The reality is that Bidenomics is working exactly as it was intended to work. Like Kamala Harris said, “Bidenomics is working!”

It’s challenging to suspend disbelief in this notion because no matter how badly Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and the regime operates, most Americans work under the assumption that they’re not trying to tank the economy. It’s easier to blame incompetence, wokeness, and poor fiscal policies than to assume a darker intention. But the intention of tanking the economy comes from a false but persistent ideology that the regime won’t say out loud. They want to replace the system with Modern Monetary Theory and to do that requires everything that’s happening right now.

In other words, they think they’re doing “good” by destroying what we know to be a strong and vibrant American form of capitalism. This is how we know their intentions. If they openly discussed installing Modern Monetary Theory in America, their actions would be exactly what they are today.

MMT requires high unemployment, inflation, and a massive population surge from external sources. Does any of that sound familiar? As much as I loathe Wikipedia, their initial overview of Modern Monetary Theory is actually quite accurate:

Modern monetary theory or modern money theory (MMT) is a heterodox macroeconomic theory that describes currency as a public monopoly and unemployment as evidence that a currency monopolist is overly restricting the supply of the financial assets needed to pay taxes and satisfy savings desires.

According to MMT, governments do not need to worry about accumulating debt since they can pay interest by printing money. MMT argues that the primary risk once the economy reaches full employment is inflation, which acts as the only constraint on spending. MMT also argues that inflation can be controlled by increasing taxes on everyone, to reduce the spending capacity of the private sector.

MMT is opposed to the mainstream understanding of macroeconomic theory and has been criticized heavily by many mainstream economists. MMT is also strongly opposed by members of the Austrian school of economics, with Murray Rothbard stating that MMT practices are equivalent to “counterfeiting” and that government control of the money supply will inevitably lead to hyperinflation.

We know two things for sure. First, the Biden-Harris regime is working behind the scenes to lay the foundation for a near future iteration of Modern Monetary Theory. The reason we know this is ironic because it appears to have been an unintentional admission by the Chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisors, Jared Bernstein.

According to Fox News back in May:

A viral video of President Joe Biden’s chief economic adviser, Jared Bernstein, appearing to struggle to explain how monetary policy works has raised new questions about the administration’s handling of the economy.

Bernstein, who chairs the White House Council of Economic Advisers, was interviewed for a new film called, “Finding the Money,” a documentary made by advocates of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) – a controversial line of economic thought. One of MMT’s central tenets is that government budget deficits don’t matter for countries like the U.S. that borrow money in their own currencies. Proponents argue this means the government should use tax and spending policies to manage the economy and address inflation instead of the central bank’s monetary policies.

“The U.S. government can’t go bankrupt, because we can print our own money,” Bernstein says in the video. He was then asked by the interviewer, “Like you said, they print the dollar, so why does the government even borrow?”

Bernstein’s reply seems to indicate uncertainty – at best – about monetary policy.

“Again, some of this stuff gets – some of the language and concepts are just confusing. The government definitely prints money, and it definitely lends that money by selling bonds. Is that what they do? They sell bonds, yeah, they sell bonds. Right? Since they sell bonds, and people buy the bonds, and lend them the money,” Bernstein replied.

If reading that makes you think he sounds like an idiot, watching it is even more disturbing.

The other thing we know for sure is that many Democrats have been pushing for the foundation of MMT to be built for years. If you don’t recall hearing many of them mention Modern Monetary Theory, it’s because they’ve been using a different name: The Green New Deal.

As Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s former Chief of Staff Saikat Chakrabarti famously noted, the Green New Deal wasn’t about the environment. It was about economic change. He would know. He’s the primary architect of the legislative abomination.

The Daily Caller noted his comments from 2019:

“The interesting thing about the Green New Deal, is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all,” Chakrabarti said to Inslee’s climate director, Sam Ricketts.

“Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing,” Chakrabarti added.

So when Kamala Harris says Bidenomics is working, she’s not misspeaking. She’s not delusional. Bidenomics is working exactly as it was always intended to work, as is the entirety of the Biden-Harris regime. We have to stop assuming they’re just idiots and realize that to be that stupid requires intent.

If you take a test with 100 multiple-choice questions, one can expect to get around a quarter of them right if they just answer “C” on every question. That’s based on ignorance and incompetence. To get EVERY question wrong means they know the right answer and they’re willfully picking the wrong one. That’s insidious intent and that’s exactly what we’re seeing from the Biden-Harris regime. They’re getting literally everything “wrong.”

The regime has acted to raise crime, inflation, and the illegal alien population. They have acted to reduce security, access, and freedom. These are all extremely important precursors to an economic collapse that would allow them to usher in Modern Monetary Theory as the “solution.”

In fact, it would be the only possible “solution” once the debt reaches a point of no return, which many believe has already happened.

Over the remaining months of the election I am going to be working to educate as many as possible about MMT, economic collapse, and Bidenomics. If, God forbid, Harris is able to steal the 2024 election, then I will shift focus to educating how we fight back before it’s too late. All of this will be done through my revived project, the Economic Collapse Newsletter on Substack.

Modern Monetary Theory is a heterodox theory arguing that the deficit is a shibboleth. With fiat money, there should be no fear of deficit spending. If the economy is underperforming, just have the government spend more. Following the Financial Crisis of 2008, Paul Krugman bemoaned that the world wasn’t being invaded by space aliens because such a threat would induce massive, huge, ginormous spending, and that spending would solve all our economic problems.

Last year, with the deficits associated with the Pandemic and the government-ordered shut-down, the Amazing Joe Biden said, “There’s nobody suggesting there’s unchecked inflation on the way, no serious economist.” This year, inflation is surging.

Modern Monetary Theory supposes that money has no intrinsic value, but is essentially an unbacked or fiat currency. Accordingly, government spending isn’t constrained by tax revenue or even by the ability of the government to borrow. The government has only to print up whatever amount of money is needed for spending. Those who insist on balancing the budget are obsessing over something that is no longer relevant. They aren’t “modern.” Or, as Amazing Joe put it, they aren’t “serious.”

If deficits don’t matter, what then is the purpose of taxes?

Aside from redistributing wealth, MMTers say the purpose of taxes is to control inflation. If inflation were to break out – definitely not because the government is deficit spending and printing new money! – then the government can tidy up that little problem by removing some of the money sluicing around in the economy by raising taxes.

Wait, you may be saying, doesn’t this use of taxation to fight inflation effectively bring us back to mainstream economics?

No, you’re missing the point, MMTers say. Modern Monetary Theory is a different approach. Instead of restraining spending because of concerns about the deficit and inflation, Modern Monetary Theory says spend freely. If inflation results, just raise taxes.

What is valid about the connection of fiat money and taxation was discussed by Adam Smith and incorporated by the British Parliament into the Currency Acts of 1751 and 1764.

The Currency Act of 1751 pertained to the New England colonies (only). It normally limited the issue of (non-interest bearing) “bills of credit” (i.e., fiat currency) to the “current service” of government. While having no intrinsic value, these bills circulated as money (even though not enjoying legal tender status) because they could be used to discharge taxes coming due in the near term. The Currency Act of 1764 essentially extended the same terms to the other colonies of British North America.

Adam Smith, in The Wealth of Nations examined the experience of tax-backed fiat currency in British North America, and said that if the quantity of paper money was kept below the amount payable in taxes, and if it were otherwise convenient as a medium of exchange, that paper money would circulate at its face value. However, he said the quantity of paper money “was in all the colonies very much above what could be employed in this manner.” The latter statement was something of an overgeneralization. The colonies abused the power to issue paper money to various extents. Not all of them “very much” abused this power.

Two additional episodes involving tax-backed fiat currency come from Texas during the mid-19^th Century. When Texas gained its independence from Mexico in 1836, it had no significant tax. The first President of the Republic of Texas, Sam Houston, estimated the demand for a national medium of exchange to be $800,000, and thought that this demand could be partially satisfied with a limited issue of tax-backed currency, in conjunction with enacting a tariff and restraining spending so as to quickly bring the budget into balance.

His successor, Mirabeau Lamar, was something of an MMTer before there was such a thing. Lamar had great ambitions for Texas, along with the requisite spending plans. And, where was the money to come from? Through the issue of millions of dollars of Texas Treasury notes characterized as “Red Backs.” Needless to say (to mainstream economists), the Red Backs fell to pennies of a U.S. Dollar per Texas Dollar.

During the Civil War, Texas, now as one of the Confederate States, issued Treasury warrants that circuited as money. After the collapse of the Confederate Dollar, Texas raised taxes and instituted other measures to support its warrants. The warrants then rose in value until continuing issues and the advance of the Yankees did in the Texas warrants, as these things had already done in the Confederate Dollar.

Later in the 19^th Century, there was yet another test of the tax-backing of money. This test involved silver money, either in the form of coins or in the form of (paper) silver certificates. As the value of silver fell relative to gold during the late 19^th Century, the United States found itself in a quandary. Either continue to issue silver currency and be forced off gold and onto a devalued silver standard, or limit the issue of silver currency.

This matter came to a head in 1893, when President Grover Cleveland, the last of the hard money Democrats, called an extraordinary session of Congress to repeal the law mandating the issue of a certain amount of silver currency and, thus, commit the U.S. foursquare to gold.

Time and time again in the history of this country, the ability of taxes to support an unbacked or insufficiently-backed currency has been tested. Every time the answer has been clear: The acceptability of a currency for the payment of taxes can support the value of such a currency; but, this ability is limited. If the issue of an unbacked or insufficiently-backed currency exceeds the amount needed to pay the tax, and even exceeds the amount in demand as a medium of exchange, the value of that currency will fall (or, there will be inflation).

You might think that somebody as old as Amazing Joe would know this history. Yet, if this history wasn’t written down by a student sitting next to him during a test, it’s not clear he would ever have learned it.

Article cross-posted from AIER.