Crime Against Humanity: Pensée Unique in Economics, 65

Among the neoclassical tenets that Wil Coyote concluded describe the world of cartoons, not that of the economy, the Austrian School has as its pet dogma that of maximum capacity utilisation; needless to say, this is fully backed by the concealment of the Holy Grail: the roles of money and banks with their usurpation of monetary sovereignty. The result of such carefully selected premises is that it was the government the one who creates the money, and therefore it would be automatically guilty of creating inflation for any expansionary policy. And we now know that the increase of the circulating money is the sole real cause of expansion, we know that expansionary policy is not inflationary because capacity utilisation is hardly maximum, and we also know that any expansionary policy on debt money sinks us all into an infinite debt trap to the moneypulators because it is on debt money, not because it is expansionary. The solution they propose to curb such inflationist original sin of the government is the return to the Gold Standard. And as there is too little gold to meet the monetary needs of the economy, we can deduce that such proposal aims at a Gold Standard cycle to the advantage of some moneypulators – just like the first time, when goldsmiths invented the fractional reserve fraud and became bankers. In a word, the purpose of the Austrian School is delegitimising the government as holder of monetary sovereignty, and it appears quite clear that the beneficiaries are those legitimised therefrom – ironically, but obviously, the real culprits of inflation: moneypulators.
As the title of the cited article points out, the originator of the self−styled Modern Money Theory is a banker who claims to protect us from the very source of his fortune, a quintessential conflict of interest which at the very least suggests particular attention. He claims that it is all very well to go on purchasing actual products with borrowed money ad infinitum because in so doing one acquires real products in exchange for nothing, and that’s a good thing. Looks just like a banker suggesting to operate as he does, getting something for nothing, in a way incidentally known as international seigniorage, or rather as imperialism, with only a small difference: doing so on his debt money. Setting aside how ethical it is to get something for nothing, that’d be a nice fairy tale, if it wasn’t for the negligible detail sometimes called “redde rationem”, or the day of reckoning. Because the conflict of interest of its originator is not the only key factor “accidentally” omitted; needless to say, here too there isn’t a trace of the Holy Grail of money and banks with their usurpation of monetary sovereignty. The solution they propose is a reform, and the article goes into detail to point out how all the facets of such “reform” are aimed solely at favouring the moneypulators; suffice here to summarise it all by saying that, given the now clear basic premises, we now know well what an infinite debt trap is.