There are many shortcomings of this monopoly trade bloc deal, but TPP even fails on it's claim of tariff reductions. The boast is that 18,000 tariffs are removed, but the deal leaves a gaping loophole to circumvent them all with currency manipulation. Governments are left with few tools other than the prospects of costly ISDS legal fights or profit-squeezing competitive devaluation to counter this insidious type of tariff that neither benefits the national interest nor the public interest. Laffer points out the need for currency manipulation protection to be written into the TPP[1]. It's the proverbial big fish that got away, but the story gets taller after each retelling.

There are many shortcomings of this monopoly trade bloc deal, but TPP even fails on it's claim of tariff reductions. The boast is that 18,000 tariffs are removed, but the deal leaves a gaping loophole to circumvent them all with currency manipulation. Governments are left with few tools other than the prospects of costly ISDS legal fights or profit-squeezing competitive devaluation to counter this insidious type of tariff that neither benefits the national interest nor the public interest. Laffer points out the need for currency manipulation protection to be written into the TPP[1]. It's the proverbial big fish that got away, but the story gets taller after each retelling.

It appears that business leaders have bought into the labor theory of value, hook line and sinker. Much time and money has been spent on creating a lemon that the public just doesn't want to buy.

[1] Currency Manipulation and its Distortion of Free Trade | Arthur Laffer |2014

A deficit is a deficit whether it adds to 'Public' Debt or 'Intra-Governmental' Debt or I am mistaken. OMF[1] may extract cash out of taxpayers pockets, then add bond face value(principal debt) and coupon rate(interest expense) on top of it. The taxpayer foots the bill (as part of fungible tax) and the government deploys the cash raised from bonds backed by a future claim on human resource capital (Poll Tax, Head Tax, seigniorage).

OMF may implicitly increase the size of government and/or stimulate higher-order aggregate demand for producer-consumers with taxpayer dollars for unexpected results, similar to what QE has done(stock buy-backs, carry trade,...).

To stimulate first-order aggregate demand for taxpaying-consumers with taxpayer dollars, one may entertain the idea of an individual, age 16-64, tax-free, garnish-free, relative-poverty-level front-loaded Basic Income (Citizen NIT) with marginal tapering from individual poverty-line to individual median wage, contained within a balanced budget (to curtail government deficit spending). This minimum income stream, minimum liquidity floor or liquidity complement may resonate with a balanced budget for the general welfare of the public (similar to an unemployment insurance). Synchronizing circulation of currency and circulation of goods and services with GDP may be achieved with a Dennis-Milner-type social credit/debt directly to/from citizens. This may be a mechanism to heat up or cool down the economy when necessary. Government spending on public interest projects or to pay down old accumulated debt may be then be contained within the budget.

[1] The new quantitative easing: overt monetary financing | Michael Baxter | Investment and Business News | 27 February 2013 http://www.investmentandbusinessnews.co.uk/econom...

The macro policies I would be most concerned about are government debt (including any overly prolonged trade imbalance) and taxes. For government debt, I would be concerned that the national credit card (deficit spending through Treasury Sales) would be used to finance a basic income. For taxes, I would be concerned that additional levies on taxpayers and business would be used to finance a basic income. When I think of supporting a basic income, it is in combination with a balanced government budget.

I can appreciate the need to avoid liquidity traps, but would channel any required increase of the money supply to help fund, with existing level taxes, a basic income to be shared among the taxpayers who ultimately fund it. I believe channeling taxpayer dollars, from deficit spending outside of the budget, away from taxpayers to other sources increases economic inequality. The amount of interest expense on the national debt ($430 Billion*) is more than half the amount needed to support a Basic Income (60 Million X $12 Thousand Poverty Level).

Supporting one intitiative without the other may present an unpleasant political spending situation adverse to the average citizen's budget over time, as well as the general economy. I hope that doesn't sound too "Old Right". Striking a happy medium between private sector economic productivity 'trade value' and public sector non-economic productivity 'use value' would be my aim.

I find it hard to support one initiative without the other for concern that either the working or non-working citizen will be uncomfortably squeezed. It's difficult to express in words without causing controversy, but for caution's sake, I must bring up the concern.

* Partly due to SS Trust Fund being stored as Special Treasuries instead of something intrinsically valuable like gold). See:

[1] Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding | Treasury Direct http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_...

[2] When Will Interest on US National Debt Exceed $1 Trillion? When Will the Fed Hike Rates? | Mike Shedlock | Sunday, January 12, 2014 http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/0...

Nicely said.

Thank you for the thoughtful reply in the prior comment. This may be more on-topic. Unemployment figures would be helpful in estimating costs for an individually-based Basic Income.. The U3 5.8% being used as the official unemployment rate may be insufficient. I really would like to know exactly how many people ages 16-64 don't have a job, how many are part-time versus full-time and just how many people are on the government payroll [6] that might be affected. The part-time figures may be applicable to UI eligibility.

This is the closest figure I can estimate for myself on unemployment.

2014 Men, 16 years and over Not in labor force 37,153,000 [1]
2014 Women, 16 years and over Not in labor force 55,225,000 [1]
Total: 92,378,000

2010 Population, 65 years and Older: 40,267,984 [2]
Noninstitutional Population 16-64 Not in labor Force: 92,378,000 - 40,267,984 = 52,110,016
(The above figure is far greater than U6 11.1% unemployment [7])

Personally, I add these numbers to the total:
Prison Population: 2 228 424 [3], Average Cost Per Inmate: $31,286, US poverty level ~$12,000

Correctional Officers: 469,500, Average Salary $38,970 [4]

So equivalently, 2,228,424 * 2 469,500 * 3 ~= 5,865,348 virtually unemployed @ $12,000 each.

Grand Total 52,110,016 5,865,348 = 57,975,364 rounded to 58 Million or roughly 60 Million.

NOTE: Just as an aside, I think of the poverty level as basic income with a flat tax starting after the basic income. Income after that from employment would marginally taper (claw back) basic income smoothly (indexed to economy) between poverty level and median wage within a balanced budget with no extra taxes. That may not intrude on incentive.

[1] Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age, 2014 http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm

[2] Table 1. Population 65 Years and Older by Age and Sex: 2000 and 2010 http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br...

[3] World Prison Brief http://www.prisonstudies.org/country/united-state...

[4] The Price of Prisons http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources...

[5] Correctional Officers http://www.bls.gov/ooh/protective-service/correct...

[6] Leviathan: The government payroll is longer than you might think. | By Iain Murray | FEBRUARY 3, 2011 4:00 AM http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/258768/lev...

[7] Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

The timing of the cited 'social policy' paper by the FED is most coincidental with recent public debate on the FED. It appears almost like a knee-jerk response to the effects that a fiscal policy like a liquidity complement might produce in favor of a GAAP style balanced budget, simplified flat tax code, non-leveraged consumer bank accounts, trade policy for natural trade balance equilibrium and no reliance on deficit spending financed by the FED for government spending and carry trade. Rerouting any necessary inflation for overcoming liquidity traps being channeled to a fiscally-based non-deficit spending liquidity complement(top-up) may become an alternative to trickle-down theory and monetary easing.

From 2014 FRED Civilian labor force numbers, non-employed approach 60 Million and the poverty threshold approaches $12 Thousand. The cost then is $720 Billion plus disbursement. Jeff Sessions estimates 2011 welfare costs were around $1 Trillion (not including SS and Medicare). Our official 2014 unemployment rate is currently around 5.8%.

CRS Report: Welfare Spending The Largest Item In The Federal Budget | Jeff Sessions http://www.budget.senate.gov/republican/public/in...

This may be part of a solution to the conundrum brought to a head in the decade 1962-1972. A glimmer of those times may be viewed here:

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, The Banking Aspects | IMF Conference|September 22, 1967 | Rio de Janeiro | http://www.perjacobsson.org/lectures/1967.pdf

and there is an entertaining historical narrative in "All the President's Bankers", 2014, by Nomi Prins.

It can also be amusing what one can do creatively with numbers:

25% Devided by 5 Best Maths Arguement Ever https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CACQmiaU6CU

Sounds good! I would only suggest factoring in some type of GDP::DEBT indexing for an enduring community of interest to popularly support the proposition, keep it alive until it reaches maturity and sustain it, thereafter. I do like thinking of it as a liquidity complement for the economy that benefits everyday consumers, everyday businesses and good, efficient government. The idea of improving the standard of living now and for the future is delightful.

I enjoyed the articles and hope you continue to develop a consensus that both liberals and libertarians can agree on. It opens the door for others to build upon and contribute new ideas. I hope American Politicians broach the subject soon w\o waiting for the public to do all the work and put the words in their mouth :)

-
Sources: http://www.palgraveconnect.com/pc/doifinder/10.10...
http://www.pri.org/stories/2013-10-14/2750-month-... http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/ind... http://bber.unm.edu/econ/us-tpi.htm http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/breakdown http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spend.php http://www.usbig.net/pdf/manyfacesofubi.pdfnet/pd...
BIG - http://usbig.net/papers.php