Real prosperity is possible in the United States, but the global elite are not allowing it — UPDATED November 27, 2024
by Edward Ulrich, updated November 27, 2024
[Update: November 27, 2024— I have added additional information about Musk advocating to abolish the Federal Reserve System.]
This article explains Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) which intents to reduce wasteful spending in the U.S government, and it also details an economic philosophy that could be followed which would be the most effective path to prosperity.
About Musk’s “DOGE” agenda of cutting costs in the U.S. Government
This video explains that Elon Musk is advocating for cutting government spending, where his new position as head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) will focus on eliminating wasteful programs and improper regulations to lessen the U.S. deficit.
As long as it is done with the proper distinctions, there would be a lot of benefits from improving efficiency, eliminating wasteful programs, and eliminating improper regulations as Musk is saying. However there will certainly be a large amount of resistance to any of such changes being made no matter how appropriate they may be. And in any event more needs to be done than only cutting costs in order to create real prosperity.
How real prosperity is feasible and why the global elite are not implementing it
A most effective way exists to create real prosperity which Trump and Musk must know about, but apparently the global elite are not allowing them to implement it due to their agenda of disempowering functional societies to implement their eventual coming New World Order. Creating prosperity is the last thing that the elite want to happen.
Webster Tarpley’s book “Surviving the Cataclysm” identifies four commonly identified economic philosophies that could be implemented by a government, and it explains that only one of the philosophies would be sufficient to bring about necessary growth and prosperity through central banks lending in order to mobilize the country’s industrial base for large scale infrastructure improvement programs.
[Update: November 22, 2024— I don’t think Musk’s intentions are as extreme or negative as the description of the “liquidationism” option #1 at the following link. However I do think that liquidationism is certainly a bad approach if it is the primary strategy! Attempting that would mostly just result in divisiveness with little or no positive results. Remember that Trump and Musk don’t really have any choice but to do what the global elite tell them to do.]
Following is from this News of Interest TV article summarizing the information in the book:
(THE MOST IDEAL) Option #4: Mobilizing the credit resources of the government and the banking system for the purpose of launching an ambitious program of infrastructure construction and development. Two aspects differentiate this option from Keynesian policies. First is the emphasis of government lending over spending, such as forcing the central bank or national bank to issue cheap credit only for productive and large-scale projects which develop infrastructure that is clearly in the public interest. Such credit would not be made available for speculative, sociopathic, or criminal activity. The second point distinguishing it from Keynesian policy is the fact that Keynes insisted that the spending to stimulate the economy would have to be nonproductive, so that it would not compete with existing productive capacity which would lower the rate of profit. “Keynes thought it was fine for ditch diggers to dig ditches and then fill them up as a way of earning their daily wage from the government, but he was hostile to the idea of building new and more modern rail lines among the cities of Great Britain.”
— Lautenbach proposed that the German government launch an ambitious large scale program of infrastructure construction and modernization that would create many modern productive jobs paying decent wages, with benefits cascading through the German industries and economy. The key to the strategy was to force the central bank to honor a “rediscount guarantee,” which meant that any contractor or a subcontractor who was involved with working on the national infrastructure programs could be guaranteed that all of their commercial papers could be turned into cash by local banks, because those bankers could then immediately cash those papers with the central bank. This method allows credit to be supplied to productive and necessary parts of the economy without allowing money to flow into speculative or parasitical activities.
— Lautenbach’s infrastructure program could have “science drivers” added to it to get the economy going through technical spinoffs which would modernize the productive process in the workplace. Past examples include the space program of the 1960s which has led to the information technology and the internet today.
— “The idea of a rediscount guarantee was built into the New Deal program which finally and definitively ended the Great Depression in the United States during 1941 by reducing unemployment to lower levels. This was Lend-Lease, which harnessed the Federal Reserve and the banking system to provide credit for defense production. Each contractor and subcontractor was guaranteed that relevant commercial paper and bills of exchange would be automatically discounted by local bankers and turned into cash, since each local banker could be sure of commanding the support of the Federal Reserve system. This amounted to a de facto nationalization during wartime of the Federal Reserve system for national goals, not the whims of cliques of unelected and unaccountable bankers. It is clear that Lautenbach’s fourth option is the one we need to implement today.”
About Musk advocating to abolish the Federal Reserve System
[Note this section has been added on November 27, 2024.]
Musk has also recently been saying that he thinks the Federal Reserve should be “abolished,” (link) however that certainly would not be a good idea and I don’t think that he even actually believes it, but rather I think he is somehow being “told” to say that by the global elite.
Central Banks such as the Federal Reserve are an important element of every country’s economy, and “abolishing” the Federal Reserve and going back to the gold standard would be catastrophic due to it removing essential controls that would result in plunging the U.S. into a depression which it could never recover from. Ultimately it would result in the U.S. being overthrown and absorbed by the rest of the more totalitarian countries that do have central banks. Not a single country in the world is on the gold standard anymore.
The issue isn’t the “existence” of the central banks, but rather it is if they are controlled by private people or by the democratic process. It is important to nationalize the Fed, but not remove it entirely.
I highly recommend reading the article that summarizes Webster Tarpley’s book “Surviving the Cataclysm.”