Who is behind the EU?

At Raging Bullshit
"During research for an article on Brexit, which will be published on WOLF STREET in the next day or two, I stumbled across an undetonated bombshell of a pìece from the Internet 1.0 era. Written by the DT’s Ambrose Evans Pritchard, the article reveals documentary evidence of historic U.S. covert (read: CIA) support for Europe’s federalist project. Part of that support was funded by (cue drum roll…) the Ford and Rockerfeller Foundations.…"

Remember:

In the interview, Obama said Britain was the US’s “best partner” because of its willingness to project power beyond its “immediate self-interests to make this a more orderly, safer world”.

A No 10 source said: “It’s right for Britain to have this renegotiation and this referendum to address the concerns that the British people have about Europe and to make sure the British people have the final say about whether we stay in a reformed European Union or leave.”

Obama also welcomed Cameron’s commitment to continue meeting the Nato target of spending 2% on defence. He said: “We don’t have a more important partner than Great Britain. For him to make that commitment when he has a budget agenda that is confined, a budget envelope that is confined, is significant.”

The US administration has previously expressed concerns about the UK’s commitment to military spending and had pressed for Cameron to commit to the target.

In June, US defence secretary Ashton Carter said the UK had always “punched above its weight” militarily and it would be “a great loss to the world” if it cut defence spending in a way that suggested it was “disengaged”.

The natural rate of interest debunked

Steve Keen post here (multiple parts) debunking the "natural rate of interest" BS. Also compares and debunks the Marxist "labour theory of value." This is a key weapon in the arsenal of bullshit economics and models.
The "natural rate of interest" is zero. Unless the Bank of England offers interest on reserves or the Treasury issues Gilts banks will try to lend out excess reserves in the interbank market but won't be able to in aggregate. The rate will fall to zero.

As Neil Wilson says:

"If you and I have only £10 between us then there is a limit to how fast we can move it between us in exchange for goods and services. That's the natural friction within the system (and is lower in the financial sector which is how it appears it generates so much money. Really its just a velocity shift).

However if there is more money in the economy - say £1000 then we can each have savings and still have enough liquidity to move real goods and services between us as fast as a possible in the real sphere.

Which is actually what we need.

The belief that is wrong is that the system naturally has enough liquidity. It doesn't. The unemployed have insufficient liquidity to demand the goods and services they need, which if they could would actually result in them being employed.

And the paradox of thrift caused by financial saving just isn't automatically offset by sufficient loans from banks. The market doesn't 'clear' at full activity, the quantity wanders up and down dependent entirely upon its own dynamic and with little direct connection with the real activities that need financing.

Money is made round to go around. What matters in turnover of money stock, not the size of the money stock."

EU goes over the deep end

Read it here. WTF?