnecessary wars, and a collapsed economy – is similar. Monday morning quarterbacking is not seeking root causes. Because we knew in 2000 the election was being rigged. We knew Katherine Harris was busy purging voter rolls before that time. We knew of Karl Rove’s dirty tricks – how he stole elections in Texas and South Carolina. And we knew Bush was planning war against Iraq before he stole the election, a year before 9/11, which was used as pretext.

We got into this mess not only because of the 2000 stolen election or even the Democrats’ apparent weakness, but because of the greed element’s growing power over a period of decades. There is an element in this country that is determined to destroy unions, decimate the Middle Class, and concentrate wealth into the hands of the few. Bush was just a symptom, tip of the iceberg.

Remember Wisconsin in 2011? Go back to the 1930s; we saw the same element working to destroy Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal. They challenged Social Security all the way to the Supreme Court. They not only tried to repeal SS, but all the labor laws enacted to solve the Great Depression. They even tried an armed revolt against the Government in 1933.

Now we know the root cause of this current crisis. It’s political. It’s politics based on greed. It’s an entire political movement bent on destroying the public sector and making the nation into a corporate-run oligarchy owned by the elite few with millions of servants around them living in abject poverty.

Greed is the primary root that branches into derivatives that may seem as causes but are merely manifestations of the root itself. Once one realizes the source, what corrective action is necessary to eradicate it?

JULIAN ASSANGE UNDER SIEGE

On June 19 Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks, entered the Ecuadorian embassy in London and asked for political asylum. He had exhausted his appeals against extradition to Sweden to answer allegations of rape and sexual assault brought against him there by two women. In applying to Ecuador for asylum and putting himself beyond the reach of the British authorities, he is in breach of his bail conditions. He has consistently denied that there is any truth in the women’s allegations. No charges have been brought against him. Assange has offered to answer any questions the Swedish prosecutors may want to put to him in London, or via skype. He says that he has applied for political asylum because he fears that if he goes to Sweden he will be extradited from there to the United Sates where he could face life imprisonment or even the death sentence.

This story is unusually contentious for several reasons. It is worth trying to disentangle the various elements that have become so entangled that many who should know better seem no longer able to see the wood for the trees. First, there is the vital issue of Wikileaks and the explosive revelations that blew open, for the whole world to see, the United States’ and other governments’ closely guarded dirty secrets. This is the crux of the matter. Second, there are the rape and sexual assault allegations against Assange; third, there are further allegations leveled against him by his critics to the effect that he displays various personality defects; fourth and finally there is the latest development involving Ecuador and the diplomatic immunity of its embassy.

In 2010 Wikileaks released more than 250.000 secret US state department documents and The Guardian, The New York Times and other international media began publishing some of them. This was a tremendous victory for everyone genuinely committed to freedom of information and a tremendous blow to power elites everywhere who thrive on secrecy, lies and hypocrisy. The predictable cant from the US State Department and its media echoes, about the dire consequences of revealing confidential diplomatic conversations, belied their real alarm over, for example, irrefutable filmed evidence of US soldiers gratuitously gunning down civilians in Iraq. The insensate fury unleashed at times like this by those who wield state power against those who dare to expose the crimes they have tried so assiduously to conceal, has a revealing historical precedent. Following the Russian revolution, in 1918 the Bolsheviks published the secret treaties concluded during the First World War between the Tsarist government and its western allies, Britain and France. These concerned the disposal between them of the fruits of victory over Germany, exposing once and for all the lies and hypocrisy of their claims to be fighting a war “for democracy”. The allies’ response was to launch a war of intervention against Russia in an attempt to “strangle Bolshevism in the cradle”.

If anyone is in any doubt about what Julian Assange’s fate is likely to be if he is extradited to the United States, one has only to look at what is happening to the US soldier Bradley Manning. Arrested in Iraq in 2010, accused of providing documents to Wikileaks, he was held until 2011 at Quantico Marine Corps base in Virginia in conditions described as “cruel, inhuman and degrading”. In April last year 295 legal scholars signed a letter arguing that his treatment was a violation of the US constitution. He has been charged with “communicating national defense information to an unauthorized source” and “aiding the enemy”, which is a capital offense. According to his lawyers the government has deliberately overstated the harm that the release of the documents has caused, and overcharged Manning in order to get him to give evidence against Assange. Manning, if convicted, will most likely go to prison for life.

Assange’s critics (among them many who might have been expected to defend him) who are either ignorant of or unconcerned about what awaits him if he is extradited to the United States, should consider this. In 2010 Senate Intelligence Committee chairwoman, Dianne Feinstein demanded that he be prosecuted under the draconian Espionage Act, shamefully introduced by President Woodrow Wilson in 1917 to prosecute anyone deemed to be opposed to US entry into the First World War. According to a leaked email, a sealed indictment has already been obtained against him. Prominent politicians, Republican and Democrat, have called for him to be imprisoned for life. There is no room for complacency about this. The threat to Assange is very real.

Then there are the illusions about Swedish neutrality and its supposed glowing record in defense of human rights. Here again a little history is instructive. In 1973 a left-wing journal, Folket: Bild/Kulturfront, published a series of articles by Jan Guillou and Peter Bratt exposing a highly secret Swedish intelligence agency, the Intelligence Bureau, which was gathering information on Swedish leftists and others considered “security risks”. The IB operated outside the framework of state defense and intelligence organizations and there was no trace of it in budget allocations. The article claimed that IB staff engaged in break-ins, wire-tapping against foreign embassies, spying abroad and even murder. Names, details and photos of IB spooks were published under the heading “Spies”. Guillon, Bratt and other were arrested, tried in camera, convicted of espionage and jailed. Stieg Larsson’s best-selling novels are not so far from the truth.

More recently Ray McGovan, who was a CIA analyst for 30 years, says of Assange: “He was about to be sent to faux-neutral Sweden…which has a recent history of bowing to US demands in dealing with those that Washington says are some kind of threat to US security.” According to civil rights lawyer Glenn Greenwald, “Sweden has a disturbing history of lawlessly handing over suspects to the US” and Assange’s “fear of ending up in the clutches of the CIA is plainly rational and well-grounded.” In 2006 the UN found Sweden in violation of the global ban on torture for helping the CIA render two suspected terrorists to Egypt where they were brutally tortured.

What of the rape and sexual assault allegations against Assange? It seems that many have already made up their minds about this. Despite the fact that he has not been charged, it seems to be widely accepted that he is guilty. Tempting though it may be to start arguing the pros and cons of the matter based on hearsay and speculation, it is preferable to say simply and firmly that unless and until he is found guilty of any offences, he is innocent. On the basis of what little evidence there is, it impossible to know whether the women’s accounts of what happened are true. Equally, it is impossible to be sure whether or not he was lured into a honey trap.  However, it is significant that in an article on 23 August, Katrin Axelsson and Lisa Longstaff of Women against Rape, wrote: “The allegations against him are a smokescreen behind which a number of governments are trying to clamp down on Wikileaks for having audaciously revealed to the public their secret planning of wars and occupations with their attendant rape, murder and destruction.”  While making no judgment in this case, it is important, particularly for men, to be clear about the boundaries between acceptable and unacceptable behavior in sexual relations with women.

Any attempt to pressurize a woman into having sexual intercourse against her will amounts to attempted rape and if persisted in to perpetration constitutes rape. Any perpetration of a sexual act against a woman who is drugged or asleep and therefore unable to give her consent, is rape. Obviously, in the case of a couple sleeping together in a loving and trusting relationship, where one may wake the other by touch or word to signify the desire for sex, this is self-evidently not a case of sexual assault or rape. All this should be obvious but as some men have recently expressed quite shocking opinions on this subject, it is important that other men make clear what is and what is not acceptable behavior in sexual relations between men and women.

Much has been written about Assange’s personality, most of it portraying him in a very negative light. Given the great work he has done through Wikileaks in exposing the lies, hypocrisy and brutality of those who wield power in some of the most powerful states in the world, and given the extreme danger he faces should he be extradited to the United States, his personal characteristics are entirely irrelevant. Whether they intend to or not, those who traduce him over such things are assisting his enemies who want to deliver him to pernicious US prosecutors seeking to imprison him for life. Character assassination is one of the weapons of destruction they are using against him.

The Ecuadorian government, to its great credit, has granted Julian Assange political asylum. The British government, to its shame, has not only declared that Assange will be immediately arrested if he tries to leave the Ecuadorian embassy, but further, on the basis of an obscure law passed in 1987, claims the right to enter the embassy to seize him. When President Correa, outraged by this claim, accused the British foreign office of threatening to storm the embassy, Foreign Secretary Hague, supported by much of the media, protested that the government had no such intention. Obviously concerned about the impact the threat would have in Latin America, the government tried to suggest that Correa had misrepresented the letter. But the message sent to Ecuador leaves no room for misinterpretation. If the British government claims the right to withdraw the diplomatic status of an embassy and enter its premises to seize someone who has been granted asylum there, it must be expected that any attempt to enter its premises will be resisted. To break that resistance, force would be required and that means the embassy would have to be stormed. The Ecuadorians understood the intention perfectly well. So did the rest of Latin America. At a meeting of the 35 member Organization of American States in Washington on 24 August all the Latin American countries expressed their “solidarity and support” for Ecuador’s stand. Only The US and Canada dissented.

Hague’s claim that Britain has no option but to extradite Assange to Sweden is also specious. Former Chilean dictator Pinochet was arrested in Britain in 1998 after Spain requested his extradition to face charges of multiple human rights violations. Pinochet was a friend of former prime minister Margaret Thatcher whose war against Argentina over the invasion of the Malvinas/Falkland islands in 1982 he supported.  Pinochet was not repatriated to Spain but allowed by then Foreign Secretary Jack Straw to return to Chile on humanitarian grounds. President Correa was right to remind Hague of the inconsistency in the treatment of the two cases.

If justice is to be done in this case, the siege against Julian Assange must be lifted and he must be allowed to go unmolested to Ecuador. To achieve this outcome he deserves the full support of all who regard justice and the rule of law in international affairs as more than empty phrases.   

Hallucinating Republicans

A Thai mother has been accused of killing, cooking and eating her sons because she thought they were pigs, the Bangkok Post reports. Hallucinations may have played a role in the tragic crime.

No, Borowitz did not write the above quotation – it’s word for word from the Huffington Post of August 22, 2012. There’s more to the story but I don’t think you’d want more details. The mother’s behavior was such that you would surely agree that hallucinations had to have played a role.

Speaking of which, it occurs to me that hallucinations might explain some American politics. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines hallucinations as “something (such as an image, a sound, or a smell) that seems real but does not really exist and that is usually caused by mental illness or the effect of a drug.”

I think mental illness might be rampant in the GOP (God’s Own Party). The positions of Republican Presidential, Senatorial and House candidates seem real to them but are not supported by reality. They are having hallucinations.

Consider just a few examples:

   *     The Republican nominee for Senate in Missouri, Todd Akin, believes in legitimate rape. He believes the female body can, in some mysterious manner, repel the seed of a rapist. It’s unlikely any medical doctor (except John Willke) would support this belief. Mr. Akin has two related hallucinations, including the impression that abortion raises the risk of breast cancer and is linked to mental health problems. (Paradoxically, his rape idea suggests there may be a link between fanatical opposition to abortion and such problems.)

         ▪        Most Republicans publicly profess belief in “Intelligent Design” and a 6,000 year-old universe, which has no scientific basis, and reject the theory of evolution and a 15 billion year-old universe, which does.

         ▪        Just as Republicans are starting to arrive in Florida, the National Weather Service has forecast Tropical Depression Nine could strengthen into a hurricane and smite Tampa. What will Republicans say about that? After all, prominent Party members have been known to hallucinate about specific causes of hurricanes and other disasters, always with reference to divine displeasure. For instance, during her recent run for president, Minnesota Republican Representative Michele Bachmann said an East Coast earthquake and Hurricane Irene were attempts by God to get the attention of the politicians. This was part of a Republican tendency to see the work of an angry Deity inflicting woe on those who support policies or lifestyles they oppose. Other Republican hallucinators of record are broadcaster Glenn Beck (the Japanese earthquake and tsunami), Pat Robertson (the Haitian earthquake), “End Times” televangelist John Hagee (Katrina) and of course the late Jerry Falwell (Sept. 11 being God’s wrath on feminists and the ACLU).

         ▪        Finally, there’s the alcohol-induced frolic involving 30 Republican lawmakers in the Sea of Galilee while in Israel on a fact-finding mission. One of the celebrants, Kansas Representative Kevin Yoder, hallucinated that he could go bare naked in a sea of holy water without media types taking note. Now that’s really crazy.

Personally, I have no problem with swimming in the buff. I do it every chance I get, which regrettably is not often. However, I would not do so after consuming alcohol (let alone if inebriated). Nor would I swim naked in a body of water that locals and Republicans believe Jesus walked on (while calming a hurricane, converting water into wine and performing that business with loaves and fishes). In deference to my hosts, I’d wear a Speedo.

If I were asked a (ridiculous) hypothetical question to identify who among the above noted hallucinators I would vote for if I absolutely had to vote for one of them, I’d go for the Thai mother who murdered, cooked and ate her children. Why? Because some hallucinations are sad and tragic, and others are grotesque and reprehensible. I have sympathy and compassion for the former but only contempt for the latter.