If we are to meet the goals of the WEF (clearly and in repeated ways being population reduction), then what better way to get there than war. Ukraine was the pilot project. Clearly, it’s not about winning. That was never going to happen, and sadly the military industrial complex knew this. It is nothing to these psychopaths that over a million Ukrainians are dead, and they’re now apparently looking to call up women. You know, equality and all that. Gender is a spectrum, right?
One of the reasons the Fed was created, to pay the MIC for war. You can only squeeze so much out of the unwashed masses.
We highlighted before how the UK and Australia have begun preparing the nations for war with Russia. We had the Swedes do the same, and now the clog-wearers are getting in on the mania. The entire EU will soon be on this.
Now, I know what you’re thinking. The Brits? Ok, these are the same people who think Spam is cuisine, and that was AFTER ruling much of the world. Can you imagine walking into a ridiculously well stocked buffet hall with every imaginable cuisine available to you — Argentinian asado, Thai coconut curries, sushi, lasagna, garlic prawns — and you say, “No, I’ll have the Spam and beans, thanks.” So I’m going to just put the Brits and their decision making capabilities into the “questionable” bucket.
The same for the Ozzies. Why? Easy. These are the same people who choose to live with eight of the world’s 10 most dangerous animals, and I’m not even counting the politicians, so… But this is clearly a rollout. The coordination has all the hallmarks of the COVID scam rollout. And look, it’s all the same players. Next up Canada and New Zealand. I’d bet Nancy Pelosi’s stock portfolio on it.
From Newsweek article:
The commander of the Dutch army on Thursday called on the Netherlands to become better prepared for a potential future war with Russia.
“The Netherlands should be seriously afraid of war, and our society should prepare for it…Russia is getting stronger, ” Lieutenant General Martin Wijnen, commander of the Royal Netherlands Army, said in an interview with the newspaper De Telegraaf.
If we want to know what really limited the regime’s power during the Covid Panic, we must look to the “do-not-comply” activists who were willing to lose jobs and social status as a result of their opposition to the regime. It was primarily the people portrayed as crazed malcontents by the regime who stood between the regime and the full use of its power. The US constitution and the Bill of Rights played virtually no role in limiting the state’s power during the emergency.
This month marks the fourth anniversary of one of the most disastrous assaults on human rights in American history. It was on March 16, 2020 that the President Trump issued “guidelines” for “15 days to slow the spread” which stated that “Governors of states with evidence of community transmission should close schools in affected and surrounding areas.” The administration instructed all members of the public to “listen to and follow the directions of your state and local authorities.”
It was at this time that an American president, for the first time in American history, introduced the idea that it was possible—and perfectly legal—for government institutions to “close down” the economy by forcibly shutting, en masse, countless businesses, schools, and churches. Trump stated repeatedly in press conferences that it was up to government officials to decide “if we open up.” It quickly became standard procedure for health bureaucrats, governors, and media figures to casually speak of “closing the economy” or “opening up” as if we were talking about a coffee shop deciding on closing time.
Meanwhile, across the country, local law enforcement officers willingly worked to arrest or harass business owners, worshipers at church, soccer moms at the park, and anyone else with the temerity to venture outdoors for activities not approved by the ruling class.
The small minority of Americans that remained committed to human rights and private property soon discovered how powerless they really are. Many dissenters were dismayed by a lack of action from the courts, and how elected officials were apparently unwilling or unable to rein in the vast new powers of “health” officials. Was there nothing that could limit the state’s power? This was confusing for many people because many have been (and remain) enamored of the idea that written constitutions limit state power when it matters most.
Many dissenters learned a valuable lesson from the experience, however: during the Covid Panic of 2020 and 2021, it became abundantly clear how little constitutional government and the so-called “rule of law” actually limit a regime’s power in times of perceived emergency. It is during emergencies, in fact, when we learn who really holds political power, and how ineffective are constitutional measures designed to limit it.
True Power Is Revealed by Emergencies
As the Covid Panic revealed to us, the real, de facto ruling class is the executive state which effortlessly ruled by decree during the covid crisis. This ruling clique—an oligarchy of governors, academic “experts,” media billionaires, and countless nameless and faceless unelected bureaucrats—has illustrated in recent years how irrelevant elected lawmakers can be to the use of political power.
This problem is not new, nor have scholars only recently noticed it. Libertarian political scientists Carlo Lottieri and Marco Bassani have noted that the problem of emergency power has long been a concern for radical free-market liberals, especially those of the Italian school of elitism. These scholars recognized that political power in times of emergencies is exercised by individual persons who are unconcerned with abstract limits on their power. This fact is fundamentally at odds with the abstractions of the constitutionalists who imagine that the state monopoly on coercion can be rendered relatively harmless via written constitutions. That is, the constitutionalists believe the written law will somehow restrain the ruling class, even in emergencies.
In practice, however, this doesn’t happen. Lottieri and Bassani explain what the constitutionalists get wrong:
The constitutionalist claim to justify the State’s monopoly of violence has been challenged directly by the radical libertarian tradition (Molinari) and by individualist anarchists (such as Lysander Spooner). However, an important role in bringing the modern State into perspective has also been played by European political realism and, in particular, by Carl Schmitt and the Italian elitist scholars (Gaetano Mosca and Vilfredo Pareto).
Schmitt’s importance rests very much on his intuition that in every State there is first a political dimension and then a decision, which cannot be obscured by the so-called “impersonality” of law and the “super-individuality” of orders. Beyond the apparent abstraction of the State … Schmitt uncovered choices, interests, and, in short, people that impose their will on others.
The constitutional thought of classical and contemporary liberalism has constantly tried to neutralize politics, but it has failed. … [T]he real sovereign is the political group that has the final decision about the critical situation, in the state of emergency. The locus of sovereignty thus becomes the political entity (which in our time is the State), and the decision on the state of emergency is the ultimate test of sovereignty. Legal positivism tried hard to refute the importance of this notion, but critical decision making is paramount in the development of human relations.
Lottieri further notes that the fantasy of a neutral regime constrained by mere legal barriers is “simply impossible.” Yet, the naive view has often made the state appear less dangerous and has convinced many to accept the state’s monopoly of violence.
This is illustrated in the fact that the efforts to implement lockdowns in the United States were thoroughly bipartisan. Opposition to lockdowns was virtually nonexistent within regime institutions themselves. The Trump administration, the CDC, the legacy media, social media, state medical boards, state governors, and local health officials were all more or less in lockstep in March and April 2020.
Free association means allowing gay people to lead gay lifestyles, but it also means allowing others to disassociate with them.
They are in effect asking the government to use violence of the sort previously employed against them at Stonewall, and for many decades before that time, against their present victims.
One of the very, very high points in the history of the gay community, from the libertarian point of view, was their fight against the police in New York City in 1969. This was the Stonewall riots, and the homosexuals and their supporters were entirely in the right.
Up until that time, the police would raid bars, pubs, bathhouses, etc., frequented by homosexuals. They would do so with impunity, with little opposition from gay men or from anyone else for that matter. But upon this occasion, they were met with fierce resistance and the relationship between these two groups of young men was never again the same. (Yes, apart from sexual preferences, there was not that much difference between the two; both were young men, for example).
Why did the police continually raid establishments patronized by this group of people? That was because it was illegal for consenting adults of the same gender to have sexual relationships with one another. These places were used by members of this community to meet each other for, among other purposes, such illegal relationships. This sounds horribly out of date to the modern ear, but in some Muslim and African countries such behavior is still illegal, and often severely punished.
The libertarian perspective is clear as a bell on this issue. No consensual adult behavior, whatsoever, should be banned by law. The gays at Stonewall were entirely within their rights, and the police, the law to the contrary notwithstanding, entirely in the wrong. (The Nuremberg trials established the justification of ex post facto law; just because an enactment was on the books does not necessarily render it justified.).
One might think, then, that homosexuals, at least a large percentage of them, would be libertarians. They were then, in 1969, or at least they were acting in a manner compatible with this philosophy. Alas, if it were ever the case, it is far from being true nowadays.
From defending their rights to freely associate with one another for mutually agreeable purposes, they have in the modern era moved to violate the rights of other people.
For example, many gay people now insist that others have a legal obligation to not only refrain from violating their rights by preventing their associations, but to actively cooperate with them in promoting their lifestyles. Thus, they are now willing to coerce bakers, florists, and photographers to cooperate with them in promoting their marriages with each other. Gays have filed lawsuits in court the purpose of which was to force others (mostly devout Christians) to violate their own principles.
Are these gay people acting in a manner compatible with libertarianism in doing so? Of course not. They are in effect asking the government to use violence of the sort previously employed against them at Stonewall, and for many decades before that time, against their present victims.
Dayspring maintains “sex-separated bathrooms and dress codes for boys and girls based on their biological differences and cannot agree to use any child or employee’s ‘preferred’ pronouns that do not correspond to biological sex.”
Religious organizations that accept government funds are naïve and foolish to think that there won’t be or shouldn’t be any strings attached to the receipt of those funds.
The state of California has agreed to pay a Christian preschool over $30,000, and its attorneys $160,000, as part of the settlement of a lawsuit filed by the school against the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) over the school’s biblical beliefs on gender and sexuality.
The Church of Compassion in El Cajon, California, owns and operates the Dayspring Learning Center preschool and daycare program. It “maintains biblically orthodox religious beliefs and practices regarding human sexuality, as most Christian churches have faithfully maintained for the past two thousand years.” Dayspring teachers are required to subscribe to a statement of faith. Parents of children who attend the school are provided with a handbook which includes the school’s articles of faith and mission statement. Dayspring maintains “sex-separated bathrooms and dress codes for boys and girls based on their biological differences and cannot agree to use any child or employee’s ‘preferred’ pronouns that do not correspond to biological sex.” The church and school “only hire those who share and live out their religious beliefs, including their beliefs about human sexuality.”
There is certainly nothing wrong with any of this. But herein lies the problem: the school receives federal funds for feeding children.
Approximately 40 percent of the students qualify for free meals under the Child and Adult Care Food Program—“a federal program that provides reimbursements for nutritious meals and snacks to eligible children and adults who are enrolled for care at participating child care centers, day care homes, and adult day care centers.” The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) administers the program nationwide, and provides funding to California to administer the program via the CDSS.
The church and school participated in the Food Program for twenty years, receiving around $3,500-$4,500 a month to help feed needy students. To participate, “the Church had to submit an annual application which includes signing Civil Rights Compliance paperwork each year.” Beginning in 2022, after the Biden administration redefined “sex” in Title IX of the Civil Rights Act to include sexual orientation and gender identity, the USDA began requiring participating schools to post new “And Justice for All” posters and adopt new nondiscrimination statements saying: “In accordance with Federal law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, this institution is prohibited from discriminating on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex (including gender identity and sexual orientation), age, disability, reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity.”
There has been a decline in recruitment for the military as of late, meaning that there likely will be a greater reliance on National Guard servicemen as time goes on.
Super Tuesday saw Donald Trump sweep all possible state delegates except for the state of Vermont. However, hovering just below the surface were a series of propositions that were voted on by the Texas Republican Party. Various propositions touched on topics of gold as legal tender, border security, and school choice, but the most interesting was Proposition 6. Proposition 6 reads as follows: “The Texas Legislature should prohibit the deployment of the Texas National Guard to a foreign conflict unless Congress first formally declares war. YES or NO.”
The Texas GOP voters voted over 84% in favor of this proposition that would halt the national guard from being deployed abroad. The scale is astonishing as well, as 84% is near 1.9 million Texans. This proposition is commonly called “Defend the Guard” legislation.
This is a part of a growing trend of states exerting their influence over their National Guards. Those interested in peace are particularly interested in this mission, to prevent further men and women being deployed overseas for undeclared wars.
The Army National Guard is commonly deployed overseas to serve in overseas theaters like Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan. In Operation Iraqi Freedom alone, The Washington Postreports 482 National Guard members that were killed abroad. The Council on Foreign Relations goes further to call the role of the National Guard “vital” as over 1 million guardsmen have deployed overseas to serve.
The US used artificial intelligence to identify targets hit by air strikes in the Middle East this month, a defense official said, revealinggrowing military use of the technology for combat… Machine learning algorithms that can teach themselves to identify objects helped to narrow down targets for more than 85 US air strikes on Feb. 2…
The U.S. formally admitting to using AI to target human beings was a first of sorts, but Google’s decision to release a moronic image generator that mass-produces black Popes and Chinese founding fathers was the story that garnered the ink and outrage. The irony is the military tale is equally frightening, and related in unsettling ways:
Bloomberg quoted Schuyler Moore, Chief Technology Officer for U.S. Central Command. She described using AI to identify bombing targets in Iraq and Syria, in apparent retaliation for a January 28th attack in Jordan that killed three U.S. troops and injured 34. According to Moore, it was last year’s Hamas attack that sent the Pentagon over the edge into a willingness to deploy Project Maven, in which AI helps the military identify targets using data from satellites, drones, and other sources.
“October 7th, everything changed,” she said. “We immediately shifted into high gear and a much higher operational tempo than we had previously.”
The idea that the U.S. was so emotionally overcome on October 7th that it had to activate Project Maven seems bizarre at best. The Pentagon has boasted for years about deploying AI, from sending Switchblade drones to Ukraine that are “capable of identifying targets using algorithms,” to the “Replicator” initiative launched with a goal of hitting “1000 targets in 24 hours,” to talks of deploying a “Vast AI Fleet” to counter alleged Chinese AI capability. Nonetheless, it’s rare for someone like Moore to come out and announce that a series of recent air strikes were picked at least in part by algorithms that “teach themselves to identify” objects.
Project Maven made headlines in 2018 when, in a rare (but temporary) attack of conscience, Google executives announced they would not renew the firm’s first major Pentagon contract. 4,000 employees signed a group letter that seems quaint now, claiming building technology to assist the U.S. government in “military surveillance” was “not acceptable.” Employees implored CEO Sundar Pichai to see that “Google’s unique history, its motto Don’t Be Evil, and its direct reach into the lives of billions of users set it apart.”
But the firm’s kvetching about Don’t Be Evil and squeamishness about cooperating with the Pentagon didn’t last long. It soon began bidding for more DoD work and won a contract to provide cloud security for the Defense Innovation Board and a piece of a multibillion-dollar CIA cloud contract, among other things. Six years after its employee letter denouncing surveillance/targeting the military as “unacceptable,” Alphabet chief and former Google CEO Eric Schmidt chairs the Defense Innovation Board, and through efforts like Project Nimbus Google is essentially helping military forces like Israel’s IDF develop their own AI programs, as one former exec puts it.
The military dresses up justification for programs like Maven in many ways, but if you read between the lines of its own reports, the Pentagon is essentially chasing its own data tail. The sheer quantity of data the armed forces began generating after 9/11 through raids of homes (in Iraq, by the hundreds) and programs like full-motion video (FMV) from drones overwhelmed human analysis. As General Richard Clarke and Fletcher professor Richard Schultz put it, in an essay about Project Maven for West Point’s Modern War Institute:
[Drones] “sent back over 327,000 hours (or 37 years) of FMV footage.” By 2017, it was estimated for that year that the video US Central Command collected could amount to “325,000 feature films [approximately 700,000 hours or eighty years].”
The authors added the “intelligence simply became snowed under by data,” which to them meant “too much real-time intelligence was not being exploited.” This led to the second point: as Google’s former CEO Schmidt put it in 2020, when commenting on the firm’s by-then-fully-revived partnership with the Pentagon, “The way to understand the military is that soldiers spend a great deal of time looking at screens.”
Believing this was not an optimal use of soldier time, executives like Schmidt and military brass began pushing for more automated analysis. Even though early AI programs were “rudimentary with many false detections,” with accuracy “only around 50 percent” and even “the difference between men, women, and children” proving challenging, they plowed ahead.
Without disclosing how accuracy has improved since Maven’s early days, Schultz and Clarke explained the military is now planning a “range of AI/ML applications” to drive “increased efficiency, cost savings, and lethality,” and a larger goal:
To prepare DoD as an institution for future wars—a transformation from a hardware-centric organization to one in which AI and ML software provides timely, relevant mission-oriented data to enable intelligence-driven decisions at speed and scale.
This plan, like so many other things that emerge from Pentagon bureaucracy, is a massive self-licking ice cream cone.
Defense leaders first push to make and deploy ever-increasing quantities of flying data-gathering machines, which in turn film gazillions of feature films per year worth of surveillance. As the digital haul from the robot fleet grows, military leaders claim they’re forced to finance AI programs that can identify the things worth shooting at in these mountains of footage, to avoid the horror of opportunities “not being exploited.” This has the advantage of being self-fulfilling in its logic: as we shoot at more targets, we create more “exploding insurgencies,” as Clarke and Schultz put it, in turn creating more targets, and on and on.
“Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as a means of settling international disputes.”
Very little is said about how Article Nine could make Japan a leader in security because Japan is positioned to make real security threats like climate change, the collapse of biodiversity, pollution, information warfare, and class warfare, the center of its security policy to a degree that other nations are not capable of.
It is one of the great ironies of history that at the very moment the United States plunges deeper and deeper into war hysteria, that our politicians and government officials are possessed by the demons of complete annihilation and endless expansion, that falsehood and hypocrisy wrap their tentacles around the arms and legs of public intellectuals, at the very moment that it becomes impossible in Washington DC to talk about any subject that is not tied to war, at the very moment that the entire United States is being transformed into a military economy—one wherein all critical decisions are made by military contractors, privatized police, prisons, and for-profit intelligence (and at the top, the militarized private equity firms who pull the strings) it is a terrible and comic irony that we, of all the nations of the Earth, should be pressuring Japan to give up its commitment to oppose militarism as expressed in the Japanese constitution and to join us, as junior partners, in our suicide march towards world war and nuclear holocaust.
We have things so completely backwards. The United States does not have any need to, let alone have any right to, pressure Japan to give up its peace constitution, or to stir up the desires for fortune latent in Tokyo’s military contractors. We know that some Japanese are already itching for an excuse to prepare for war, and to destroy Japanese civil society by creating a military economy as a means of bringing even more wealth and power to the few.
No! It is the United States that needs a peace constitution, and it needs it right now.
We failed to return to a peace economy after the Second World War and the institutional and cultural cancer resulting from an economy stimulated by, and propped up by, war, has metastasized and spread throughout the entire society so that war is everywhere, from children’s toys to parking spaces for veterans, to glowing tributes by politicians to those who kill in blind obedience to the state.
We need now an institutional, intellectual, and spiritual commitment to an economy and a society that is founded in peace, that is committed to peace, and that rewards citizens for their constructive economic contributions to the wellbeing of their families, their neighborhoods, their regions, their country, and to the entire Earth.
I do speak these words lightly. And I speak them as someone who has spent decades thinking about, and writing about, security and conflict. But the truth must be spoken, and we do not have long before the great reckoning.
Maybe there are those who can justify a society that is addicted to war, to destruction, and to endless expansion. That is not my job.
War is not caused by a few bad apples, or a lack of maturity among political leaders. It is the product of an economic system that demands consumption and praises growth. For war is the greatest force for consumption and growth—until, of course, it leaves everything in ruins.
War is a product of a concept of economics, detached from morality and humanity, that has no concern for the long-term and that focuses on returns for the rich calculated over weeks and months, an inhuman economics wherein the long-term wellbeing of the citizens of the Earth is irrelevant.
This speculation-driven casino economy has pushed overproduction across the country which forces us to wrap everything in plastic so as to keep profits flowing to petroleum companies, and to prepare for war because the only factories left in America are those making military parts. Yes, most constructive factories have been moved overseas as part of the great “free trade” fraud perpetrated by the corporate parties.
The Japanese Constitution
Let us take a look at article nine of the Japanese constitution, that part of Japan’s post-war legacy that is so offensive to the American politicians and bureaucrats who have become the slaves of military contractors, and that is also repulsive to the bankers behind the stage who benefit from war preparations in Asia.
Article nine is also a rallying cry for Japanese militarists who wish to create a new empire and for well-paid security consultants deployed in Japan to promote expensive fighter planes that cannot even take off and land, missile defense systems that cannot stop anything, but who are unconcerned by the fact that Japan cannot provide its own food, that its water is being slowly poisoned with chemicals from factories and military bases, or that its nuclear power plants are sitting targets just waiting for an enemy attack.
Article nine states,
“Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as a means of settling international disputes.”
Article nine is invaluable in its intentions and spirit and it has had a positive impact around the world, even as its meaning has been diluted, then distorted, and then eviscerated though shifts in Japanese policy, starting with the establishment of the “Self-Defense Forces,” followed by the integration of the Japanese economy into the American war economy during the Korean War, and culminating in the false concept of “collective security,” a fig leaf for aggressive military expansionism and entry into the international arms market.
At the same time, we must recognize that there are problems with Article Nine.
First, the text suggests that Japan must renounce war as an idealistic aspiration for “international peace based on justice and order,” rather than as a necessity in an age in which we are faced with the choice between “hegemony and survival,” as Noam Chomsky famously put it.
The absence of a concrete articulation of the logic behind renouncing war for a practical goal, not only for the abstract ideals of justice, has generated unending criticism holding that the Japanese constitution is overly idealistic and even a violation of Japan’s sovereign rights.
It will be critical in future debates on security policy to explain how Japan’s position on the use of war is realistic and strategic, and how it is unmistakably in the long-term interests of the Japanese and the international community.
It is also critical that Japanese, and Americans, challenge the assumptions underlying American security policy. Failure to do so, that is to merely assume that somehow Japan is protected by the United States while it enjoys its “peace constitution” encourages criticisms in the United States that Japan is a free rider, and complaints in Japan that Japan has become an American colony. That is to say that both the United States and Japan must express a similar commitment to peace.
In addition, article nine employs the terms “war” and “nation” as if they are static, unchanging, objects whose parameters are clear and that do not shift or evolve over time.
The essential nature of war does not change; the means by which war is waged, and the subjects in war, are constantly evolving. It is still true that guns, tanks, and fighter planes are used to wage war. Yet war today extends into diverse fields and takes place in visible and invisible forms at multiple levels. The media, entertainment, and AI have been weaponized and used to dumb down and render the population passive. This is not technology for a more convenient life, but rather another form of war.
Nano technologies are employed to invisibly attack the functions of the body, or to alter the environment. New biotechnology weapons can render victims ill, or incapacitated. The same for electromagnetic radiation, infrared radiation, and a host of other new weapons, or potential weapons.
Information warfare similarly is employed to create false narratives that confuse citizens as part of a divide and conquer strategy.
These forms of war fall outside of the narrow definition of “war” put forth in Article Nine, even though these forms of war are being conducted today in a more devastating manner than traditional warfare.
Similarly, the concept of “nation” has shifted so radically as to demand significant revision of the concept of war. War today is not conducted just between nations, but also between ethnic groups, between multinational corporations, and increasingly between classes. The driving force behind the current global war is a class war between the super-rich and everyone else, that it to say a war that goes beyond the assumptions of Article Nine.
We are confronted by a brave new world stretching to the horizon in which national borders are only for little people, in which the nation state exists only for television broadcasts and United Nations events, in which the real decisions behind the war against humanity are made by hidden financial powers who manipulate all the governments of the world, presenting us with pathetic puppets who stumble through a tragically amusing diplomatic show that is put on for the working man and women by private equity.
Sadly, the current discussion of Article Nine of Japan’s constitution revolves around how to remove it, or to misinterpret it, so as to transform Japan into a nation that wages war, and that will have the third largest military in the world.
Very little is said about how Article Nine could make Japan a leader in security because Japan is positioned to make real security threats like climate change, the collapse of biodiversity, pollution, information warfare, and class warfare, the center of its security policy to a degree that other nations are not capable of.
This the introduction of the latest Senator Casey Update. He has my best interests at heart.
“Like most Americans, you’ve probably noticed that your budget is being stretched thinner these days. Even as inflation has cooled, the prices of everyday items are still high. Big corporations want you to believe that it’s because of rising costs, but there’s something else going on, something I call greedflation.
Greedflation is a practice where corporations raise prices faster than the rate of inflation to increase their own profits. And it’s happening everywhere.
From groceries and paper goods to cleaning supplies and entertainment, nearly every category of your family’s budget has likely seen price increases due to greedflation. In 2021 and 2022, the average family in Pennsylvania spent thousands more a year due to greedflation, while at the same time corporations were raking in record profits. In fact, while inflation rose by 14% between mid-2020 and mid-2022, corporate profits rose by 74% – five times as much as inflation.
I’ve been calling out corporate greedflation and, late last year, I released my first report on this issue.Here’s an overview:”
The bottom line of the update is faceless, unelected, career bureaucrats will be deciding who is making too much, how much is too much and the penalties which in the end will be born by the public.
Of course this requires more bureaucracy, staff, buildings, copiers for implementing new regulations in every state to save us money and save us from ourselves. All the things government does best.
One of the more memorable statements by George Will is corporations are not tax payers (nor penalty payers), they are tax collectors. Taxes and penalties are ultimately costs of doing business, if the company is still in business.
Prices are going up, mainly due to government (which includes Casey) but the market solution is the best solution. The consumer should decide to buy or not and whom to buy from or not. Casey uses soft drink company profits as an example. There is a plethora of drink brands and prices to choose from. We don’t need the government to mess up that business any more than it already is.
It is the market, i.e. you and I, who should best determine which companies survive and which don’t.
“The year 2022 did see some inflationary events like the war in Ukraine and various supply
chain disruptions for micro processing chips, lumber and other goods.”
Lumber and tariffs. A brilliant example of government skewering the public for the benefit of corporate campaign contributors.
Tariffs raise cheap import prices so far above the price of domestic suppliers that the domestic suppliers can raise their prices to almost that of imports. Screw you!
Ukraine! Swiss and Spanish villa prices have “inflated” thanks to US taxpayer supplied cash infusions to foreign government officials.
“Other analysts have reached similar conclusions as the Federal Reserve research and our
report, finding that increased corporate profits comprise a large portion of increased
inflation in the post-pandemic period. These analysts include the President of the European
Central Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Economic Policy Institute (EPI),
and Roosevelt Institute, among others.”
The last place I would look for accurate/unbiased information is the Fed, central banks and government foreign aid (bribery) institutions.
Casey neatly sidesteps the main causes by far of inflation. Wild welfare-warfare government spending and money printing by the Federal Reserve to cover those costs.
If Casey was serious about inflation he would:
Admit government malfeasance is the main culprit
Demand a balanced budget (unfortunately that requires a non-interventionist foreign policy and reduced campaign contributions, a non-starter)
Demand an audit and elimination of the Federal Reserve
Resignation from public life for being part of the government wrecking ball on American life.
MCViewPoint 