14 Comments

Thank you for addressing this topic, Peter. I am currently reading your 2 part, earlier essays.

Expand full comment

Agreed, again Peter, and a friend of mine sent this to me last night, and I kept wondering if you had ever seen it before - not even knowing that you were going to send this one out today! Providence?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rmc8GDlyAQg

Expand full comment

Haven't seen that one, although I am familiar with Bill Still's work.

Expand full comment

I am still researching (in my spare time LOL) some of the things that I heard on it last night, and it took me a while to get through, but one of the things that I am having a challenge wrapping my head around is this: if the National Debt is equal to the total amount of monies in circulation, how is it possible that we are some 28+ Trillion in Debt, as I cannot calculate, even with padding, evidence of that much money being used/floating around...?? Somebody has got to be hiding something...

Expand full comment

It's a shell game with "pretend" tokens😉

Expand full comment

The national debt is not equal to the money supply, and in particular not equal to the M0, which is essentially the amount of currency in circulation.

The broadest current measure of the money supply is the M2, which is currently at around $20.7 Trillion.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1aPNw

Expand full comment

"but for government we would have no inflation."

Over the long term, I believe that is correct. What we would have is some oscillation between inflation and deflation due to private credit expansion and contraction, with the long term trend actually being mildly disinflationary because technology improves productivity and makes things less expensive in real terms.

Expand full comment

More or less. In strict monetarist terms productivity and technology gains are an expansion of the production possibilities frontier. To be inflation that frontier should remain unchanged.

Expand full comment

Yet a balanced budget bill, that literally "balanced the budget" remains as far in the future as one can imagine. Time to replace the government is the only conclusion one can come to.

Expand full comment

That government is best which governs not at all.

Expand full comment

That's the meaning of the quaint and mis-understood (today) concept of *self*-government. It isn't Anarchy (the right endpoint); it is Capitalism (about 10% to the left of Anarchy), wherein the Federal "government" is not much more than the hired (by the People) security force.

But with each war and each "emergency" the mindless-but-single-minded expansionary State (public sector) moves us relentlessly to the left, with the goal of reaching the left endpoint, Fascism (and/or its rival/partner Marxism), where the State has attained 100% control, and the individual is slave.

Will enough of the People wake up in time to demand the State stand down?

Expand full comment

As John Adams once observed, "the Constitution is made for a moral people and wholly unfit for any other."

Expand full comment

Because the Constitution only *enables* the peeps.

If enough peeps reject the moral call in the Declaration for Capitalism (classical, not crony), then we have what we have today.

Expand full comment

And when men are ready for it, that is the government they will have.

(probably not an exact quote)

Expand full comment