Send this article to a friend:

May
20
2020

Modern Monetary Theory: The little-known consequence
of the massive coronavirus bills
Steve St Angelo

The worst part about spending $6 trillion or more on coronavirus recovery isn't what's in it. The worst part is what happens if it doesn't destroy us.

How many articles have you read lately that started off with a variation of the phrase, “These are strange times”? It’s the understatement of the millennium. Before the coronavirus crisis, if we saw someone in a grocery store wearing a face mask, we might casually wonder, “What’s wrong with him?” Today, if you walk into a grocery story without a face mask, people will indignantly wonder and sometimes ask out loud, “What the hell’s wrong with him?”

But all of that is fodder. The mask vs no-mask debate gets some people riled up, but it’s inconsequential. A distraction. The bigger issues are things we and many others have discussed for months. Everyone knows the health risks involved with the coronavirus, though most under 65-years-old are taking it more seriously than they should. A good chunk of America knows about the economic disaster that’s facing us, though some are quite comfortable either being rich or accepting the net-net gain they’re getting from a combination of unemployment, bonuses tacked on to unemployment, and the checks we’re getting from the government (though I still haven’t seen mine).

The issue of our constitutional rights being suppressed is a huge one, but it’s not the biggest. I know what you’re thinking… “How can you say it’s not the biggest?!?!?!” Don’t get me wrong. It’s definitely huge. But it’s not nearly as destructive to the United States of America as the little-known consequence of all of these bailout bills, including the proposed $3 trillion bill Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is pushing forth now. She admits that it’s a starting point, that there will be negotiations with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and the White House, but at this point it doesn’t matter where it lands. We’re still talking about TRILLIONS of dollars, and therein lies the real risk for America that few seem to truly comprehend.

JD Rucker

✔@JDRucker

 · May 15, 2020

Regarding Pelosi's $3 trillion coronavirus bill...

If you started paying it off on July 4, 1776, writing a check to pay the balance (without interest) every day until today, those checks would need to be $33,681,752.34 each.

Daily.

Tere are plenty of big dangers associated with these bailouts that could, when all is said and done, clock in somewhere approaching ten trillion dollars. Fiscal conservatives will point to the national debt. Libertarians will point to the massive dependency on government that is being established. Both will point to the devaluing of the dollar that will come. But as huge as these problems are, the true existential threat won’t come from the spending but from the consequences if we DO NOT crumble as a nation as a result. It’s counter-intuitive, but stay with me on this.

Many on the far-left are balking at Pelosi’s $3 trillion proposal because IT ISN’T BIG ENOUGH. Seriously. They’re saying rent and mortgages should be paid by government for months, even years. They’re saying the government offering to pay student debt up to $10,000 through September, 2021, is too limited in both term and scale. They’re saying there’s not enough in there for climate change even though, oddly, there actually is some climate change language in there. And here’s the thing. It wouldn’t have mattered if all of the radical progressives’ current demands had been met by Pelosi’s proposal or if it were 4, 5, or more trillions of dollars. They would have still complained that it wasn’t enough because that’s what they’ve been trained to do.

The real existential threat to the United States isn’t what’s in the bill or anything else we’ve discussed. The real threat arises if we DO NOT crumble as a result. If the American spirit, our drive to recover, and the Grace of God allows us to make it through all of these bailouts without tangible repercussions, then Modern Monetary Theory will have been falsely proven to be effective. At that point, the end of America will begin.

There are many perspectives about what Modern Monetary Theory really is, but the worst perspective is the one shared by a majority of Americans. It’s the perspective of ignorance to the concept at all. Now is not the time to dive into definitions or debate nuances. Instead, let’s explain it in layman’s terms, which is easy considering our current situation. With Modern Monetary Theory, the government essentially prints whatever money it needs in order to pay for whatever programs it wants. That’s what’s happening with these coronavirus bailouts as we spend money that never actually existed.

Modern Monetary Theory plays on the common perception that the U.S. government can simply make more money at will. This is untrue, of course, but many Americans see it as plausible based either on ignorance or the radical ideologies taught to them by far-left economists in America’s indoctrination centers, also known as college campuses. But there are huge consequences to such policies, especially for the nation that is barely clinging to its status as having the world reserve currency. In the not-so-long term, Modern Monetary Theory will take that status away, at which point the dilapidated pillars propping up our economy despite having such tremendous debt will crumble. The economy, as weak as it currently is with the coronavirus crisis, will falter much more, making those $1200 checks from the government practically worthless.

But it won’t happen overnight. It would almost be better if it did. But since adoption of Modern Monetary Theory in a post-coronavirus world would lead to questions from other nations and the formation of a plan to replace the dollar as the world reserve currency, the process will take months. It likely won’t take years, but if we start using the coronavirus as the case study for how to operate our economy and government, the questions and plans from foreign leaders and world banks will certainly happen. That’s when the real danger begins.

If we don not collapse from the huge coronavirus bailouts, the far-left will call for more of the same. They’ll say that if we can spend the money on the coronavirus without completely destroying ourselves, why aren’t we doing the same thing to end homelessness? Why are there still people living in poverty? Why are children going hungry? Most importantly, they’ll ask why we’re not facing the “existential threat” of climate change by throwing trillions of dollars at it? They’ll say, “100,000 Americans died from the coronavirus and we spent $X trillion on it. Climate change will kill 100,000,000 Americans if we don’t act even more aggressively now!”

The biggest threat to our nation is if government grows accustomed to throwing trillions of dollars at our problems and Americans remain too complacent to stop it.

JD Rucker is managing editor at The New Americanaand co-founder of the Federalist Party. He is a Christian, conservative, and business owner raising a family of five in southern California. You can reach him on Twitter @jdrucker.

  

 

noqreport.com