Psychology / SocialSkills / InterHumanCompetence

the family is – still – considered the nucleus (the core) of every society in any country.

in an ideal world – the family consists of mother, father and one or more children (originating from the two parents).

in an ideal world – the parents communicate and cooperate in education.

in an ideal world – the parents tell each other – they love each other.

in an ideal world – parents stay together for a lifetime.

in an ideal world – parents are respectful towards each other and the child towards the parents and vice versa.

in an ideal world – a family is like a bunch of best friends.

why is the reality in 99.9% of all cases so much different?

most women in western societies – who’s solely job might be to give birth, educate and raise children – feel unable to cope with the task.

the male is usually engaging in the brutal battle of debt generated money – trying to secure a piece of the pie.

or in other words: trying to generate a claim to charge money from someone or something (company, state).

in an ideal world the female is supported by the male whenever she hits her educational limits (two children fighting constantly).

but in reality:

  • the male is usually absent
  • lack of teamwork: the female “child care taking experienced professional” “forgets” to teach and communicate how to help her, so the male just tries one’s best to do it without guidance – learning by doing – which will result in the female rejecting the influence of the male

Why do have couples in (still poor but catching up) countries like India and Africa so many children and western females – if they have any – are already at their limits with one child?

My theory:

  1. First of all – almost nobody of the western hemisphere has seen true poverty.
    • It means a child covered in dirt with no shoes
  2. economic outlook is not super bright
    • the current form of aggressive capitalism is just simply unsustainable and people feel it (means: it is going to end, hit rock bottom)
  3. parents have no practice in raising a child
    • maybe they should have trained with a pet dog first
  4. parents seem to have a hard time finding the right balance between “ignore mode” (neglective, the opposite of love is not hate but ignorance) and overprotective (prohibiting growth by experience – that later – the child will have to learn anyway).
  5. the modern work life separates male and female – thus having no time to learn how to be team players in family issues (and there are plenty)
  6. in poorer countries – child labor is considered normal – and even in western societies it was normal 50 and 100 years ago – that all children had to help with the work on the farm
    • result:
      • children create more work than they do / help their parents.
      • children of the poorer hemispheres are considered cheap work force for the parents
      • children of the wealthier hemispheres are considered a costly financial burden (cost money approx 2-800€ per month per child)
  7. in poorer countries – people have unprotected sex – being ignorant of the consequences – in short: they do not care who get’s pregnant and if the child survives or not – pure irresponsible egoism and – fuck now – who cares about tomorrow. (not sure if tomorrow can be survived)

paradox

this leads to the paradox situation – where adults – give up on reproduction – while still engaging 150% in career – accumulating wealth – that after they die – will be passed to who ever is left of their family – but not their children – because they don’t have any – so they had a short and stressful life – working for egoism – but their work goes to waste after they die. (nothing is passed on to children, nobody is educated, it all comes to an halt)

(4 African countries are in the top10 economic GDP growth 2018 list)

solution?

i could give a solution here… but i just to frustrated right now, if you have one hit the buttons.

Denzel Washington graduation speech
Denzel Washington graduation speech… the woman on the upper left corner already failed big X-D (unless she tweets about how cool it is to have Denzel Washington on your graduation ceremony, because she clearly fails to hide her smart phone addiction)

 

let me tell you one thing straight: if there is “no money” for things that make sense – like solar power in Nevada (sunniest place on earth) (including battery to make the sun shine at night?) – then capitalism has become non-sense.

with “no money” usually one means – no bank is giving a loan for this or that project.

OF COURSE the solar panels of the Green New Deal NEED to be Made in USA or it will stimulate the Chinese but not the US economy. (that was one point wrong with the German Green New Deal “German_Renewable_Energy_Sources_Act”)

But besides this Germany is using now 50% from renewables and the costs for electricity have been falling – the only problem now are the companies that own the grid.

They want to charge more and more for transferring electricity. (because power generation is done by the people itself)

So either this get’s fixed or the only solution is: completely off grid. (solar + wind + batteries… might not charge your electric car and run your hair dryer but except for that it can run quiet a lot)

You know what NOBODY can afford?

Stupidity and a destroyed inhabitable planet.

We want a good world to live in and have a bright future and live among the stars.

Nobody needs depressions (except the Pharma to sell more drugs, like shorting a stock, profiting from the end of mankind).

How to Pay for It All: An Option the Candidates Missed

July 10, 2019 by Ellen Brown

The Democratic Party has clearly swung to the progressive left, with candidates in the first round of presidential debates coming up with one program after another to help the poor, the disadvantaged and the struggling middle class. Proposals ranged from a Universal Basic Income to Medicare for All to a Green New Deal to student debt forgiveness and free college tuition. The problem, as Stuart Varney observed on FOX Business, was that no one had a viable way to pay for it all without raising taxes or taking from other programs, a hard sell to voters. If robbing Peter to pay Paul is the only alternative, the proposals will go the way of Trump’s trillion dollar infrastructure bill for lack of funding.

Fortunately there is another alternative, one that no one seems to be talking about – at least no one on the presidential candidates’ stage. In Japan, it is a hot topic; and in China, it is evidently taken for granted: the government can generate the money it needs simply by creating it on the books of its own banks. Leaders in China and Japan recognize that stimulating the economy is not a zero-sum game in which funds are just shuffled from one pot to another. To grow the economy and increase GDP, demand (money) must go up along with supply. New money needs to be added to the system; and that is what China and Japan have been doing, very successfully.

Before the 2008-09 global banking crisis, China’s GDP increased by an average of 10% per year for 30 years. The money supply increased right along with it, created on the books of its state-owned banks. Japan under Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has been following suit, with massive economic stimulus funded by correspondingly massive purchases of the government’s debt by its central bank, using money simply created with computer keystrokes.

All of this has occurred without driving up prices, the dire result predicted by US economists who subscribe to classical monetarist theory. In the 20 years from 1998 to 2018, China’s M2 money supply grew from just over 10 trillion yuan to 180 trillion yuan ($26T), an 18-fold increase. Yet it closed 2018 with a consumer inflation rate that was under 2%. Price stability has been maintained because China’s Gross Domestic Product has grown at nearly the same fast clip, by a factor of 13 over 20 years.

In Japan, the massive stimulus programs called “Abenomics” have been funded through its central bank. The Bank of Japan has now “monetized” nearly 50% of the government’s debt, turning it into new money by purchasing it with yen created on the bank’s books. If the US Fed did that, it would own $11 trillion in US government bonds, four times what it holds now. Yet Japan’s M2 money supply has not even doubled in 20 years, while the US money supply has grown by 300%; and Japan’s inflation rate remains stubbornly below the BOJ’s 2% target. Abe’s stimulus programs have not driven up prices. In fact deflation remains a greater concern than inflation in Japan, despite unprecedented debt monetization by its central bank.

China’s Economy: A Giant Ponzi Scheme or a New Economic Model?

Critics have long called China’s economy a Ponzi scheme, doomed to collapse in the end; and for 40 years China has continued to prove the critics wrong. According to a June 2019 report by the Congressional Research Service:

Since opening up to foreign trade and investment and implementing free-market reforms in 1979, China has been among the world’s fastest-growing economies, with real annual gross domestic product (GDP) growth averaging 9.5% through 2018, a pace described by the World Bank as “the fastest sustained expansion by a major economy in history.” Such growth has enabled China, on average, to double its GDP every eight years and helped raise an estimated 800 million people out of poverty. China has become the world’s largest economy (on a purchasing power parity basis), manufacturer, merchandise trader, and holder of foreign exchange reserves.

This massive growth has been funded with credit created on the books of China’s banks, most of which are state-owned. Even in the US, course, most money today is created on the books of banks. That is what our money supply is – bank credit. What is different about the Chinese model is that the Chinese government can and does intervene to direct where the credit goes. In a July 2018 article titled “China Invents a Different Way to Run an Economy,” Noah Smith suggests that China’s novel approach to macroeconomic stabilization by regulating bank credit represents a new economic model, one that may hold valuable lessons for developed economies. He writes:

Many economists would see this approach as hopelessly ad hoc, haphazard, and interventionist — not the kind of thing any developed country would want to rely on. And yet, it seems to have carried China successfully through several crises, while always averting the catastrophic financial crash that outside observers have been warning about for years.

Abenomics, Helicopter Money and Modern Monetary Theory

Noah Smith has also written about Japan’s unique model. After Prime Minister Abe crushed his opponents in October 2017, Smith wrote on Bloomberg News, “Japan’s long-ruling Liberal Democratic Party has figured out a novel and interesting way to stay in power—govern pragmatically, focus on the economy and give people what they want.” He said everyone who wanted a job had one; small and midsize businesses were doing well; and the BOJ’s unprecedented program of monetary easing had provided easy credit for corporate restructuring without generating inflation. Abe had also vowed to make both preschool and college free.

Like China’s economic model, Abenomics has been called a Ponzi scheme, funded by central bank-created “free” money. But whatever it is called, the strategy has been working for the economy. Even the once-dubious International Monetary Fund has declared Abenomics a success.

The Bank of Japan’s massive bond-buying program has also been called “helicopter money” — a policy in which the central bank directly finances government spending by underwriting bonds – and it has been compared to Modern Monetary Theory, which similarly posits that the government can spend money into existence with central bank funding. As Nathan Lewis wrote in Forbes in February 2019:

In practice, something like “MMT” has reached a new level of sophistication these days, exemplified by Japan. . . . The Bank of Japan now holds government bonds amounting to more than 100% of GDP. In other words, the government has managed to finance itself “with the printing press” to the amount of about 100% of GDP, with no inflationary consequences. [Emphasis added.]

Japanese officials have resisted comparisons with both helicopter money and MMT, arguing that Japanese law does not allow the government to sell its bonds directly to the central bank. As in the US, the government’s bonds must be sold on the open market, a limitation that also prevents the US government from directly monetizing its debt. But as Bank of Japan Deputy Governor Kikuo Iwata observed in a 2013 Reuters article, where the bonds are sold does not matter. What is important is that the central bank has agreed to buy them, and it is here that US banking law diverges from the laws of both Japan and China.

Central Banking Asia-style

When the US Treasury sells bonds on the open market, it can only hope the Fed will buy them. Any attempt by the president or the legislature to influence Fed policy is considered a gross interference with the sacrosanct independence of the central bank.

In theory, the central banks of China and Japan are also independent. Both are members of the Bank for International Settlements, which stresses the importance of maintaining the stability of the currency and the independence of the central bank; and both countries revised their banking laws in the 1990s to better reflect those policies. But their banking laws still differ in significant ways from those of the US.

In Japan, the Bank of Japan is legally free to set interest rates, but it must cooperate closely with the Ministry of Finance in setting policy. Article 4 of the 1997 Bank of Japan Act says:

The Bank of Japan shall, taking into account the fact that currency and monetary control is a component of overall economic policy, always maintain close contact with the government and exchange views sufficiently, so that its currency and monetary control and the basic stance of the government’s economic policy shall be mutually compatible.

Unlike in the US, Prime Minister Abe can negotiate with the head of the central bank to buy the government’s bonds, ensuring that the debt is in fact turned into new money that will stimulate domestic economic growth; and he is completely within his legal rights in doing it.

The leverage of China’s central government over its central bank is even stronger than the Japanese prime minister’s. The 1995 Law of the People’s Republic of China on the People’s Bank of China states:

The People’s Bank of China shall, under the leadership of the State Council, formulate and implement monetary policies, guard against and eliminate financial risks, and maintain financial stability.

The State Council has final decision-making power on such things as the annual money supply, interest rates and exchange rates; and it has used this power to stabilize the economy by directing and regulating the issuance of bank credit, the new Chinese macroeconomic model that Noah Smith says holds important lessons for us.

The successful six-year run of Abenomics, along with China’s decades of unprecedented economic growth, have proven that governments can indeed monetize their debts, expanding the money supply and stimulating the economy, without driving up consumer prices. The monetarist theories of US policymakers are obsolete and need to be discarded.

Kyouryoku,” the Japanese word for cooperation, is composed of characters that mean “together strength” – “stronger by working together.” This is a recognized principle in Asian culture and it is an approach we would do well to adopt. What US presidential candidates from both parties should talk about is how to modify the law so that Congress, the Administration and the central bank can work together in setting monetary policy, following the approaches successfully modeled in China and Japan.

________________________________________

First posted under another title at TruthDig.com. Ellen Brown is an attorney, founder and chair of the Public Banking Institute, and author of thirteen books, including Banking on the People: Democratizing Money in the Digital Age (June 2019), Web of Debt, and The Public Bank Solution. She also co-hosts a radio program on PRN.FM called “It’s Our Money.” Her 300+ blog articles are posted at EllenBrown.com.

src: https://ellenbrown.com/2019/07/10/how-to-pay-for-it-all-an-option-the-candidates-missed/