News

So-called experts believe the government must increase the overall demand in the economy since stronger demand will permit idle resources to be employed again. Hence, many economists recommend that the central bank adopt an easy monetary stance to strengthen aggregate demand.

Whenever an economy falls into a recession, many economists point out that the economic slump means there will be idle capital and labor. Resources that could be employed are now unemployed because the economic slump has softened aggregate demand for goods and services.

So-called experts believe the government must increase the overall demand in the economy since stronger demand will permit idle resources to be employed again. Hence, many economists recommend that the central bank adopt an easy monetary stance to strengthen aggregate demand.

It appears to be quite simple: boost expenditure on goods and services and this, in turn, will strengthen the overall output in the economy by the multiple of the expenditure, thanks to the Keynesian multiplier. According to Ludwig von Mises,

Here, they say, are plants and farms whose capacity to produce is either not used at all or not to its full extent. Here are piles of unsalable commodities and hosts of unemployed workers. But here are also masses of people who would be lucky if they only could satisfy their wants more amply. All that is lacking is credit. Additional credit would enable the entrepreneurs to resume or to expand production. The unemployed would find jobs again and could buy the products. This reasoning seems plausible. Nonetheless it is utterly wrong.

Those who advocate monetary pumping to absorb idle resources have overlooked that these resources have become idle because of the previous boom created by the central bank’s prior easy monetary policy. Due to the easy monetary stance, nonproductive or “bubble” activities have emerged, resulting in the diversion of real savings from wealth generators toward these nonproductive activities.

A tighter stance from the central bank stops this diversion, thereby reducing the number of bubble activities and improving the process of wealth generation. Such a stance, however, cannot undo the various misallocations of resources that took place as a result of the previous easy monetary position as the previous damage cannot be undone in the short term.

Once, however, the process of wealth generation gains momentum, the expanding pool of real savings makes it possible to absorb various idle resources. According to Mises,

Out of the collapse of the boom there is only one way back to a state of affairs in which progressive accumulation of capital safeguards a steady improvement of material wellbeing: new saving must accumulate the capital goods needed for a harmonious equipment of all branches of production with the capital required. One must provide the capital goods lacking in those branches which were unduly neglected in the boom. Wage rates must drop; people must restrict their consumption temporarily until the capital wasted by malinvestment is restored. Those who dislike these hardships of the readjustment period must abstain in time from credit expansion.

Furthermore, he writes,

If commodities cannot be sold and workers cannot find jobs, the reason can only be that the prices and wages asked are too high. He who wants to sell his inventories or his capacity to work must reduce his demand until he finds a buyer. Such is the law of the market. Such is the device by means of which the market directs every individual’s activity into those lines in which they can best contribute to the satisfaction of the wants of the consumers.

Commentators are correct in identifying a lack of credit as preventing an increase in production and a greater use of idle resources. There is, however, the need to emphasize that the type of credit lacking is productive credit—one that is fully backed by real savings. This type of credit is scarce because of the previous episodes of central bank–driven expansionary monetary policies, which have resulted in diverting real savings from wealth producers to those who are not productive.

What most commentators advocate is the expansion of credit out of “thin air,” which the central bank is able to set in motion either by direct monetary injections or via intervention in the money markets to maintain a lower target interest rate. Such commentators advocate an expansion in credit that is not supported by real savings. The expansion in unbacked credit not only cannot revitalize the economy but, on the contrary, further weakens the process of wealth generation. Any attempt to “revive” economic activity by means of easy money will resume the diversion of real savings from wealth producers to nonwealth generators, thereby weakening the process of real wealth creation.

As long as the pool of real savings is growing, central bank policies appear to work. Once, however, the pool becomes stagnant or declining, the growth ends, and no amount of central bank liquidity injection will reverse things. On the contrary, the more the central bank tries to revive the economy, the worse things become.

One might argue that irrespective of the reason for idle resources, the authorities and the central bank should pursue policies that make it possible for these resources to have more use. But without increasing the pool of real savings, there will not be enough means to enable the employment of those resources. A loose monetary policy aimed at boosting demand will not succeed since an increase in demand cannot replace the real savings required to reemploy idle resources.

Some economists believe that loose monetary policies enable the economy to take off on its own, just as adding a little water to a pump, or priming the pump, enables water to be pumped out of a well. That metaphor is misleading since without the increase in real savings, no upsurge in economic activity can take place. Expanding credit unbacked by real savings cannot replace the nonexistent capital goods required to expand wealth that in turn absorbs the unemployed labor and capital.

Conclusion

Economists correctly note that a lack of credit prevents an increase in the production and reemployment of idle resources. There is, however, the need to emphasize that the type of credit lacking is productive credit, which is fully backed by real savings. Productive credit is scarce because of previous episodes of expansionary monetary policies by the central bank which diverted real savings from wealth producers to those who are unproductive.

---

The NWO’s 2024 Black Swan Tell

---

‘I had no wars,’ Trump told the crowd. ‘I’m the only president in 72 years, I didn’t have any wars.’

During Wednesday’s Fox News Iowa Town Hall event, presidential frontrunner Donald Trump displayed his feisty, quick-witted temperament that has gained the adoration of millions of Americans.

The televised discussion was scheduled at the same time as the GOP presidential debate between Nikki Haley and Ron DeSantis.

Speaking on a variety of issues, the leading GOP candidate railed against the U.S. establishment’s never-ending overseas wars, while noting he was the first president in decades to have peace throughout his presidency.

“I had no wars,” Trump told the crowd. “I’m the only president in 72 years, I didn’t have any wars.”

Later, Trump attacked Biden for being too “weak” and declared America will operate via peace through strength if he returns to office.

The 45th president also stated he’d roll out the largest deportation effort of all time and joked about Hunter Biden’s shady business deals.

At one point, Trump admitted COVID-19 “came out of” the Wuhan, China lab while stopping short of suggesting it was an intentional leak.

“It came out of Wuhan,” he said. “They were saying it came out of bat caves 2,000 miles away, it came out of Italy, it came out of France, no it came out of Wuhan, the labs. And, by the way, I don’t THINK it was done on purpose… I think it was done out of incompetence, that’s what I think. I think a scientist went out and said hello to his girlfriend and that was the end of that. She died and then people started dying all over the place, but who knows? I can tell you one thing, I got a long with President Xi.”

Posting additional highlights to his Truth Social account, Trump wrote, “DeSanctus wants to CUT Social Security and Medicare. Nikki Haley wants to CUT Social Security and Medicare…Nikki Haley wanted to raise the age from 65 to 74!”

When Trump was asked if he would be looking for retribution in his second term, he said he wouldn’t have time for that, adding, “Our ultimate retribution is success.”

The leading presidential prospect continues to poll leaps and bounds ahead of the contending GOP field of candidates, and he’s only getting stronger with solid performances like the Wednesday night town hall.

---

Right to express opinions being suppressed under the guise of ‘misinformation’

Alex Jones breaks down how the WEF’s list of potential risks in the coming year puts free speech directly in their crosshairs, calling it, “misinformation and disinformation.”

That means the tip of the spear in the information war – Infowars – is directly in the way of the eugenicist agenda being openly rolled out by the NWO.

---

Technocrats learned a lot from Covid. Under new proposals, the WHO will become the directing mind and will of global health. The WHO proposals are a shell game. The scheme will provide cover to domestic public health authorities. Power will be ubiquitous but no one will be accountable.

On Friday, Bret Weinstein warned of impending tyranny from the World Health Organization. “We are in the middle of a coup,” the evolutionary biologist and podcaster told Tucker Carlson on X. The WHO’s new pandemic management regime will eliminate sovereignty, Weinstein said, and allow it to override national constitutions.

He’s right about tyranny and coups. But not about sovereignty or constitutions. 

Technocrats learned a lot from Covid. Not how to avoid policy mistakes, but how to exercise control. Public authorities discovered that they could tell people what to do. They locked people down, closed their businesses, made them wear masks, and herded them to vaccination clinics. In some countries, people endured the most extreme restrictions on civil liberties in peacetime history. 

The WHO is now proposing a new international pandemic agreement and amendments to the International Health Regulations. These proposals will make next time worse. Not because they override sovereignty, but because they will protect domestic authorities from responsibility. States will still have their powers. The WHO plan will shield them from the scrutiny of their own people.

Related: Biologist Warns WHO Planning to Take Control Over Nations For Next Pandemic, Confirms COVID ‘Vaccines’ Killed 17 MILLION People

Under the proposals, the WHO will become the directing mind and will of global health. It will have authority to declare public health emergencies. National governments will promise to do as the WHO directs. Countries will “undertake to follow WHO’s recommendations.” WHO measures “shall be initiated and completed without delay by all State Parties…[who] shall also take measures to ensure Non-State Actors [private citizens and domestic businesses] operating in their respective territories comply with such measures.” Lockdowns, quarantine, vaccines, surveillance, travel restrictions, and more will be on the table. 

That sounds like a loss of sovereignty, but it is not. Sovereign states have exclusive jurisdiction in their own territory. WHO recommendations cannot be directly enforced in American courts. Sovereign nations can agree to follow the authority of international organizations. They can undertake to tie their own hands and to fashion their domestic laws accordingly. 

The WHO proposals are a shell game. The scheme will provide cover to domestic public health authorities. Power will be ubiquitous but no one will be accountable. Citizens will lack control over the governance of their countries, as they already do. The danger that confronts us is still our own sprawling discretionary administrative state, soon to be boosted and camouflaged by an unaccountable international bureaucracy.

When countries make treaties, they make promises to each other. International law may regard those promises as “binding.” But they are not binding in the same sense as a domestic contract. International law is a different animal from domestic law. In Anglo-American countries, the two legal systems are distinct.

International courts cannot enforce treaty promises against unwilling parties in the same way that a domestic court can enforce contractual promises. International law is formalized international politics. Countries make promises to each other when it is in their political interests to do so. They keep those promises on the same criteria. When they don’t, political consequences sometimes follow. Formal legal consequences rarely do.

Nevertheless, the idea is to persuade the public that their governments must obey the WHO. Binding recommendations legitimize the heavy hands of domestic governments. Local officials will be able to justify restrictions by citing global duties. They will say that WHO directives leave them no choice. “The WHO has called for lockdowns, so we must order you to stay in your home. Sorry, but it’s not our call.” 

During Covid, authorities tried to censor dissenting views. Despite their best efforts, skeptics managed to speak out. They offered alternative explanations in podcasts, videos, declarations, research papers, columns, and tweets. For many people, they were the source of sanity and truth. But next time things may be different. Under the new pandemic regime, countries will commit to censoring “false, misleading, misinformation or disinformation.”

As Weinstein put it, “Something is quietly moving just out of sight, in order that we will not have access to these tools the next time we face a serious emergency. … What [the WHO] wants are the measures that would have allowed them to silence the podcasters, to mandate various things internationally in a way that would prevent the emergence of a control group that would allow us to see harms clearly.”

The WHO documents will not override constitutions in Anglo-American countries. In the United States, the First Amendment will still apply. But the meaning of constitutions is not static. International norms can influence how courts read and apply constitutional provisions. Courts can take account of developing international standards and customary international law. The WHO proposals would not replace or define the meaning of constitutional rights. But they would not be irrelevant either. 

The WHO is not undermining democracy. Countries have done that over time by themselves. National governments must approve the new plan, and any can opt out as they wish. Without their agreement, the WHO has no power to impose its dictates. Not all countries may be keen on all the details. The WHO proposals call for massive financial and technical transfers to developing countries. But climate change pacts do too. In the end rich countries embraced them anyway. They were keen to virtue-signal and justify their own climate boondoggles. Most can be expected to sign on to the WHO gambit too.

Countries who do so retain the sovereignty to change their minds. But leaving international regimes can be hellishly difficult. When the UK belonged to the European Union, it agreed to be subject to EU rules on all manner of things. It remained a sovereign country and could decide to get out from under the EU’s thumb. But Brexit threatened to tear the country apart. Having the legal authority to withdraw does not mean that a country is politically able to do so. Or that its elites are willing, even if that’s what its people want. 

Numerous critics have made the same allegations as Weinstein, that the WHO’s regime will eliminate sovereignty and override constitutions. Brownstone writers have done so, for example, here and here. These allegations are easy to dismiss. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the Director-General of the WHO, has repeatedly said that no country will cede sovereignty to the WHO. Reuters, the Associated Press, and other mainstream news outlets have done “fact checks” to debunk the claim. Saying that the WHO will steal sovereignty allows critics to be discredited as conspiracy theorists. It distracts from the game that is afoot.

The WHO proposals will protect power from accountability. National governments will be in on the plan. The people are the problem they seek to manage. The new regime will not override sovereignty but that is small comfort. Sovereignty provides no protection from your own authoritarian state.

---

BREAKING: UN Planning New Pandemic To Establish Planetary Dictatorship

---

“There are no ‘tools to find.’ There are no ‘new words to invent.’ It’s plain English: close the borders.”

A Democrat official from New York is demanding the Biden regime “close the borders” immediately to end the ongoing invasion of her state and the nation at large.

NY Assemblywoman Jaime Williams asserts the federal government has no excuses nor time to waste when it comes to halting illegal entries into the United States and mitigating the catastrophic effects of the Biden border agenda. 

“Why wait until tomorrow? Our districts are the benefactors of lawlessness. We can’t wait until tomorrow,” Williams told Fox News host Laura Ingraham this week. 

“There are no ‘tools to find.’ There are no ‘new words to invent.’ It’s plain English: close the borders.”

“Let’s deal with the situation instead of putting the American citizens in a predicament where you have other people over them. It’s unfair to each and every taxpaying American, not only in my district but in this country,” she continued. 

The assemblywoman’s comments come shortly after students and staff in Brooklyn were told to switch to online learning as around 2,000 illegal aliens were moved into James Madison High School from a tent facility at nearby Floyd Bennett Field, which lies in Williams’ district. 

Williams, an immigrant from Trinidad and Tobago, has strongly opposed boundless waves of illegal aliens entering New York City and the U.S.

During an interview with Forbes in August, she warned that if the southern border remained open, the flow of illegal migrants would never end. 

“Why are we having our borders unsecured? If we don’t secure it at some point, it will never stop,” Williams said. 

InfoWars has been documenting mounting chaos in New York City caused by the arrival of more than 160,000 illegal migrants since early 2022.

---

General Michael Flynn joins Alex Jones to give his expert analysis on the Pentagon’s fumbling leadership.

Dan Lyman on X | Gab

---

Volodymyr Zelensky has arrived in Latvia, the final stop on his Baltic mini-tour where he has been appealing for further support, particularly in the form of missiles for Ukraine’s air defence system. Ukraine has proven […]

The post Zelensky Visits Baltic States Begging For More Weapons appeared first on The People’s Voice.