In the eyes of many people, the Federal Reserve (Fed) is an indispensable institution. We are told it supports growth and employment, fends off the negative shocks, and fights inflation. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The Fed’s fiat money regime is economically and socially highly destructive — causing far-reaching societal and political consequences that extend beyond what most people would imagine.

[This piece has been updated and adapted from William D. Hartung’s “Nuclear Politics” in Sleepwalking to Armageddon: The Threat of Nuclear Annihilation, edited by Helen Caldicott and just published by the New Press.]

Lately, there has been a buzz of stories attempting to discredit one form of government philosophy over another as being more dangerous. Some organizations are pointing to the horrors of Communism. Others are claiming that the greatest threat to humanity is Fascism.

People often speak of tax cuts using topsy-turvy lingo like this quotation from the Committee for a Responsible Budget: “the country currently spends $1.6 trillion per year on tax breaks.” Or, as The Hill claims: “GOP tax plan would cost $2.4 trillion.” Statements like these make it sound like a tax cut is something you have to buy — as in, you search Amazon.com for

Why do some conservatives and libertarians want some Americans to pay more in taxes?

Oh, they don’t actually come out and say that. Then they would sound like Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton. 

President Trump announced last week that he was returning North Korea to the US list of “state sponsors of terrorism” after having been off the list for the past nine years. Americans may wonder what dramatic event led the US president to re-designate North Korea as a terrorism-sponsoring nation. Has Pyongyang been found guilty of some spectacular terrorist attack overseas or perhaps of plotting to overthrow another country by force? No, that is not the case.

Last week, the fall of Robert Mugabe’s regime made headlines across the world, and was greeted with relief and hope by international commentators as well as Zimbabweans. Overall, the general feeling was that of a new beginning, long awaited in a country that had been stuck for four decades under rampant inflation, corruption, and an oppressive rule. There seemed to be little doubt, given how the news was presented, that this is a pivotal and far-reaching transformation for this African nation.

Gentrification is the new monster to be fought. The term already has such bad press, that almost no one is willing to say anything in its favor — defending gentrification and defending neoliberalism are now almost interchangeable.

We won’t know till the end of this cycle how much mal-investment has occurred under the great monetary inflation which started in 2010. We may already suspect, though, that much of this will be in “big tech” and related fields. Any final reckoning should also include wider political and socio-economic damage not included in a narrow economic calculus.