A Little Creative Misdirection and Misunderstanding

    At first glance, it sounds like another instance of President Trump standing up for the little guy.  That’s okay, we all need a little help, and the smaller we are, the more we need someone with immense power to take up for us and give all those fat cats and oppressors of the poor and downtrodden what-for and tell them where they get off.

Alan Greenspan and the Ownership Divide

The recent passing of Alan Greenspan triggered a moment or two of reflection regarding his position on the Just Third Way of Economic Personalism, particularly the recommended monetary reforms which have been covered at some length on this blog.  Principally (at least so far as this discussion is concerned) this involves the realization — an integral feature of binary economics — that savings (essential for new capital investment) — can and do consist of both past reductions in consumption and future increases in production.

Economic Doubletalk, I: The Question

Recently a CESJ stalwart decided to ask “Claude” a question.  Actually, this particular individual has been asking Claude a lot of questions, but the answer to this particular question was one we could use to create a blog posting without first having to think what to write about.

How to Get Out of (National) Debt

The U.S. National Debt is now climbing upwards of $39 trillion . . . although it’s not impossible to find some experts who claim the figure is more like $100 trillion due to unbooked estimates for Social Security and Medicare.  Of course, whether we’re talking $39 trillion or $100 trillion — yes, that’s trillion — it’s in the realm of the surreal, not the real.  That’s a lot of money.

That Krazy Keynesian Math II, the Quantity Theory of Money

In the previous posting on this subject, we looked at the shaky moral foundation of Keynesian theory.  This consists of Keynes’s own assertion that his system would only work if we lie to ourselves for at least a century.  We also looked at the somewhat distorted and distorting concept of productivity as understood in economics and public policy.  In contrast, we posed Louis Kelso’s concept of productiveness, the free market-determined value each factor contributes to the overall production process.

That Krazy Keynesian Math I, Prevarication and Productiveness

 To some people, economics is not merely the dismal science (thanks to the Reverend Thomas Malthus), but also the incomprehensible science . . . with increasing numbers of potential and former votaries insisting it is no longer a science, if it ever was.  Of course, followers of Keynes who always knew the Master’s economics were a religion and not a science remain solidly entrenched in their faith . . . despite the lack of a solid moral or even rational foundation.

Inflation Indexing and the EDA

    An article in last week’s Yahoo! Finance, “Inflation slowed in January as consumer prices rise 2.4% over prior year to start 2026,” noted the rate of inflation had, well, slowed in January.  Of course, there is the small issue that there are at least two different kinds of inflation, cost-push and demand-pull.

Kelso v. Keynes on Money

As we saw in the previous posting on this subject, many people seem to confuse God and money, as well as religion and finance.  This, in the modern age suffused with what people like Mortimer J. Adler have delicately referred to as “philosophical mistakes,” is a disaster, whether the result of Belloc’s purported accusation of “knavish imbecility,” unthinking self-interest, or deliberate and considered villainy.

How to Understand Money

    In the introduction to one of his satiric songs written for the late, great show That Was the Week That Was (“TW3”) performed and recorded at the late, great “Hungry I” nightclub in San Francisco (the one that closed in 1970, not the strip club that replaced it . . . sort of), the late, great Tom Lehrer made the obvious and characteristic (“Seldom has any point to make except the obvious”) ironic comment that his Christmas Carol celebrated what everyone deeply and sincerely believes in: Money.  Of course, St. Paul made a similar comment in one or other of his letters to somebody or other, that love of money is the root of all evil.

The Economic Answer to AI, II: The Spread of the Problem

In the previous posting on this subject, we noted — consistent with the Past Savings and the Sole Ownership assumptions combined with the Labor Theory of Value — most of “the rest of us” in the present day are constrained to wages and welfare for our subsistence.  Government policy has thus been focused on (as one of the founders of the Center for Economic and Social Justice used to put it while mimicking playing a cello) “jawbs, jawbs, jawbs” . . . with no thought as to what was behind the, er, “jawbs.”

Why Economists Reject Binary Economics, V: “Perceived Policy Risks and Inflation Concerns”

The four previous postings on this subject — why so-called mainstream economists reject Binary Economics — we have looked at 1) Lack of Empirical and Econometric Support, 2) Heterodox and Non-Conventional Framework, 3) Criticism of Core Concepts, Particularly “Productiveness”, and 4) Negative Reception by Prominent Economists.  This last, the “negative reception” by prominent economists, is possibly the weakest reason given.

Why Economists Reject Binary Economics, III: “Particularly ‘Productiveness’”

 One of the many things conventional mainstream economists find annoying (i.e., incomprehensible) about Binary Economics is the idea of “productiveness.”  In Binary Economics, productiveness is not a synonym for productivity.  It is, rather, an acknowledgement that there is more than one factor of production and that each makes a definable and independent (although not autonomous when the factors are combined) contribution to production.

Why Economists Reject Binary Economics, II: Heterodox and Non-Conventional

 As John Maynard Keynes famously declared in the conclusion of his General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (which is not general or much of a theory, and — being obsessed with the Fabian socialist doctrine of “full employment” — has little to do with the real meaning of interest and money),

Why Economists Reject Binary Economics, I: Lack of Empirical Evidence

Just for fun the other day, we asked AI why mainstream economists reject Binary Economics, and it came up with nine reasons, some of which are not so good, and others which are terrible.  In this series we will look at the reasons and see if there are any responses, or if the reason is even valid.

The Big Beautiful Boondoggle

 The trouble with even the biggest and most beautiful bill is that eventually you have to pay your bills, and the beauty of what you bought may have dimmed a bit by then.  We realize we’re committing a slight “fallacy of equivocation” by using a word meant in one sense in a different sense, but in this case it works.  We think.

Muddling Through to Servility

 The election of Pope Leo XIV has aroused renewed interest in “Catholic” social teaching . . . which is not “Catholic,” but “catholic” with a small c, as it is based on the natural law common to every human being.  Unfortunately, there is a flaw in how these teachings have been presented.  This is not a flaw in the teachings, mind you, but in how they are applied, which is a mistake anybody, even a pope or president, can make.

Egocentrism, Tariffs, and the Single Tax, Part IV

Concluding our discussion of tariffs, as we noted previously there are three badly flawed economic principles which many people hold as absolute, unquestioned dogmas.  Two of these flawed principles are general, but applied specifically in the third, regarding tariffs, which we looked at last week.  The principles are:

Inflation and Job Creation

Under the hegemony of Keynesian economics, the global economy must be inflationary.  Why?  Because . . . well, because, that’s why.  Which, of course, is not an answer — but it makes more sense than the actual Keynesian answer.  It all lies in how you define inflation.  You see, the different schools define inflation differently, and not entirely consistently.

Klingon Economics

If you thought the economics of John Maynard Keynes was crazy, wait until you hear about the study of the production, distribution, and consumption of marketable goods and services in the Klingon Empire.  What brought this up?  We are looking into turning our recently re-released book, Economic Personalism (now with 100% more imprimatur!) into an audiobook.  We’ve also been looking into using AI to translate the book into different languages to broaden the potential market.

Who REALLY Owns the Federal Reserve?

On paper, the Federal Reserve System, the central bank of the United States, is owned by its member banks.  Member banks are required to purchase a special form of preferred stock paying a minimal dividend but carrying a meaningless vote.  This is not, however, true ownership.  As Louis O. Kelso once pointed out, control means ownership in all codes of law, and as we will see below, the federal government, while it does have “legal title” to the Federal Reserve System, controls it by having the president of the United States appoint the Chairman of the Board of Governors, and by receiving all revenue in excess of what is expended in operations.