I am not sure you should use the term 'monetarism' in this context. I would replace it with something like fiscal responsibility or fiscal prudence. Monetarism is rubbish and has always been rubbish - it has been a self serving tool of the elites to run a 'casino' operation an skim value that they have not earned. The evidence is all around us.

It has taken us over 30 or so years to find out that it is a con and for the whole system to totter to the edge of collapse and topple over the edge of a cliff. It has been used as a cover to justify the the 'finance capital' policies of the IMF and World Bank and their banking cronies to enable the theft of public assets and the 'commons' via privatization along with the destruction of economic systems that are not to their liking.

The notion that monetarism can be used to run a real economy is laughable as this requires physical investment in assets (factories, people and knowledge) to produce things of have value to trade. The use of QE has simply turbo charged debt and pushed the economy into further decline while it has allowed the banks to speculate and destabilize commodity markets around the world and make more profits - the real purpose of QE I would suggest.

Being no prophesier, all I can do is give odds based on how it looks to me, everything considered.

I still see Obama, amazingly, as odds-on to survive in 2012.

What could change that?

1. Substantial phenomena around an independent running for president, if pushing some kind of protectionist agenda. This independent could be Donald Trump or Buddy Roemer (currently experiencing a media black-out and also consigned to non-person status by the entire apparatus of both major parties, including his own party), or, it could even be Mitt Romney, if Romney would come forward with a protectionist platform. Of course, it could be Ralph Nader too, although he's worn out whatever little toe-hold he ever managed in climbing up the wall surrounding corporate mass media (including PBS and NPR). It could conceivably even be the Green Party, if they would push protectionism strong enough over their omnibus idealistic platform.

2. Rise of a real alternative party with a protectionist full-employment agenda -- pushing not only a presidential candidate but focused on congressional races too.

3. Real opposition within the Democratic Party to Obama, from a protectionist candidate.

Somehow some national political figure has to raise the issue of tariffs, hit it hard and keep on hitting, tapping popular support. For me, Trump did not hit it hard enough, but he's the only one so far who has a glimmer of the potential popular strength of a protectionist program. That idea can work across all demographics and all political persuasions. But no political figure wants to be identified with it?

This report eased my mind a little. I am scared of the insane deficit reduction austerity fake crisis crap spewing out of washington. We need some freaking revenue and the administration and Harry Reid better stand up and tell the American people.
My idea is help the dumb, bigmouth, repug zealots find political cover. Leave payroll taxes out completely. Dividends, capital gains and bogus deductions should give us a sizable revenue increase. Then the Republicans can tell Grover they didn't violate the no tax oath.

I'm glad to see that there is a site that addresses the issue of job loss or missed job opportunities that results from race to the bottom low wage competition whether abroad in the form of offshoring or at home in the form of bringing in information tech workers who undercut wages and take jobs from US citizens. This is a form of zero-sum globalization.

This is one of the few sites that addresses both the trade and jobs issue plus regressive macroeconomic policy and predatory corporate behavior all in one place. I believe that unless all of these issues are addressed we are likely to see continued deterioration of living conditions for working people, meaning those who do productive work and live only from wages or salaries. To this I will add making sure that re-industrialization is environmentally sustainable and "green".

It's true that the international central banking system, which lies at the heart of the WTO world-system, is corrupt, exposed, essentially monopolistic, operationally oppositional to liberty and democracy, and, economically dysfunctional today. At the heart of that system, we find the inherently instable system of fractional reserve banking.

The National Emergency Employment Defense Act (NEED) proposes an historic money reform ending 'fractional reserve' banking!

http://www.monetary.org/

As Robert Oak and others point out, there are reasons (current and historical) to distance the Congress from direct control of monetary management. Just putting an end to the Federal Reserve system is off the mark. A rational monetarist policy needs to be established by law, setting forth rules, not subject to demigods or 'tsars' or boards of bankers. Straight-forward rules, implemented with total transparency ... and considerable transparency must operate throughout the entire financial system.

We need to get away from all the political preference systems as well as from the insider conspiracies that operate to enforce the maxim:

'All dollars are equal, but some dollars are more equal than others."

That's no way to regulate a market or free enterprise system!

We need to get out of the neo-mercantilist game, which is essentially a system established to frustrate the operation of free markets and to intrude corrupt politics into every business decision. We need an across-the-board tariff (or VAT).

The dilemma here is always like that of Solon, who went into self-imposed exile after giving the Athenians their constitution ... because Solon understood that even he could hardly be trusted not to endorse changes when the forces of greed and fear came into play in difficult situations.

Congress needs the wisdom of Solon to establish rules for a sane monetary system, and then Congress needs to bow out. Of course, a later congress will surely revisit the rules, but that should be done only very carefully and prudently. The rules need to be understood as law, not something that a board of sanctified banksters are charged with manipulating and modifying according to their received revelatory knowledge or their inspired genius.

None of them are sanctified, none of them are geniuses, and none of it is revelation. They are all ordinary mortals, including the POTUS, all of his generals, the National Security Council and the SCOTUS.

As citizens, we need to pay much more attention to the Constitution of the United States, not treating it as some kind of occult document that only such as the black-robed wonders of the SCOTUS should ever read or attempt to understand.

Forcing the U.S. onto the Gold Standard would be a disaster. Keynesian economics needs to go, as does so-called 'supply side' and the pseudo-libertarian theories of the so-called 'Austrian School' (so beloved by the mavens of the Ludwig von Mieses Institute who appear to have hypnotized such as the otherwise praise-worthy U.S. Rep. Ron Paul). We can no longer afford delusional systems, posing as solutions.

We can no longer afford the skimming off the top by the casino operators and their con-artist cousins. Nor can we afford to live like patsies sitting hour-by-hour at slot machines, whiling away the hours between checks received for being unable to work for a multitude reasons -- but never, (perish the thought!), for the reason that the system has failed and there are no jobs available.

We also can no longer afford to delude ourselves that national salvation lies in gimmicks to avoid the difficulties involved in taking responsibility for a democratic government -- gimmicks such as 'term limits', 'gold standard', 'no more taxes', 'no more government' 'eat the rich', 'Tea Party', 'the Republicans are worser', or, 'as a Libertarian I am opposed to all REdistribution'. We can't even afford to kid ourselves that 'it's the politicians, they're all the same'. That's right, the country is so miserably broke, that we can no longer afford the moral highground of abstaining from voting! We can't afford to cut ourselves even that little bit of slack.

Monetarism can only work with a responsible democratic government. As Robert Oak and Michael Collins point out, we have no choice but to begin economic reform with political reform, that is, with campaign finance reform. There, we cannot ignore the elephant regularly pooping our living room, that is, our sanctified SCOTUS divided 5-4 against us AND against any attempt at campaign-finance reform.

Individually, we need to swallow the horse pill that will awaken us to the reality that we have no choice but to make democracy work by making our Constitution work ... unless, of course, we luck out and get ourselves an efficient benevolent dictator!

Problem is that we people tend toward puerile thinking, actually believing that we are electing a hopefully benevolent dictator every four years, a dictator who represents one of the supposed two political parties but is also 'the most powerful man in the world'!

Any sane understanding of the Constitution should disabuse us of any ideas about the White House as the home of benevolent dictators. The Constitution envisions that a group of non-partisan or even apolitical citizens, elected by the people to serve as members of the Electoral College, meet in the various states to propose someone to serve a term as bureaucrat-in-chief for the country, with (hopefully) one candidate acceptable to a majority. Although the details and fall-back contingencies of the process have been and continue to be about as snarled up as is imaginable, the basic idea of a POTUS who humbly represents all the people and stands above partisan politics wasn't such a bad idea. It worked as long as George Washington was in office! After that great beginning, the system was effectively never tried again!

Unfortunately, there seems to be high positive correlation world-wide relating several factors: dictatorship, big-time corruption, global corporatism, unemployment, social instability, and, continuing fraudulent efforts to attempt to grow a viable global society by way of the 'WTO' world-system.

We often cover topics on EP that are not elsewhere, so if you want people to read something here and raise up a topic, use all of those share buttons and get it going.

It really makes a difference that we are heard.

It's unfortunate that the American MSM is nearly non-existent in the jobs discussion; very similar to Congress! Most polls indicate that Americans are more concerned about jobs than any other economic issue, but the powers that be along with their media cronies are more concerned about more tax cuts for the wealthy and cutting social safety net programs. Keep up the great work!

Oregon is moving from the Oregon State Bank to a modification of the same idea, which they are calling the "Virtual State Bank."

"Since the beginning of the recession, small business lending has cratered in Oregon. That's why we're backing this bill, which would create an Economic Development Finance Authority (aka the Virtual State Bank). By partnering with community banks and credit unions, it would help small businesses and family farms get the creidt they need to grow, so they can put people back to work. It is about investing in Oregon and creating a more resilient local economy that doesn't have to depend on Wall Street."

---  Message, 23 June 2011, from Barbara Dudley (Oregon Working Families, Friends of Family Farmers, and, The Main Street Alliance of Oregon). They are urging popular support for HB 2519, that the bill be voted on before the Oregon legislature adjourns.

If there is any underlying premise, at least from me, it is if the U.S. middle class goes, the nation will implode, first economically.

That's what's happening. They have screwed working people so much, it's now affecting macro economic data.

There is so much income inequality, affecting macro economic results.

They really need to tie corporate behavior to the well being of the U.S. middle class and their employees, as well as U.S. citizen workers.

That's the problem. G.E. or Cisco do not care if the U.S. middle class implodes and the U.S. economy they don't care either, beyond will it affect their global profits and executive bonuses.

Considering how corrupt our government is at this point, I don't see much happening beyond a U.S. economic implosion at this point.

Although I do not think the U.S. will suddenly implode, more this never ending downward slope, although that slope is increasing, i.e. it's becoming more like a cliff instead of a downward hill.