To give us the benefit of his vast experience as a diplomat, former Ambassador Chas Freeman, helps us sort through the escalating conflict between Israel and Iran.
Charles Freeman has been a good regular guest on Napolitano's program "Judging Freedom": Along with Mr. Mearsheimer and many former military men and diplomats. Scott Ritter is not bad, there are many interviews with him on a weekly basis though he seems to throw out issues of morality and right and wrong in favor of raw power and expediency.
The bottom line is that Israel and now the US will be as dirty as they are inclined to be. Who after all pretends to be negotiating with diplomats and advisors and then kills them in cold blood?
No one should negotiate with Trump or Netanyahu, his lackeys and yes-men, he's evil, a spineless jellyfish and pure scum! Over and over again they've proven themselves to be killers, sociopaths, psychopaths and treacherous killers running a "Murder, Inc." in the Middle-East. It's time time the rest of the world wakes up to these zio-nazis who have no principles, who just pretend to be "patriots" or loyal to America when they are are biggest threat!
Thank you Ralph Nader Radio Show for a great hour of powerful panelists. Always insightful. Last week I amplified the information from Veterans For Peace. We each must do more to stop war from escalation. ✌️
Ralph, thank you for another great show. You are one of the last adults in the building; I've supported and voted for you every time you've run for President. You are, indeed, the best President we never elected. And as a life member of Veterans for Peace, I thank you for your ongoing support of the organization. All we can do is keep fighting...for peace.
In the real news, jail bird Bannon is back to running the United States government again,, the true signs of itiots is every time one speaks the other repeats .
Trump after the hour long lunch last week with Bannon, Trump said he would need to delay for two weeks the "big bomb", run on Iran until they could both confirm they were getting a bigger increase and cut in their federal government Ammo contracts. If circumstances in life are not to your making ? and you're forced to make a business decision don't you think you deserve a little more doe-ray-me $$$_for your efforts.,,,besides ,, what's a government for ?
As a Vietnam Veteran 66-69 i wonder how many Congressional and Federal Representatives will send their kids into harms way this time ?
First - It would be nice if you could clear up the audio of you guests - Ralph comes through pretty clearly, but your first guest does not .....
Anyway, was just watching the reports of the US attacks on 3 of Iran's nuclear facilities, Trump's press conference, and an analysis by Trita Parsi - Ralph, could you have him on your show ? He gives an excellent analysis as well ...
Am wondering if this strike now is a response to what (hopefully) was an increasing call for impeachment - figuring that when the US is at war, legally or otherwise, there is a tendency to "rally round the flag" and opposition is stifled ... this will be especially true if Iran hits US bases abroad and Americans are killed - I suspect Bibi is crossing his fingers that it happens ...
Too bad we didn't act on your case for impeachment months ago
(and too bad we didn't elect you for Pres. when you ran ...)
One more statistic: Israel is responsible for 72% or children dead and mutilated in the world in 2024
Now we are entering another war that we will lose. Because one thing this country does well is to cause destruction everywhere and still losing the wars it starts (or that USrael starts)
First - It would be nice if you could clear up the audio of you guests - Ralph comes through pretty clearly, but your first guest does not .....
Anyway, was just watching the reports of the US attacks on 3 of Iran's nuclear facilities, Trump's press conference, and an analysis by Trita Parsi - Ralph, could you have him on your show ? He gives an excellent analysis as well ...
Am wondering if this strike now is a response to what (hopefully) was an increasing call for impeachment - figuring that when the US is at war, legally or otherwise, there is a tendency to "rally round the flag" and opposition is stifled ... this will be especially true if Iran hits US bases abroad and Americans are killed - I suspect Bibi is crossing his fingers that it happens ...
Too bad we didn't act on your case for impeachment months ago
(and too bad we didn't elect you for Pres. when you ran ...)
Within a few hours of the Radio Hour airing Chas Freeman’s interview about the military-industrial complex and the Israel/Iran war, the US bombed Iran. The long march to abandoning the laws of war, especially those enacted following World War II, has reached new heights under the Trump regime. It’s not that Trump is more of a militarist than his predecessors, it’s the fact that Trump can act with abandon since any checks and balances on war have long ago been jettisoned by Congress. There’s not even a nod to Congress as there was with the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in 1964.
As I write at my website, https://thelastnewleftist.com/standing-out-for-peace/, I stood holding an anti-war sign just five days after over 2,000 people demonstrated in Great Barrington, MA in the “No Kings” rally. The problem now is that Trump has risen to such a dictatorial level that protest means very little to him.
Iran just bombed by US..please inform quickest way to view what senators approved this plan! If congress did not approve then I hope all senators write an impeachment letter for the president!!
Sign the petition. Congress needs to assert its sole power to go to war. Trump could be impeached on the basis of violating the constitutional authority of Congress. But most importantly now, this could stop escalation now of war.
NPR had segments this morning on "American isolationism" leading up to WWII, running sound clips from Charles Lindberg! He and Joe Kennedy worked hard to not have the US enter the conflict with Nazi Germany. Why would this be the focus for NPR now unless they want to get donations from AIPAC and their many lackeys in the US? I ran into a woman at the local post office who had just gotten back from Israel as they are sending their dual citizens out.
We're going to see an ugly publicity blitz trying to sell Americans on the US bombing Iran under false pretenses. This is much, much worse than 2002-3 and the lies behind the Iraq war; Israel and their AIPAC people have become much more aggressive targeting all media to sell their lies.
There is a connection between the MIC and government (one can add bankers, also) is the FED. Privatized control over currency (that's fiat money) can channel resources to who ever they choose. It this case, to corporations and bankers. The debt they carry, becomes their assets (and collect interest from) so, here we go. Who do we put the resources into? Our friends, they say, of course.
A solution that would help is a nationalized FED...maybe they could channel money towards us - the 90% of Americans that are struggling. This is allowable because it is the country that backs up the value of money that's regularly created by fiat. Ever heard of $ trillions of "quantitative easing"? Who guaranteed that?
There is a valid complaint in your thesis, but it is surrounded by contradictory and self-defeating misunderstandings. Hopefully you can accept this as constructive criticism. It is correct to say that current monetary policy, which is to say the interest rate, is greatly benefiting the wealthy. The combination of the interest rate and the national debt means that individuals and institutions with wealth are essentially receiving risk-free income from the federal government merely for already having money. The more money one has, the more risk-free income.
The entities benefiting from this are individuals, foreign governments, state/local governments, banks, other businesses, and non-profits. Universities and charities, for example, benefit greatly from this system especially as these types of investors are more likely to buy risk-free investment instruments such as federal bonds and treasury bills. Thus, when we look at who is driving this system of inequality, it would be a mistake to merely focus on wealthy individuals, businesses, and banks. Yes, they benefit greatly from it too, but institutions with far greater public trust are equally guilty in advocating for this unequal system and that cannot be ignored.
You recognize that the US uses a fiat currency. Good, you’re correct about that. What goes with the floating currency is that the issuance of debt instruments is entirely unnecessary. Good luck eliminating them as the institutions listed above will fight that with great rigor. Furthermore, with the floating currency, the national debt itself is not the problem, the problem is the use of monetary policy to try to achieve full employment (something the Fed no longer even tries to achieve in the neoliberal non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment era) and to control prices. Instead of relying on the Fed’s monetary policy for these things, Congress should be promoting full employment and price stability via fiscal policy...fiscal policy which will likely require an expansionary budget. This should be combined with a 0%/near 0% interest rate policy like what Japan has done for years now.
So, with all of this, I’m entirely open to reforming central bank operations in the US, but I cannot agree with your assertions about ‘privatized control’ of the currency. The Fed’s Federal Open Market Committee, including the Fed Chairman, primarily consists of Federal Reserve Board of Governors and those are all appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. If you don’t approve of current monetary policy, you should point your criticism at the past two presidents (Trump and Biden) and especially the Senate for appointing/re-appointing and confirming these governors. Furthermore, you should place your blame on the US House and Senate for relying on monetary policy rather than fiscal policy, which is entirely their domain.
I also don’t understand why quantitative easing is even mentioned in your thesis. QE is not of relevance to modern problems. By definition, QE requires a 0%/near 0% interest rate, something we clearly don’t have at the current time given the whole point about ‘free money for the wealthy’ mentioned earlier. If you’re talking about GFC era monetary policy, then I do agree that QE, which is a monetary policy measure, was a mistake because of everything I mentioned earlier about the problems of using monetary policy rather than fiscal policy. Beyond that, the asset swaps of reserve balances for securities that are QE, and QE is nothing more than that even though I think the public perceives it as being something else, are unnecessary as it is built on a misbelief that banks need reserves to lend. QE during the GFC might have provided the macroeconomically uninformed public with confidence in the banking system, but if so, that was only a case of ignorant policy being used to appease the ignorant public. I could say more about QE, but again, it is irrelevant to current issues.
The summary of all of this is that while the Fed can be criticized, the greater problem is Congress. An even greater problem above the Congressional problem is that the public is currently unequipped to make informed demands of Congress in the area of macroeconomics. Garbage in, garbage out. Banks, businesses, and large non-profits know how to advocate on their behalf and are motivated to do so. The public is largely inept on both counts, so it cannot be a surprise that Congress is strongly tilted towards those making demands of them.
Criticism taken, Klassic. Thanks. Most of my info was taken from The Lost Science Of Money by Zalenga, I believe. He mentioned "privatization" but it was mostly my opinion that nationalization of the FED might help. QE was just an example of Bankers helping Bankers IMO. They bailed out the corporations with their fiat money and the homeowners, for instance, were left in bankruptcy.
My take away is : whoever controls the currency, controls the politics.
I'm familiar with the works of Zarlenga and the Greenbackers. They had some good historical insights about the Dollar, but ultimately their conclusions were faulty. You're correct to say that banks were stabilized by the government and families were not. In reality, it was up to Congress, and the Executive Branch to a lesser extent, to stabilize economic conditions for the majority. Both entities failed the public miserably. If there is any silver lining, Covid was handled better and it was handled better because Congress was willing to extend an expansionary budget to offer benefits to the public. Sadly, much of that was curtailed rather than retained and adjusted to meet the needs of the post-Covid situation. Still, the Covid era showed how things could work, and that rather disproves what the Greenbackers were saying.
Furthermore, it was up to federal and state prosecutors to go after bankers who engaged in illegal tactics in the lead-up to the GFC, and they failed miserably to take any action at all. One bank, one!, was prosecuted in the US after the GFC, Abacus Federal Savings Bank, a relatively small bank serving the Chinese-American community. How is it with all the illegal and unethical behavior that happened in that era that they were the only ones who were prosecuted?
But, again, this was a case of politicians failing, it wasn't a failure of the currency or the central bank. Congress can always spend money into existence in ways that benefit the public, as they briefly did during Covid. The fact that Biden and now Trump have gone into social austerity really doesn't have anything to do with the Fed. If Congress passes an appropriation, for the public benefit or otherwise, it will be funded barring any artificial limitations outside of the central bank such as the entirely political debt ceiling. There is no doubt about that. Congress has not passes appropriations to benefit the public in recent years, and so there is nothing to fund. On the other hand, Congress has passed several appropriations of corporate welfare/militarization, as discussed in this RNRH episode.
Hi, Francesco, I'm guessing that independent investigative journalism requires broad sources of information and great discernment about what information can be trusted. Today I ran into this website, which seems to have the desired outcome of reporting daily to ordinary people about important events. I thought of you, since this might be one source you could consider, depending upon your views about its trustworthiness.
As I listen to this the US already bombed Iran. Nothing new in American foreign policy, as all presidents did but Trump is more unhinged and ignorant, he believes that nuking a country will only affect said country, and not the whole planet, including us.
We are, in fact, not only the most dangerous country in the world, we are also the biggest bully, and the dumbest. While we destroy countries that don't want a war and that only are exercising their right to defend themselves, China comes in and rebuilds them. It doesn't matter the reasons, what people will remember is that one country destroys, the other rebuilds. And the support of a population might mask dictators in their countries. We are really dumb
I have not listened to the wrap up part of the show but I wish more time had been spent on North Korea and its capabilities, and willingness to join a conflict in any shape of form.
I also wonder how effective would it be to play the same game Trump plays, the name calling and ego stroking, because the US is just a puppet in the hands of madman Netanyahu, doing whatever Israel wants. As is congress. It is the USrael country. Silly but Trump is a child, so at least works as venting. My congressman I already call Coward Cory
"I also wonder how effective would it be to play the same game Trump plays, the name calling and ego stroking"
The pro-Israel Democrats (probably a redundant statement) have already tried this. Chuck Schumer used the TACO line to shame Trump for not being hawkish enough in support of Israel and for trying to use diplomacy towards Iran.
To quote Chuck Schumer (via the magazine 'Current Affairs', a magazine which has promoted Mr. Nader here recently):
"When it comes to negotiating with the terrorist government of Iran, Trump’s all over the lot. One day, he sounds tough. The next day, he’s backing off. And now all of a sudden we find that [Steve] Witkoff and [Marco] Rubio are negotiating a secret side deal with Iran. What kind of bull is this? They’re going to sound tough in public and then have a side deal that lets Iran get away with everything? [...] If TACO Trump is already folding, the American public should know about it. No side deals." - https://www.currentaffairs.org/news/taco-trump-is-terrible-messaging
Rather than name calling, perhaps Trump's supporters, and the rest of us who aren't supporters of his, should be asking Trump and the Congressional Republicans why he's acting like Chuck Schumer and the Democrats.
Chas Freeman offers some admirable commentary in this interview. I am quite impressed by how Freeman diplomatically rejected Mr. Nader’s unfortunate interjection about the tax bill and the relevance of that to anything being discussed about foreign policy. It was a subtle rejection by Freeman, but with a profound impact. Hopefully fellow RNRH listeners were able to understand the significance of that. I certainly appreciate Freeman’s empirical approach to these matters.
As for the segment with Christian Sorensen, Sorensen does present some very pertinent information about the depth of the military-industrial complex in modern times. Sorensen is also correct about the environmental impact of militarization. Just the mere creation of all these tanks, drones, planes, and so forth is environmentally problematic even if those are never used in war. Unfortunately, his ‘taxpayer’ narratives are ones which works against ever solving those problems. Mr. Nader’s stubborn promotion of fiscal rectitude did not help matters and, unfortunately, it is really looking like an orientation towards fiscal rectitude (austerity) might be a requirement to be a guest on this program unless Mr. Nader is on vacation and someone else is hosting the show or maybe if one very subtly circumvents the problem as Chas Freeman did. Of course, few people are experienced diplomats like Freeman!
Sorensen seems to suggest that the military budget prevents public investment in, say, infrastructure. Well, that is incorrect, at least as it pertains to funding. In terms of coming up with the funding the US has no limitation, outside of self-imposed ones, to fund improving domestic conditions even if there is a growing military state. Tax revenue has nothing to do with this in a country with a floating currency as the US has. Where there could be a problem is on the real resource front. If many of our best and brightest engineers, project managers, trainers, and so forth are tied up in military endeavors, those resources are not available for civil needs. I can’t say for sure if this is a problem, but a hypothetical application of this is that if Boeing puts the bulk of their top resources into building military planes, only second-tier, or worse, resources are available for building commercial airplanes. Could that explain Boeing’s incompetence with recent commercial airplane products?
Sorensen explains the pervasiveness of the military-industrial complex, but the importance of that on the labor front is understated. Like with fossil fuel and privatized healthcare jobs, the public is not eager to dismantle a system which provides well-paying jobs to so many people in so many communities across the country. Merely cutting projects and unemploying people is hardly a political or economic winner. Furthermore, such an incomplete reform method could put military-industrial suppliers out of business which might cause readiness issues in the case of an actual military need. Again, this is hardly a political winner.
The best solution to this problem, as I see it at least, is to nationalize the military industries. Everyone employed in the military industry will maintain their jobs in their communities and maintain their salaries. Military production and R&D will be right-sized and labor not needed for military projects will work on public infrastructure equipment, of which there are many needs. If there is an emergency need to increase military production, the labor and production lines are ready for the task. Over time, younger people will be steered, through educational grants and so forth, into the fields of need in the public and private sectors and the size of nationalized military industry can be also right-sized. This would need the support of multiple administrations and Congresses so the public will have to buy into it to see the policy through the changes.
That said, while nationalizing the military industry will be expensive, there is no limit on what the US can spend to make this initiative a success. Maybe Sorensen knows this and was afraid of combating Mr. Nader’s pro-austerity stubbornness, but if not, Sorensen needs to be made aware of the actual functioning of the monetary system and what opportunities for reform that opens up which supports labor and legitimate national security rather than putting labor in conflict with reform. Sorensen made a suggestion that Congress tends to support things which brings jobs to their districts. Well, it is also true that Congress tends to not support things which are perceived as a threat to employment and security in their districts. With that in mind, there is no room for pro-austerity ‘pay for’ and ‘taxpayer’ type arguments. The reality of the situation is that austerity-driven arguments for reform are tacit arguments for maintaining the status quo and also help fuel the perception that those seeking reform are out-of-touch regarding national labor needs.
Ralph, I’m glad to be a subscriber and follower of yours! Thank you for speaking the truth about Netanyahu!
And of course, the military-industrial complex keeps on chugging along here in the US.
Charles Freeman has been a good regular guest on Napolitano's program "Judging Freedom": Along with Mr. Mearsheimer and many former military men and diplomats. Scott Ritter is not bad, there are many interviews with him on a weekly basis though he seems to throw out issues of morality and right and wrong in favor of raw power and expediency.
The bottom line is that Israel and now the US will be as dirty as they are inclined to be. Who after all pretends to be negotiating with diplomats and advisors and then kills them in cold blood?
No one should negotiate with Trump or Netanyahu, his lackeys and yes-men, he's evil, a spineless jellyfish and pure scum! Over and over again they've proven themselves to be killers, sociopaths, psychopaths and treacherous killers running a "Murder, Inc." in the Middle-East. It's time time the rest of the world wakes up to these zio-nazis who have no principles, who just pretend to be "patriots" or loyal to America when they are are biggest threat!
The section on “the business of war” with Christian Sorenson … wowser!
Thank you Ralph Nader Radio Show for a great hour of powerful panelists. Always insightful. Last week I amplified the information from Veterans For Peace. We each must do more to stop war from escalation. ✌️
Ralph, thank you for another great show. You are one of the last adults in the building; I've supported and voted for you every time you've run for President. You are, indeed, the best President we never elected. And as a life member of Veterans for Peace, I thank you for your ongoing support of the organization. All we can do is keep fighting...for peace.
In the real news, jail bird Bannon is back to running the United States government again,, the true signs of itiots is every time one speaks the other repeats .
Trump after the hour long lunch last week with Bannon, Trump said he would need to delay for two weeks the "big bomb", run on Iran until they could both confirm they were getting a bigger increase and cut in their federal government Ammo contracts. If circumstances in life are not to your making ? and you're forced to make a business decision don't you think you deserve a little more doe-ray-me $$$_for your efforts.,,,besides ,, what's a government for ?
As a Vietnam Veteran 66-69 i wonder how many Congressional and Federal Representatives will send their kids into harms way this time ?
Any bets ?
Good luck America have a great day my friends
First - It would be nice if you could clear up the audio of you guests - Ralph comes through pretty clearly, but your first guest does not .....
Anyway, was just watching the reports of the US attacks on 3 of Iran's nuclear facilities, Trump's press conference, and an analysis by Trita Parsi - Ralph, could you have him on your show ? He gives an excellent analysis as well ...
Am wondering if this strike now is a response to what (hopefully) was an increasing call for impeachment - figuring that when the US is at war, legally or otherwise, there is a tendency to "rally round the flag" and opposition is stifled ... this will be especially true if Iran hits US bases abroad and Americans are killed - I suspect Bibi is crossing his fingers that it happens ...
Too bad we didn't act on your case for impeachment months ago
(and too bad we didn't elect you for Pres. when you ran ...)
One more statistic: Israel is responsible for 72% or children dead and mutilated in the world in 2024
Now we are entering another war that we will lose. Because one thing this country does well is to cause destruction everywhere and still losing the wars it starts (or that USrael starts)
First - It would be nice if you could clear up the audio of you guests - Ralph comes through pretty clearly, but your first guest does not .....
Anyway, was just watching the reports of the US attacks on 3 of Iran's nuclear facilities, Trump's press conference, and an analysis by Trita Parsi - Ralph, could you have him on your show ? He gives an excellent analysis as well ...
Am wondering if this strike now is a response to what (hopefully) was an increasing call for impeachment - figuring that when the US is at war, legally or otherwise, there is a tendency to "rally round the flag" and opposition is stifled ... this will be especially true if Iran hits US bases abroad and Americans are killed - I suspect Bibi is crossing his fingers that it happens ...
Too bad we didn't act on your case for impeachment months ago
(and too bad we didn't elect you for Pres. when you ran ...)
Within a few hours of the Radio Hour airing Chas Freeman’s interview about the military-industrial complex and the Israel/Iran war, the US bombed Iran. The long march to abandoning the laws of war, especially those enacted following World War II, has reached new heights under the Trump regime. It’s not that Trump is more of a militarist than his predecessors, it’s the fact that Trump can act with abandon since any checks and balances on war have long ago been jettisoned by Congress. There’s not even a nod to Congress as there was with the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in 1964.
As I write at my website, https://thelastnewleftist.com/standing-out-for-peace/, I stood holding an anti-war sign just five days after over 2,000 people demonstrated in Great Barrington, MA in the “No Kings” rally. The problem now is that Trump has risen to such a dictatorial level that protest means very little to him.
Iran just bombed by US..please inform quickest way to view what senators approved this plan! If congress did not approve then I hope all senators write an impeachment letter for the president!!
Sign the petition. Congress needs to assert its sole power to go to war. Trump could be impeached on the basis of violating the constitutional authority of Congress. But most importantly now, this could stop escalation now of war.
https://act.citizen.org/page/84798/petition/1
NPR had segments this morning on "American isolationism" leading up to WWII, running sound clips from Charles Lindberg! He and Joe Kennedy worked hard to not have the US enter the conflict with Nazi Germany. Why would this be the focus for NPR now unless they want to get donations from AIPAC and their many lackeys in the US? I ran into a woman at the local post office who had just gotten back from Israel as they are sending their dual citizens out.
We're going to see an ugly publicity blitz trying to sell Americans on the US bombing Iran under false pretenses. This is much, much worse than 2002-3 and the lies behind the Iraq war; Israel and their AIPAC people have become much more aggressive targeting all media to sell their lies.
There is a connection between the MIC and government (one can add bankers, also) is the FED. Privatized control over currency (that's fiat money) can channel resources to who ever they choose. It this case, to corporations and bankers. The debt they carry, becomes their assets (and collect interest from) so, here we go. Who do we put the resources into? Our friends, they say, of course.
A solution that would help is a nationalized FED...maybe they could channel money towards us - the 90% of Americans that are struggling. This is allowable because it is the country that backs up the value of money that's regularly created by fiat. Ever heard of $ trillions of "quantitative easing"? Who guaranteed that?
There is a valid complaint in your thesis, but it is surrounded by contradictory and self-defeating misunderstandings. Hopefully you can accept this as constructive criticism. It is correct to say that current monetary policy, which is to say the interest rate, is greatly benefiting the wealthy. The combination of the interest rate and the national debt means that individuals and institutions with wealth are essentially receiving risk-free income from the federal government merely for already having money. The more money one has, the more risk-free income.
The entities benefiting from this are individuals, foreign governments, state/local governments, banks, other businesses, and non-profits. Universities and charities, for example, benefit greatly from this system especially as these types of investors are more likely to buy risk-free investment instruments such as federal bonds and treasury bills. Thus, when we look at who is driving this system of inequality, it would be a mistake to merely focus on wealthy individuals, businesses, and banks. Yes, they benefit greatly from it too, but institutions with far greater public trust are equally guilty in advocating for this unequal system and that cannot be ignored.
You recognize that the US uses a fiat currency. Good, you’re correct about that. What goes with the floating currency is that the issuance of debt instruments is entirely unnecessary. Good luck eliminating them as the institutions listed above will fight that with great rigor. Furthermore, with the floating currency, the national debt itself is not the problem, the problem is the use of monetary policy to try to achieve full employment (something the Fed no longer even tries to achieve in the neoliberal non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment era) and to control prices. Instead of relying on the Fed’s monetary policy for these things, Congress should be promoting full employment and price stability via fiscal policy...fiscal policy which will likely require an expansionary budget. This should be combined with a 0%/near 0% interest rate policy like what Japan has done for years now.
So, with all of this, I’m entirely open to reforming central bank operations in the US, but I cannot agree with your assertions about ‘privatized control’ of the currency. The Fed’s Federal Open Market Committee, including the Fed Chairman, primarily consists of Federal Reserve Board of Governors and those are all appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. If you don’t approve of current monetary policy, you should point your criticism at the past two presidents (Trump and Biden) and especially the Senate for appointing/re-appointing and confirming these governors. Furthermore, you should place your blame on the US House and Senate for relying on monetary policy rather than fiscal policy, which is entirely their domain.
I also don’t understand why quantitative easing is even mentioned in your thesis. QE is not of relevance to modern problems. By definition, QE requires a 0%/near 0% interest rate, something we clearly don’t have at the current time given the whole point about ‘free money for the wealthy’ mentioned earlier. If you’re talking about GFC era monetary policy, then I do agree that QE, which is a monetary policy measure, was a mistake because of everything I mentioned earlier about the problems of using monetary policy rather than fiscal policy. Beyond that, the asset swaps of reserve balances for securities that are QE, and QE is nothing more than that even though I think the public perceives it as being something else, are unnecessary as it is built on a misbelief that banks need reserves to lend. QE during the GFC might have provided the macroeconomically uninformed public with confidence in the banking system, but if so, that was only a case of ignorant policy being used to appease the ignorant public. I could say more about QE, but again, it is irrelevant to current issues.
The summary of all of this is that while the Fed can be criticized, the greater problem is Congress. An even greater problem above the Congressional problem is that the public is currently unequipped to make informed demands of Congress in the area of macroeconomics. Garbage in, garbage out. Banks, businesses, and large non-profits know how to advocate on their behalf and are motivated to do so. The public is largely inept on both counts, so it cannot be a surprise that Congress is strongly tilted towards those making demands of them.
Criticism taken, Klassic. Thanks. Most of my info was taken from The Lost Science Of Money by Zalenga, I believe. He mentioned "privatization" but it was mostly my opinion that nationalization of the FED might help. QE was just an example of Bankers helping Bankers IMO. They bailed out the corporations with their fiat money and the homeowners, for instance, were left in bankruptcy.
My take away is : whoever controls the currency, controls the politics.
I'm familiar with the works of Zarlenga and the Greenbackers. They had some good historical insights about the Dollar, but ultimately their conclusions were faulty. You're correct to say that banks were stabilized by the government and families were not. In reality, it was up to Congress, and the Executive Branch to a lesser extent, to stabilize economic conditions for the majority. Both entities failed the public miserably. If there is any silver lining, Covid was handled better and it was handled better because Congress was willing to extend an expansionary budget to offer benefits to the public. Sadly, much of that was curtailed rather than retained and adjusted to meet the needs of the post-Covid situation. Still, the Covid era showed how things could work, and that rather disproves what the Greenbackers were saying.
Furthermore, it was up to federal and state prosecutors to go after bankers who engaged in illegal tactics in the lead-up to the GFC, and they failed miserably to take any action at all. One bank, one!, was prosecuted in the US after the GFC, Abacus Federal Savings Bank, a relatively small bank serving the Chinese-American community. How is it with all the illegal and unethical behavior that happened in that era that they were the only ones who were prosecuted?
But, again, this was a case of politicians failing, it wasn't a failure of the currency or the central bank. Congress can always spend money into existence in ways that benefit the public, as they briefly did during Covid. The fact that Biden and now Trump have gone into social austerity really doesn't have anything to do with the Fed. If Congress passes an appropriation, for the public benefit or otherwise, it will be funded barring any artificial limitations outside of the central bank such as the entirely political debt ceiling. There is no doubt about that. Congress has not passes appropriations to benefit the public in recent years, and so there is nothing to fund. On the other hand, Congress has passed several appropriations of corporate welfare/militarization, as discussed in this RNRH episode.
To: Francesco DeSantis
Re: "In Case You Haven’t Heard"
Hi, Francesco, I'm guessing that independent investigative journalism requires broad sources of information and great discernment about what information can be trusted. Today I ran into this website, which seems to have the desired outcome of reporting daily to ordinary people about important events. I thought of you, since this might be one source you could consider, depending upon your views about its trustworthiness.
https://whatthefuckjusthappenedtoday.com/
As I listen to this the US already bombed Iran. Nothing new in American foreign policy, as all presidents did but Trump is more unhinged and ignorant, he believes that nuking a country will only affect said country, and not the whole planet, including us.
We are, in fact, not only the most dangerous country in the world, we are also the biggest bully, and the dumbest. While we destroy countries that don't want a war and that only are exercising their right to defend themselves, China comes in and rebuilds them. It doesn't matter the reasons, what people will remember is that one country destroys, the other rebuilds. And the support of a population might mask dictators in their countries. We are really dumb
I have not listened to the wrap up part of the show but I wish more time had been spent on North Korea and its capabilities, and willingness to join a conflict in any shape of form.
I also wonder how effective would it be to play the same game Trump plays, the name calling and ego stroking, because the US is just a puppet in the hands of madman Netanyahu, doing whatever Israel wants. As is congress. It is the USrael country. Silly but Trump is a child, so at least works as venting. My congressman I already call Coward Cory
"I also wonder how effective would it be to play the same game Trump plays, the name calling and ego stroking"
The pro-Israel Democrats (probably a redundant statement) have already tried this. Chuck Schumer used the TACO line to shame Trump for not being hawkish enough in support of Israel and for trying to use diplomacy towards Iran.
To quote Chuck Schumer (via the magazine 'Current Affairs', a magazine which has promoted Mr. Nader here recently):
"When it comes to negotiating with the terrorist government of Iran, Trump’s all over the lot. One day, he sounds tough. The next day, he’s backing off. And now all of a sudden we find that [Steve] Witkoff and [Marco] Rubio are negotiating a secret side deal with Iran. What kind of bull is this? They’re going to sound tough in public and then have a side deal that lets Iran get away with everything? [...] If TACO Trump is already folding, the American public should know about it. No side deals." - https://www.currentaffairs.org/news/taco-trump-is-terrible-messaging
Rather than name calling, perhaps Trump's supporters, and the rest of us who aren't supporters of his, should be asking Trump and the Congressional Republicans why he's acting like Chuck Schumer and the Democrats.
Chas Freeman offers some admirable commentary in this interview. I am quite impressed by how Freeman diplomatically rejected Mr. Nader’s unfortunate interjection about the tax bill and the relevance of that to anything being discussed about foreign policy. It was a subtle rejection by Freeman, but with a profound impact. Hopefully fellow RNRH listeners were able to understand the significance of that. I certainly appreciate Freeman’s empirical approach to these matters.
As for the segment with Christian Sorensen, Sorensen does present some very pertinent information about the depth of the military-industrial complex in modern times. Sorensen is also correct about the environmental impact of militarization. Just the mere creation of all these tanks, drones, planes, and so forth is environmentally problematic even if those are never used in war. Unfortunately, his ‘taxpayer’ narratives are ones which works against ever solving those problems. Mr. Nader’s stubborn promotion of fiscal rectitude did not help matters and, unfortunately, it is really looking like an orientation towards fiscal rectitude (austerity) might be a requirement to be a guest on this program unless Mr. Nader is on vacation and someone else is hosting the show or maybe if one very subtly circumvents the problem as Chas Freeman did. Of course, few people are experienced diplomats like Freeman!
Sorensen seems to suggest that the military budget prevents public investment in, say, infrastructure. Well, that is incorrect, at least as it pertains to funding. In terms of coming up with the funding the US has no limitation, outside of self-imposed ones, to fund improving domestic conditions even if there is a growing military state. Tax revenue has nothing to do with this in a country with a floating currency as the US has. Where there could be a problem is on the real resource front. If many of our best and brightest engineers, project managers, trainers, and so forth are tied up in military endeavors, those resources are not available for civil needs. I can’t say for sure if this is a problem, but a hypothetical application of this is that if Boeing puts the bulk of their top resources into building military planes, only second-tier, or worse, resources are available for building commercial airplanes. Could that explain Boeing’s incompetence with recent commercial airplane products?
Sorensen explains the pervasiveness of the military-industrial complex, but the importance of that on the labor front is understated. Like with fossil fuel and privatized healthcare jobs, the public is not eager to dismantle a system which provides well-paying jobs to so many people in so many communities across the country. Merely cutting projects and unemploying people is hardly a political or economic winner. Furthermore, such an incomplete reform method could put military-industrial suppliers out of business which might cause readiness issues in the case of an actual military need. Again, this is hardly a political winner.
The best solution to this problem, as I see it at least, is to nationalize the military industries. Everyone employed in the military industry will maintain their jobs in their communities and maintain their salaries. Military production and R&D will be right-sized and labor not needed for military projects will work on public infrastructure equipment, of which there are many needs. If there is an emergency need to increase military production, the labor and production lines are ready for the task. Over time, younger people will be steered, through educational grants and so forth, into the fields of need in the public and private sectors and the size of nationalized military industry can be also right-sized. This would need the support of multiple administrations and Congresses so the public will have to buy into it to see the policy through the changes.
That said, while nationalizing the military industry will be expensive, there is no limit on what the US can spend to make this initiative a success. Maybe Sorensen knows this and was afraid of combating Mr. Nader’s pro-austerity stubbornness, but if not, Sorensen needs to be made aware of the actual functioning of the monetary system and what opportunities for reform that opens up which supports labor and legitimate national security rather than putting labor in conflict with reform. Sorensen made a suggestion that Congress tends to support things which brings jobs to their districts. Well, it is also true that Congress tends to not support things which are perceived as a threat to employment and security in their districts. With that in mind, there is no room for pro-austerity ‘pay for’ and ‘taxpayer’ type arguments. The reality of the situation is that austerity-driven arguments for reform are tacit arguments for maintaining the status quo and also help fuel the perception that those seeking reform are out-of-touch regarding national labor needs.