That Bretton Woods was called a gold standard was an exercise in obfuscation. It happened for the same reason that NAFTA was called free trade. The state has long used the language of the market economy as a plow to push through its opposite.
Forcing one person to take medication or vaccines for the benefit of another person is directly opposed to basic notions of self-ownership and human rights.
Reinstating the mark, a peaceful act by a sovereign country, would create a cascade of monetary reform throughout the world. Europe's trading partners would find the cost of necessary imports rising in terms of their local currencies, forcing them to adopt fiscal and monetary responsibility.
For conservative populists, Wall Street now is the Washington establishment, indistinguishable from the oligarchs of Silicon Valley; Washington, DC; and the New York Times.
Populist parties have yet to score definitive victories in either the US or in Europe. But these groups aren't going away, either.
In an unhampered market, there is no such thing as "excess" consumption of imports. But thanks to the creation of monopoly banks like the Bank of North America, an inflationary expansion of bank credit led to an artificial expansion of imports.
Today would have been Burt Blumert's ninety-second birthday
There are plenty of sound reasons to oppose government minimum wage laws, but there is one objection making the rounds that is based on bad economics and should be avoided, and that’s the "businesses will pass on the costs to consumers" objection.
What works in a clinical setting may have totally different outcomes when applied as a matter of "public health." Indeed, one-size-fits-all public health measures can often lead to unintended and unwanted results.
The claim that the US needs an immense and varied nuclear arsenal "does serve one purpose: it keeps military budgets wondrously high."
