The Neo-Malthusian New Deal

by Serban V.C. Enache

Former President of Greenpeace Canada Patrick Moore was very direct last month in an interview with Sputnik. I urge viewers to read it in full and to always be circumspect of any type of activism, no matter how pure it might seem.

“I suppose my main objection is the effective elimination of 80 percent of the world’s energy would likely eliminate 80 percent of the world’s people in the end. I mean, just growing food, for example — how would we grow food for the world’s people without tractors and trucks, and all of the other machinery that is required to deliver food, especially to the inner cities of large centers like Moscow, Shanghai and New York City? How would we get the food to the stores? It’s symptomatic of the fact that people who live in cities just take it for granted that this food appears there for them in supermarkets in great variety, healthy food to keep them alive when they couldn’t possibly grow it for themselves with such dense populations. And if, in fact, fossil fuels were banned, agricultural productivity would fall dramatically and people would starve by the millions. So, that is just a little bit of why I think it’s a ridiculous proposal.”

The so-called Green New Deal calls for a reduction of net CO2 emissions to zero within ten years. Even if renewables were increased up to 100 percent, that wouldn’t even address the majority of the USA’s energy use, which is not electricity. Transport by air, land, and sea is overwhelmingly powered by hydrocarbons. What sacrifices the bottom and middle sections of the population would have to make in order to achieve 100 percent electric surface transportation? Would this even be technologically and commercially viable for water and air transportation?

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change calls for global CO2 emissions to shrink to net zero by 2050. The summary for policymakers gives a cost estimate, “annual average investment needs in the energy system of around 2.4 trillion USD2010 between 2016 and 2035, representing about 2.5 percent of World GDP.”

China’s CO2 emissions tripled from 2000 to 2012. During that period, poverty there decreased from 40.5 percent in 1999 to 6.5 percent in 2012, according to the World Bank, and Chinese investments have helped to alleviate poverty in Africa as well. Even under the Paris Agreement, Chinese CO2 emissions are expected to double by 2030, while those from India are expected to triple. Reliable and affordable energy means electricity in schools and hospitals, fuel for agricultural equipment, transportation of crops to markets, value-added manufacturing, state-of-the-art research facilities, efficient transit of people and goods; all of this translating into higher life expectancy, lower disease rates, better nutrition, and education.

As as side note, going green has a health cost too. For instance, solar PV panels create 300 times more toxic waste per unit of energy than do nuclear power plants; their average lifespan is 25 years. Without preparation and diversification, the world is heading toward a solar panel waste crisis.

Anti-Human Environmentalism

The modern environmentalist movement was never about people at grassroots concerned about environmental decay, and had nothing to do with ‘saving the planet’. It was concocted and promoted by the British Empire to sabotage its geopolitical rivals from developing [particularly in-land development, which threatened British maritime trade dominance]. Combined with eugenics, this trans-national orchestrated effort aimed to continue the International Feudal-Stockholder System after 1945; people on the libertarian right and center right [Hayek, Friedman et al] alongside their counter-parts in the Frankfurt School had this joint aim. For more info on the Capitalist Right & Center’s role in this plot, read this Essay by Wolfgang Streeck. As for the Western Liberal Left and Far Left, I will quote a few passages from one of their ideologies’ architects at the end of this article.

After WW2, some of the most powerful oligarchic families in the West channeled important moneys and political clout into the organization known as the Club of Rome, which held that,

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine, and the like would fit the bill […] But in designating them as the enemy, we fall into the trap of mistaking symptoms for causes […] The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”

At the same time, the UN sponsored a series of conferences on population control in the mid ’70s to promote the idea that human population growth is cancerous to the planet. I urge regular readers of this website to see this documentary about the legacy of sterilization and abortions in Asia, anti-human policies spearheaded by Western Governments and Western NGOs [in accord with the Chinese Communist leadership and Indira Gandhi’s Government as well]. Despite repeated interview requests, the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the IPPF refused to comment.

Neo-Malthusian Outlook

Malthusianism is the idea that population growth is potentially exponential while the growth of the food supply is linear. Thomas Malthus saw population growth as inevitable whenever conditions improved, thus precluding real progress toward a better society: “The power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man.” Henry George contended that Malthusian theory served as a tool for social control, conveying false justifications to support the landed class and oppose Government policy attempts to improve the lives of the poor.

As in most things, we are limited by our own assumptions – and history definitely proved Thomas Malthus’ assumptions and conclusions wrong. Birthrates stabilize as economic conditions improve. Japan, a highly advanced civilization, doesn’t deal with high birthrates, its problem is population aging – aka. birthrates are too small.

The Neo-Malthusian culture operates on the same flawed assumptions and on a hatred mysticism of Humanity, or, the masses of Humanity. They define ‘natural’ as that which excludes human activity. The rebranding of Global Warming into Climate Change served to imply that any change to the climate would be evil, simply by virtue of its transformative factor – as if Nature is stagnant and only [Evil] humans are going around, causing awful changes to the aforementioned static perfection. Does this hold true? For instance, if we use desalinated ocean water to turn a desert [region with a dreadfully low level of biological activity] into a lush home for plants, insects, animals, and humans – like the folks from the LaRouche Political Action Committee propose – would it be so bad? Are we hurting Nature? Are we hurting ourselves or future generations in the pursuit of a such a task?


Put in place the new technologies, the new infrastructure, the storage, new production facilities before you shut down the old ones. I don’t believe people in the US would want to engage in a 15 year failed attempt at going Green, like Germany, and then fire up new coal plants in order to prevent energy shortages. Germany’s plan is to phase out nuclear power by 2022 and coal power by 2038. Talk about epic facepalms. The Powers That Be and their sycophants across the hierarchical chain desire to ‘fight’ Climate Change on the backs of the poor, when in fact, almost 50 percent of global lifestyle consumption emissions are created by the richest 10 percent of the population; while the poorest 50 percent of the global population only produce about 10 percent of global consumption emissions.

“The historical mission of our world revolution is to rearrange a new culture of humanity to replace the previous social system. This conversion and reorganization of global society requires two essential steps, firstly the destruction of the old established order, secondly, the design and imposition of the new order, the first stage requires elimination of all frontier borders, nationhood and culture, public policy, ethical barriers and social definitions. Only then, the destroyed old system elements can be replaced by the imposed system elements of our new order.

The first task of our world revolution is destruction. All social strata and social formations created by traditional society must be annihilated. Individual men and women must be uprooted from their ancestral environment, torn out of their native milieus, no tradition of any type shall be permitted to remain as sacrosanct. Traditional social norms must also be viewed only as a disease to be eradicated. The ruling dictum of the new order is, nothing is good so everything must be criticized and abolished. Everything that was must be gone.

The forces preserving traditional society are “free market capitalism” in the social economic realm, and “democracy” in the mental political realm. The capitalist free market does not fight against the old economic order, nor does democracy lead a fierce hot battle against the forces of reaction which oppose the new order, therefore our transformative work will be imposed through the unifying principle of the militaristic spirit, the negative task of destroying the old established order will be completely solved and finished only when all the human masses are all forcibly collectivized as uniformed soldiers under imposed mass-conformity of new order culturing.

After destruction of the old order, construction of the new order is a larger and more difficult task…..We will have torn out the old limbs from their ancient roots in deep layers, social norms will be lying disorganized and anarchic so they must be blocked against new cultural forms and social categories naturally re-emerging. The general masses will have been first persuaded to join as equals in the first task of destroying their own traditional society and economic culture, but then the new order must be forcibly established through people again being divided and differentiated only in accordance with the new pyramidal hierarchical system of our imposed global monolithic new world order.” From the book/Manifesto, Der Geist des Militarismus, Stuttgart 1915, by Nahum Goldmann [a leading Zionist and founder of the World Jewish Congress]. From the English translation housed in the collection of the Leo Baeck Institute, p.37 – 38

UBI isn’t bad or good

by Serban V.C. Enache

I’ve written in the past about Universal Basic Income, and readers of this website know that I don’t support UBI if it’s not paired with legislation aimed at capturing economic rent. Since John McDonnell said that Labour is supporting a UBI scheme, many voices were raised in opposition, even among the Left, and the Job Guarantee was invoked as a substitute. I will focus on economic arguments and will try to be brief.

These are some of the criticisms I’ve seen: “UBI is inflationary” – “UBI gives people more money to spend, but doesn’t increase production, unlike the Job Guarantee” – “A Job Guarantee is an opportunity for many, but an obligation for none” – “UBI doesn’t create employment; it leaves the private sector as the sole job creator” – “Workers won’t benefit from UBI, capitalists will, because UBI will allow them to pay workers less.”

Firstly, let’s analyze the assumptions, because if we can’t agree on the premise, we’re just wasting our time talking to each other.

“Workers won’t benefit from UBI, capitalists will, because UBI will allow them to pay workers less.”

Giving everyone a fast and non-bureaucratic safety net allows workers to organize better. Better collective effort = strikes are easier to pull off and maintain for longer. The argument that a UBI will allow capitalists to pay their employees less is the same argument fiscal conservatives make against minimum wage laws and unemployment checks; that this safety net is bad for business and bad for workers’ motivation. Again, in and of itself, UBI would directly increase labor’s bargaining power. To what extent? It depends on a bunch of factors…

“A Job Guarantee is an opportunity for many, but an obligation for none”

The same is true for UBI. Supporters of UBI and Job Guarantee should also have a plan to contain both legal and illegal immigration; because any of these two programs would explode the aforementioned, ditto for Medicare For All. And I know liberals and lefties don’t like this, but the difference between a territory and a country is borders – and the way to enforce those borders is through staff, technology, and barriers – BARRIERS – just like you need barriers on sidewalks to prevent drivers from parking there. And no, you don’t get off the hook because you love immigrants, when you support political parties that sabotage and destroy foreign countries, creating those refugees and economic migrants in the first place.

“UBI gives people more money to spend, but doesn’t increase production, unlike the Job Guarantee”

In what sectors will the Job Guarantee introduce the unemployed? I always ask this because it’s important. Without a proper answer to this, you don’t know how well the Job Guarantee will act as a price anchor. If people in the Job Guarantee are put to produce things like food, fuel, and electricity, then yes, that particular Job Guarantee scheme is a solid price stabilizer program. If you put people in the Job Guarantee to fix swings in the park, shine railings, read stories to blind kids, play the guitar for old folks in asylums, help elders afflicted with mental illness and the like, then that scheme will have next to no impact on price stabilization, even though it provides humane social services. As for the demand boost from UBI, I’m sure it won’t cause firms to say – hmm, higher orders this month, I still have tons of unused capacity, but instead of making these machine tools produce more cans and calling up folks I previously let go due to weak demand so I can service all these orders at a profit, I’m just going to keep production level as is and just increase my markup. Please, spare me this logic. Firms that will take this improbable decision will lose market share to those firms who will adjust output instead of prices. If people in the West are worried about this, then they should draw attention to weak anti-cartel legislation and or weak enforcement of these laws.

“UBI doesn’t create employment; it leaves the private sector as the sole job creator”

These type of points are just worthless rhetoric. No, it doesn’t leave the private sector as the sole job creator. The private sector is never the sole job creator. In fact, it can’t be.

As for the “UBI is inflationary” concerns… if you do an analysis on UBI with the marginalist point of view on currency value in mind, yes, UBI will be inflationary. But this point of view is fallacious, because at the margin, some people, many people, are already getting an income without a formal job attached to it. According to the marginalist lens, there should already be hyperinflation or at least high inflation caused by traditional unemployment checks and food stamps. If you’re a die-hard Minskyite and like to call food stamps “funny money printing,” like Minsky did back in his day, you’re free to do so, but that doesn’t make your argument correct.

One more observation… If economists, orthodox and heterodox alike, are worried that UBI will cause both demand side and cost-push inflation [people just becoming lazy], half of that fear doesn’t square away with their insistence that UBI will subsidize bad jobs. If under a UBI people are more willing to accept poorly paying jobs and or poorer working conditions, then firms won’t experience cost pressures.

Let’s look at a country that actually implemented UBI nationwide, let’s look at Iran. According to this working paper from 2017 on the effect of unconditional cash transfers on the labor supply, there were no extraordinary results. Iran’s UBI was implemented in 2011 as a necessity to the drastic cuts to gas and bread subsidies made by Ahmadinejad in late 2010; the Government argued that the subsidies benefited the rich disproportionately. The UBI was set at 29 percent of median household income, about 1.50 US dollars extra per head of household, per day. In the US, that threshold would be over 16,000 dollars per year, well above the standard scheme of 1 grant per month proposed by the likes of Andrew Yang.

Despite reports in local press that the poor were leaving their jobs to spend the extra money, the investigators found no such evidence. Of the individuals employed in 2010, 88.5 percent remained employed, 4.5 percent lost or quit their jobs and 7 percent became inactive in 2011. Of the unemployed, 26.3 percent got jobs in 2011, approximately the same number as those who lost their jobs in 2011. For those engaged in housework in 2010, 3.2 percent found employment in 2011, fewer than those who left their jobs for housework. UBI had a good impact on Iran’s service sector, in which many firms have a difficult time obtaining bank credit. Some examples of workers in the service industry are housekeepers, teachers and deliverymen. In fact, their weekly hours increased by roughly 36 minutes. The only bad effect on labor supply was folks between the ages of 20 and 29. However, this age group had a weak connection with the labor market well before the UBI was implemented; because Iranians can opt to enroll in tertiary and graduate education. In spite of all this, Iranian public reaction to the UBI program has been largely negative. So Corbyn and McDonnell might think twice about it… “As more oil exporting countries decide to remove energy subsidies, or for political economy reasons decide to transfer a part of their oil wealth unconditionally to their citizens,” the authors wrote, “the question of how such transfers affect the incentive of their citizens in working and acquiring skills become more important.”

So the problem isn’t UBI itself, the problem is that UBI won’t do what its advocates and detractors claim it will. The effect after the reform is passed is gonna be near zero. The macro-economic effect will leave the Government deficit the same, plus minus 1 percent of GDP or slightly more [aka. errors in projection]. If the reform will have good or bad effects, the effects will be very small. Iran’s been on UBI since 2011 [and the country didn’t fall apart, nor did it become a utopia for workers and consumers – and let’s remember the trade sanctions they are under; extra proof that UBI alone is not a doomsday scenario].

As for me, I support UBI as a theoretical, and I’ve laid down my view in the past on how to make it work. Those politicians and political factions currently advocating UBI are controlled opposition; they want to “pay for it” with VAT [a regressive tax], they want to leave land rents privatized [not to mention patents], and want to leave the asset side of banks undisciplined [free predatory lending with smokes and mirrors]. The benefits of UBI, if it produces any in net terms, will get eroded by landlords and money lenders. The Job Guarantee isn’t immune from this either. And I wish the MMT academics would give more thought to this, instead of advocating a cubic meter property tax [which doesn’t distinguish between buildings and land, giving it thus regressive, perverse effects], and instead of ignoring one of the gravest sins in the economics profession, that of equating Land with Capital. It’s not sufficient to have full employment if the Natural Commons remain at the mercy of the few. Why further tolerate this millennia-old tumor on the back of Mankind?

Derek McDaniel wrote about BIG & inflation this last September. His article is much shorter than mine, and I encourage readers to see what he was to say.

The Scourge of Big Pharma

by Serban V.C. Enache

You can employ more people, build more living space, make new gains in science, technology, and productivity – but so long as you tolerate the leech, you will never stamp out disease, end poverty, or homelessness. The company Gilead is one such parasitical entity. Its drug called Truvada prevents and treats HIV and AIDS. For a month’s treatment, this drug costs between 1600 and 2000 dollars. Robert Grant used 50 million dollars in Federal grant money to do research, research which showed that Truvada, an old prescription drug, prevented HIV infection. Gilead shareholders get all the profits. The US Treasury gets none of it. And consumers end up paying an outrageous markup [over 26,000 and over 33,000 percent] on a drug that costs 6 dollars to make.

We have a similar case for Gilead’s miracle pill that treats Hepatitis C, which they priced at over 1000 dollars. The CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals takes the cake, who raised the price of Daraprim [an anti-parasite drug, how ironic] from 13 dollars to 750 dollars a pill [that’s over a 5000 percent increase]. In other countries, a dose of Daraprim costs as little as 10 cents. This parasite’s name is Martin Shkreli. When a Congressman pleaded with him to think of those suffering and in need of the drug, Shkreli displayed a child-like smile, as if it was all fun and games, as if he had done or seen no evil, and then nodded in a sarcastic manner in reply to the words he heard. See it for yourselves here.

These drugs and the research behind them were made possible by the intellectual labor of scientists – labor and equipment funded almost entirely by the State, by the community at large. As such, the nation as a whole should reap the benefits, not a handful of private agents [be they firms or persons]. We need stakeholder capitalism to move forward, not shareholder capitalism. Socio-economic and technological progress is stifled by the usurer, rent-seeker, patent-holder, war profiteer classes.

Patents don’t make society richer, but poorer and should be abolished! And, if you want history, in the US, for most of the 1800s, the medical profession considered patents on pharmaceuticals unethical. If a team of scientists discovers a miracle drug, that formula should be free for any manufacturer to use – and you’d have saner markups, like 20 or 25 percent or even less. And there would be no problem if the Government paid a premium or a special pension to researchers who break barriers in these vital fields.

Today, we have a castrated political class catering to a Feudal and Financial oligarchy, while the masses remain largely passive, drugged, and intoxicated. The State is a vehicle that receives only enough fuel to drive the idle, owner class forward at the expense of everyone else; and this fuel is not composed of money or material resources, but willpower. In other words, political will is only mustered for the benefit of oligarchs and the means of death [wars], not the rest of humanity and the means of life.

Argentinian Depression

by Serban V.C. Enache

Leaving aside Venezuela for a moment, I thought we’d focus on the situation in Argentina. This article will contain a lot of graphs, so please bear with me. We will look at the symptoms and then formulate a diagnosis.

When looking at the inflation rate, we see that things started going erratic with 2014. And with 2016, it went from bad to worse.

Next, we’ll look at the Unemployment Rate and the Labor Force Participation Rate. These two graphs paint a contradictory picture. The latter went up a bit, which is good, while the former went up as well, which is bad.

How about Industrial Production? Nightmare stats for 2018 and the beginning of 2019.

Let’s get a wider view on Industrial Production. It’s a nightmare.

What about overall capacity utilization? Monstrous.

What about Monetary Policy? The Central Bank’s key interest rate is in the double digits and its highest peak in 2018 was at about 75 percent.

The interbank rate, the rate at which banks lend reserves to each other short-term, is similar to the previous graph, as is normal.

Argentina’s minimum wages graph also sheds important insight, as we see the reactive picture to the economic and financial ailments outlined previously. Labor Unions in Argentina are very powerful, and often strike during negotiations. We see that between 2010 and 2012, and between 2012 and 2014, minimum wage growth follows the same speed, more or less, but it accelerates between 2014 and 2016, and it goes even faster in the next years.

Let’s look at Argentina’s foreign exchange reserves. FX reserves have been going up dramatically compared to the 2014-2016 period. In January this year, Argentina had 60.3 billion US dollars in reserves. This situation is due to the Government obtaining money from the IMF.

Household debt to GDP tells us that from 2017 it started to grow, reaching a peak of almost 7.5 percent of GDP in 2018.

How about gasoline prices? Not what you’d expect. It actually went down by a bit in recent years.

Tax-wise, things have stayed the same. The company tax, the personal income tax, the sales tax, and social security taxes have remained unchanged. Exports remained relatively stable, while imports grew between 2017 and 2018. Argentina’s imports tend to decrease on the heels of each year.

Can’t find faults in the macros here. The Argentinian Domestic Private Sector has been building equity year-after-year since 2011. In 2017, it incurred a slight deficit of 0.9 percent. Unfortunately, the macro numbers for 2018 aren’t available yet.

Was the weather different? If you suspected something like a drought, you nailed it. During the 2017-2018 season, the country experienced drought-level moisture and high temperatures. The national average yield was almost 30 percent worse than in the previous year, with losses calculated at about 3.4 billion dollars.


We have a bad harvest, a collapse in industrial production and overall capacity utilization, rising unemployment, a financial bottleneck due to high interest rate monetary policy, households taking on 2 extra percentage points of GDP in debt, the negative current account almost doubling in size in one year [2017], and the minimum wage rising faster than usual due to the high inflation. Note: changes in the minimum wage impact the entire wage structure at varying degrees according to specific circumstances. Note: we should take the official stats with a grain of salt, particularly the labor figures. My friend from Buenos Aires, Diego Lattes, would be first to say so, and I’d say the same about Romania.

The Government of Mauricio Macri is an outright disaster. Inflation and economic contraction made Macri turn to the IMF. Last year his Government agreed to a 56.3 billion dollar loan, accepting in turn strict [arbitrary] targets set by that vulture institution. Mauricio Macri is center right, so that tells you all you need to know about his policies; ditto if he was center left. I reiterate, Macri’s Government is a disaster. Argentinians should reject his so-called reforms and plan to balance the budget, and should vote him out at the next election. This mess can only get worse with him in office.

Argentina requires investment. And it needed it yesterday. The mainstream media and alternative media, outlets like Zerohedge, all like to invoke the Government printing money and corruption as the cause for Argentina’s ailments. Most countries on earth print money [a crude way of saying they run fiscal deficits]. Most countries on earth are corrupt, including the developed ones, including the super powers. But how did they develop? Surely they didn’t develop by “abolishing” corruption, for lack of a better word. No. They developed through investment, through credit – they didn’t first make the output and then come up with money for it, but vice-versa. Argentina needs better policies and better people in Government.

For more information on the inflation problem, see The Cure For Hyperinflation. Solutions are found at the end of that article.

Self-seeking economists & their fans

by Serban V.C. Enache

A year ago, on Twitter, I called Ann Pettifor incompetent and Frances Coppola a bitch. I got a lot of flack because I stated my mind. I personally didn’t make a big deal of it, even though Steve Keen hopped on the thread, swearing at me, trying to get me to apologize and then blocking me and encouraging others to block me as well. Patricia Pino jumped in too to claim that I owe those two respect because reasons. And Stephanie Kelton contributed a single word, saying “shame” to me.

Now it’s been brought to my attention that there’s a big split between the heterodox camps. Pettifor and Coppola calling MMT a cult [well, there are cultists in every organization or behind any leader or set of ideas], picking various beefs with MMTers. Hacks like Jo Mitchell employing strawmen and ad hominems against people like Bill Mitchell via proxy. That sort of thing. People tried to do that to me too, labeling me a sexist because of the language I employed and the jokes I cracked. One can’t criticize the #METOO political phenomenon without being in league with the rapists, it seems. And apparently I was ruining MMT and being a racist too because I invoked Oswald Mosley’s Birmingham proposals in this post as evidence that he was one of the founders of modern money – and inside those quoted paragraphs, Mosley refers to modern money theory. I wonder if Friedman got such flack when he said “We are all Keynesians now.” As a result of all this, MMTers blocked me, many of them. And I blame them for why it’s no longer raining in Bucharest [drip, drip, rain].

Anyhow, due to this conflict on social media among and between self-seeking economists and their fanboys and fangirls, I thought I’d explain why I portrayed Pettifor as incompetent and Coppola a bitch.

Firstly, Pettifor wrote this tweet in 2015, “The concept of sectoral balances belongs to the sphere of accounting, not economics. I am not comfortable with it [using the equation in economic analysis].” I never heard a dumber thing from a professional economist. I thought she had taken down that nonsense, but she didn’t. In interviews or articles, she could never bring herself to say ‘deficit spending’ or ‘fiscal debits’ when talking about how a currency issuer funds its spending. She used expressions like “loan finance” [wuut?]. She claims “The sale of gilts provides the government with finance for investment and expenditure.” So the currency issuer funds itself by selling someone Gov debt in exchange for Gov debt? This claim violates logic and accounting. The sale of gilts has nothing to do with funding. Funding is secured through spending. I place an obligation on the public in sovereign fiat, I spend [purchasing labor and materials necessary for my goals], then I tax a portion of what I spent. Selling gilts is about draining liquidity from the buyers of the gilts and rewarding them with interest.

In one of her articles, Pettifor tries to address the issue of asset price inflation. She calls for a Tobin tax and for higher property taxes. A Tobin tax won’t fix the problem, it may dampen it by a soft measure, but it won’t stop or seriously curb speculation. Property taxes are regressive, as they penalize property owners who invest to develop their property. Property taxes incentivize idleness: less value in the property, smaller tax bill. Pettifor claims that higher land values dampen productivity. That is only partially correct, or partially incorrect. Untaxed land values are the problem. Privatized land values are the problem. But I don’t expect economists today, be they left, right, or center, orthodox or heterodox, to distinguish between Capital and the Natural Commons. It’s better to just conflate the two for some reason.

As for why I called Coppola a bitch? Well, isn’t it obvious? Because of her fake outrage. Because of the way she sets people up for drama, so she can get hits on her blog and become ‘important’ on social media. Arrogant. Preachy. Her self-entitled feminism, or faux feminism [depends on how one defines contemporary feminism]. Sore loser. Virtue signaler. The way she exaggerates things to make it seem like something extraordinary happened on her watch and only she had the wits to see it. Click-baiting. Like when she falsely advertised a few years ago that some person was debunking MMT in her blog’s comments section – but then Stelios Xanthopoulos had a looksy and it was all a bunch of strawmen. He asked where’s the actual debunking, and all Coppola was able to do was deflect – a ‘go ask him’ type of response. As for the plight of the WASPI women, Coppola’s answer “Go get a job.”

I could go on, but this is enough. At the end of the day, I have no stake in it. I don’t have books to sell you on finance and economic theory. I don’t have a career in this field, I don’t have steps to ascend. So notoriety of any kind on this subject matter earns me zero dimes. I’m not chasing University positions, book deals, or government positions. I can think, and feel, and say whatever I wish. And I hope that more people would think for themselves, instead of living their life as fanboys and fangirls, attending an endless game of soccer politics, engaged in permanent tribalism.