We are beginning to witness the impact of state taxes on decision making. California’s high taxes led to the San Francisco Giants losing Bryce Harper to the Philadelphia Phillies. The 26-year-old professional baseball star agreed to a 13-year, $330 million deal with the Philadelphia Phillies because the bottom line net of what California would take was insane. I know several IT firms that are experiencing the same loss of talent all because California already has the highest state income taxes in the country.

Governments are only looking at their own survival, and to hell with the people. There is a major shift in migration and California now has more people fleeing the state than desiring to move there. Taxes are a major component and they define the bottom line. We witnessed the AOC effect, as she proudly chased Amazon out of New York. Her approval rating took a turn for the worst after chasing 25,000 jobs out of the city.

REPLY: This is going to be really an interesting WEC. Whatever can go wrong in the world is going wrong. It is becoming the perfect financial storm as we head into the bottom of the Economic Confidence Model. We have politicians only looking at saving their own power blind to the implications of their actions on a global scale. There are even rumors now that Recep Tayyip Erdoğan will claim some manipulation of the election by another country in a vast conspiracy if he loses and he will refuse to leave office.

The British Parliament has rejected Prime Minister May’s BREXIT plan for a third time. This now leaves them to come up with a plan that Brussels must accept by April 12th or face a hard exit. On top of that, the phone here is melting down with questions about how “hard” is a “hard-landing” going to be from various political sources. Central banks are shifting already to once again stimulate. This is not looking very good, to say the least. Ten years of stimulation has been a complete failure in Europe. We have major political and banking turmoil and financial chaos looking ever more serious for May.

QUESTION: Re Solution to a new monetary system::
In the “Solution” presented it was suggested that the existing US bonds be required to invest in companies in the USA. Does the govt just print the money for the bond values to give to the companies? If the companies receive the bonds, how are they liquidated otherwise?

KB

ANSWER: It becomes a debt for equity swap. The debt must be retired. It is replaced with just the creation of money. Now people will yell that is hyperinflationary. Not true. Since 1971, government debt is acceptable for collateral when you trade your accounts at a broker. It is simply cash that pays interest. It is already part of the money supply. What you are implying is really old school economics that believe increasing the money supply will be inflationary. This is just not the case. Even after 10 years of Quantitative Easing, we still have deflationary trends in pockets like Europe and Japan.

Some wrongly believe that you are just increasing the money supply. Pre-1971, when bonds were not allowed to be collateral, then yes, it was less inflationary to borrow than to print. However, since the debt is already cash that now pays interest post-1971, it is just a swap. Huge distinction.

Interest expenditures will soon exceed that of the military. This solution will reduce the cost of government, and thereafter, you outlaw any possible right to borrow once again.