|
Nasrallah Speech On Gaza
Speech by Hizbullah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah during the ceremony honoring the martyrs on the road to Al-Quds (as noted down incompletely while listening to AlJazeerah's live translation):
Congratulation to those in Lebanon, Gaza and West Bank who have fallen in the fight since October 7.
Condolence and blessing to their relatives, condolence to the people of Gaza and the West Bank.
Four issues were caused by the stupid Israeli government:
- Thousands of Palestinian are prisoners of Israel.
- Al Aqsa and what has been happening there before October 7.
- Unjust siege of 2 million people for more than 17 years in an open concentration camp in Gaza.
- Expanding settlements in the West Bank.
The world and its organizations were silent about those points. This while the enemy had become more ferocious and extreme.
A big even was needed to refocus the world: the glorious al-Aqsa Flood operation of October 7.
It was to 100% a Palestinian operation. They were silent and did not tell anyone, not even their allies.
The operation proves that decisions of the resistance factions are in the hands of the respective leaders. The Islamic Republic of Iran had no say in this.
No matter what the enemy has done and will do it can not influence the future and history of what happened and will happen. The operations has shown the fragility of the enemy.
The U.S. and EU government and media have run to the help of the Israelis. Is Israel a strong state with an invincible army when it needs so much support?
It shows that the operation was wise, prudent and successful.
Israel politicians and military were slow to response. They killed their own people during the operations. Testimony from enemy media is showing that those who say Hamas killed civilians during the operation are wrong.
Now they want to annihilate Hamas. That is impossible. They want the hostages back. This will never happen without negotiations.
The 2006 war in Lebanon has proven that. The same will happen in Gaza.
The Israeli army are proving their inability. It destroys thousands of houses and kills thousands of civilians. Is that what an invincible army would do?
By killing innocent civilians you will not gain anything. It only proves the brutal nature of the Zionist regime.
The western media are telling lies about beheaded children. No evidence was produced. But they are silent about what happens in Gaza.
It is the United States that stands in the way of a ceasefire in Gaza. As Khomeni said, it is the greatest devil - from Hiroshima, to Vietnam to now in Gaza. It must be held responsible for that and should pay the price for that.
Everyone (in the resistance) in all neighboring countries must live up to their responsibility (and attack the U.S.).
The war in Gaza is not just battle. It is decisive event and will change history. We should all do our duty.
The goals are:
- to end the war in Gaza,
- to support Hamas in its victory.
It must be a triumph for all people in the region. It is in the interest of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon.
Arab and Muslim states must work on the prime goal. Condemnation statements are not enough. Boycott them (Israel and U.S.), refuse relations. Cut off oil supplies oil and gas from Israel.
No Arab state can deliver even a truck of goods to Gaza. Are they incapable of acting? No, they should listen to their people and wake up.
We had no knowledge of the Al-Aqsa flood. But on the very next day we started daily operations against Israel. What is taking place on our front is important.
Those who think that Hizbullah should wage total war on Israel – they should look at what is taking place on the Lebanese front. It is unprecedented. It will increase. All of Israel's positions are under siege. It is a different battle than in 2006 in tactics and weapons.
On the border line since October 7 the Israeli army moved out. It pulled all troops to the Gaza front. It called up reserves. Our operations keep the Israeli's army at our front and away from Gaza. A third of the Israeli army is now at our border line. Half of its navy is dedicated to our front. A quarter of its air force is. Half of its Iron Dome missiles. Forty three settlements were evacuated.
If the enemy starts to take action against Lebanon it will be its biggest mistake.
Even as civilians had to move out our best fighters will stay in the south.
They told us that the U.S. would bomb us. I assure you that it did not change our position. The operation on our front will continue. Any escalation will depend on development of events in Gaza.
Any preemptive attack on Lebanon will be responded to. A civilian killed in Lebanon means a civilian will be killed in Israel. All options on our front are on the table. They can be executed anytime.
To the Americans: it is pointless to threaten us. Your fleet in the Mediterranean can not cause us to fear. Remember your defeat in Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan.
To the whole world: In the name of the civilians, in the name of the bombed churches and mosques, you have to intervene to end the war in Gaza.
No matter of what our sacrifices are, we should be steadfast. Palestine will win.
We celebrate our fallen fighters. We celebrate the victory of Gaza.
-End of Nasrallah speech-
Probably better than the above was the more extensive live blogging done by L'orient today.
You may also want to read the spot-on preview of the speech as it was given earlier today by Elijah Magnier:
What is the role expected of Hezbollah in the Gaza war?
Structural Deficits Are Deflationary
The ring wing ideological shouting, placard waving loon who don’t understand MV= PY.
Will say something like this
” If, for example, extra money is printed and used to fund a higher budget deficit so government spending is higher for the same amount of taxes, that will tend to boost demand and drive the price level higher. It is inflationary. ”
That is 100% and 180 degrees wrong.
If government spending is higher for the same amount of taxes and thereby leaves a higher budget deficit, that will tend to decrease demand and drive the price level lower. It is deflationary.
( Unless, when the government spends, it overpays for what it is purchasing – including giving the money away for free or indexing a payment.)
(i) “Deficit Spending” is “the amount by which spending exceeds revenue over a particular period”.
( ii ) A “Structural Deficit” is “that part of the deficit which is not related to the state of the economy”. In other words, it is a permanent increase in the quantity of deficit spending.
We need to define these, as several alternatives exist.
The belief is that deficit spending is inflationary and that a structural deficit will change the price level upwards.
In contrast, the part of government spending matched by an increase in tax raised will not affect the price level.
This is backwards. There is far more inflationary pressure from government spending that causes an increase in taxes than from deficit spending.
Spending as an impulse that decays over time as people spend their earnings, earn what others have paid and spend it again, like a stone skipping across a pond.
The stone is government spending using freshly created money. Each skip is a tax point, which reduces the size of the next spending hop until the stone finally sinks, consumed by the ripples of taxation. The higher the tax, the rougher the stone, the bigger the ripple and the fewer the hops before it sinks.
Issued – then collected as it flows down the spending chains as your spending is someone else’s income and vice versa until eventually taxes match spending. The money is gone.
This process is what government spending matched by taxation looks like – a whole load of additional transactions that may or may not be inflationary.
Cutting taxes may mean less money is collected, or it may mean that more money is collected. That’s because the total amount collected isn’t related to the tax rate, but the level of spending and saving in the economy.
Money doesn’t stop at its first use. Your spending is my income and vice versa.
If taxes are cut, then people have more to spend which increases the number of spending transactions in the economy. Taxation quantity is a geometric series, not a simple sum. It behaves like a stone skipping across a pond. Lowering taxes just means more hops before the stone sinks. The total collected, however, will be much the same as before unless there is a material change in the amount of saving.
Swapping cash for a bond just freezes that process. Until the bond is cashed in and spent and The hops and ripples start again.
The overall price impact will depend upon multiple institutional and structural factors. Any programme design needs to take these into account.
However, the critical point from the stone-skipping analogy is that you always get ripples. Those ripples are the percentage-based transactional taxes functioning as an automatic stabiliser.
When the government buys things, you will get an increase in taxation ( ripples) because the government purchases things like a consumer rather than a business. There is no scope to offset or reclaim tax.
Switching to the endogenous money view and abandoning the mythical market for loanable funds fundamentally alters how we view budget deficits.
Deficit spending means the government got what it wanted at the prescribed price, and those outbid just banked the cash or paid off a loan.
Some may dismiss this as a ‘Treasury View’, but that is backward. In the Treasury View, crowding out of money comes first. That can’t happen in an endogenous system.
In the Deficit Spending View, deficit spending ‘crowds out’ in the physical sphere first, and those crowded out decide not to buy anything else. If they had consumed further, more tax would materialise. That would reduce the amount of deficit spending and increase the amount of tax-matched spending.
When the government decides to increase its purchases, it’s not the ‘deficit spending’ or the ‘structural deficit’ we should worry about.
The inflation risk lies elsewhere – in the spending taxed to destruction over many transactional hops.
https://new-wayland.com/blog/structural-deficits-are-deflationary/
That monetary policy is largely useless as a stabilisation device, and what is known as the horizontal circuit (“bank money”) should be left to operate as a market rather than being manipulated all the time.
Therefore you leave the base rate at the natural rate of 0% and stop artificially trying to hold it above that, particularly stop moving it around. Issue granny bonds to households instead.
What that means is that government stops paying banks “welfare on reserves” payments. No Interest on Reserves. No Bond Coupons. Any income banks earn they have to get by discounting collateral in the private economy and charging for that service (aka making loans).
System stabilisation can then be done using the vertical circuit (“central bank money”) which is added and removed as required to commercial bank’s balance sheets and forcibly creates additional bank deposits in the hands of individuals – because bank money is pegged one-to-one to central bank money.
The result is that the bank money system operates within a containment vessel defined by fixed banking policies, not ones that change month to month, and the banking system ebbs and flows within the policy boundaries, with the government’s vertical system countercyclically matching the ebb and flow.
This is where the Job Guarantee sits. The wage is paid with vertical money and matches the ebb and flow of bank money spending countercyclically. But importantly it does the same thing on the production side with labour hours – injecting and removing labour hours countercyclically with private and public sector demand keeping labour hours near constant relative to the working population.
A guaranteed alternative job replaces bank credit manipulation as the stabilisation process. The production system gets a change in output, not a dead loss. You get income in your pocket, not a debt millstone around your neck.
And that’s how you get to true full employment and price stability within an economic system where demand is satisfied.
All levies, liquidity ratios, reserve requirements and the like are eliminated. The cost of maintaining the collateral system is eliminated. The result is loans at a low price with the quantity restricted solely by credit quality. As an economy heats up, credit quality declines and loans become restricted — systemically preventing the Ponzi stages of finance that lead to a Minsky Moment.
Proscribed banks, forced to rely on credit analysis for profit, help prevent a boom by issuing less credit as project quality declines.
You get a natural and steady withdrawal of funding that is far more surgically targeted and responsive to local conditions, than the carpet bombing approach of interest rate adjustment.
https://new-wayland.com/blog/running-a-modern-money-economy/
Money printing or QE caused inflation is just moronic, lazy thinking that does not reflect the real world and the transactions and asset swaps that have taken place.
https://gimms.org.uk/fact-sheets/quantitative-easing/
So no, the Oligarchs wealth have not decreased if anything it has increased and they have done very well out of the crises and this war.
Posted by: Echo Chamber | Nov 4 2023 14:11 utc | 793
Structural Deficits Are Deflationary
The ring wing ideological shouting, placard waving loon who don’t understand MV= PY.
Will say something like this
” If, for example, extra money is printed and used to fund a higher budget deficit so government spending is higher for the same amount of taxes, that will tend to boost demand and drive the price level higher. It is inflationary. ”
That is 100% and 180 degrees wrong.
If government spending is higher for the same amount of taxes and thereby leaves a higher budget deficit, that will tend to decrease demand and drive the price level lower. It is deflationary.
( Unless, when the government spends, it overpays for what it is purchasing – including giving the money away for free or indexing a payment.)
(i) “Deficit Spending” is “the amount by which spending exceeds revenue over a particular period”.
( ii ) A “Structural Deficit” is “that part of the deficit which is not related to the state of the economy”. In other words, it is a permanent increase in the quantity of deficit spending.
We need to define these, as several alternatives exist.
The belief is that deficit spending is inflationary and that a structural deficit will change the price level upwards.
In contrast, the part of government spending matched by an increase in tax raised will not affect the price level.
This is backwards. There is far more inflationary pressure from government spending that causes an increase in taxes than from deficit spending.
Spending as an impulse that decays over time as people spend their earnings, earn what others have paid and spend it again, like a stone skipping across a pond.
The stone is government spending using freshly created money. Each skip is a tax point, which reduces the size of the next spending hop until the stone finally sinks, consumed by the ripples of taxation. The higher the tax, the rougher the stone, the bigger the ripple and the fewer the hops before it sinks.
Issued – then collected as it flows down the spending chains as your spending is someone else’s income and vice versa until eventually taxes match spending. The money is gone.
This process is what government spending matched by taxation looks like – a whole load of additional transactions that may or may not be inflationary.
Cutting taxes may mean less money is collected, or it may mean that more money is collected. That’s because the total amount collected isn’t related to the tax rate, but the level of spending and saving in the economy.
Money doesn’t stop at its first use. Your spending is my income and vice versa.
If taxes are cut, then people have more to spend which increases the number of spending transactions in the economy. Taxation quantity is a geometric series, not a simple sum. It behaves like a stone skipping across a pond. Lowering taxes just means more hops before the stone sinks. The total collected, however, will be much the same as before unless there is a material change in the amount of saving.
Swapping cash for a bond just freezes that process. Until the bond is cashed in and spent and The hops and ripples start again.
The overall price impact will depend upon multiple institutional and structural factors. Any programme design needs to take these into account.
However, the critical point from the stone-skipping analogy is that you always get ripples. Those ripples are the percentage-based transactional taxes functioning as an automatic stabiliser.
When the government buys things, you will get an increase in taxation ( ripples) because the government purchases things like a consumer rather than a business. There is no scope to offset or reclaim tax.
Switching to the endogenous money view and abandoning the mythical market for loanable funds fundamentally alters how we view budget deficits.
Deficit spending means the government got what it wanted at the prescribed price, and those outbid just banked the cash or paid off a loan.
Some may dismiss this as a ‘Treasury View’, but that is backward. In the Treasury View, crowding out of money comes first. That can’t happen in an endogenous system.
In the Deficit Spending View, deficit spending ‘crowds out’ in the physical sphere first, and those crowded out decide not to buy anything else. If they had consumed further, more tax would materialise. That would reduce the amount of deficit spending and increase the amount of tax-matched spending.
When the government decides to increase its purchases, it’s not the ‘deficit spending’ or the ‘structural deficit’ we should worry about.
The inflation risk lies elsewhere – in the spending taxed to destruction over many transactional hops.
https://new-wayland.com/blog/structural-deficits-are-deflationary/
That monetary policy is largely useless as a stabilisation device, and what is known as the horizontal circuit (“bank money”) should be left to operate as a market rather than being manipulated all the time.
Therefore you leave the base rate at the natural rate of 0% and stop artificially trying to hold it above that, particularly stop moving it around. Issue granny bonds to households instead.
What that means is that government stops paying banks “welfare on reserves” payments. No Interest on Reserves. No Bond Coupons. Any income banks earn they have to get by discounting collateral in the private economy and charging for that service (aka making loans).
System stabilisation can then be done using the vertical circuit (“central bank money”) which is added and removed as required to commercial bank’s balance sheets and forcibly creates additional bank deposits in the hands of individuals – because bank money is pegged one-to-one to central bank money.
The result is that the bank money system operates within a containment vessel defined by fixed banking policies, not ones that change month to month, and the banking system ebbs and flows within the policy boundaries, with the government’s vertical system countercyclically matching the ebb and flow.
This is where the Job Guarantee sits. The wage is paid with vertical money and matches the ebb and flow of bank money spending countercyclically. But importantly it does the same thing on the production side with labour hours – injecting and removing labour hours countercyclically with private and public sector demand keeping labour hours near constant relative to the working population.
A guaranteed alternative job replaces bank credit manipulation as the stabilisation process. The production system gets a change in output, not a dead loss. You get income in your pocket, not a debt millstone around your neck.
And that’s how you get to true full employment and price stability within an economic system where demand is satisfied.
All levies, liquidity ratios, reserve requirements and the like are eliminated. The cost of maintaining the collateral system is eliminated. The result is loans at a low price with the quantity restricted solely by credit quality. As an economy heats up, credit quality declines and loans become restricted — systemically preventing the Ponzi stages of finance that lead to a Minsky Moment.
Proscribed banks, forced to rely on credit analysis for profit, help prevent a boom by issuing less credit as project quality declines.
You get a natural and steady withdrawal of funding that is far more surgically targeted and responsive to local conditions, than the carpet bombing approach of interest rate adjustment.
https://new-wayland.com/blog/running-a-modern-money-economy/
Money printing or QE caused inflation is just moronic, lazy thinking that does not reflect the real world and the transactions and asset swaps that have taken place.
https://gimms.org.uk/fact-sheets/quantitative-easing/
So no, the Oligarchs wealth have not decreased if anything it has increased and they have done very well out of the crises and this war.
Posted by: Echo Chamber | Nov 4 2023 14:11 utc | 794
|
