By injecting additional funds into the economy during a time of crisis, he believed that the severity of recessions and depressions could be reduced.  This approach ultimately become known as “Keynesian economics”, and in the post-World War II era virtually the entire world embraced it at least to some degree. 

Keynesian economists correctly point out that there is a “multiplier effect” to government spending.  In other words, when the government spends money it ends up in the hands of ordinary people.  In turn, those people spend that money on various goods and services that they need, thus boosting overall economic activity.  And the more the money circulates, the more the economy is stimulated. 

So one dollar of additional government spending does not just add one dollar to GDP.  Rather, the impact on GDP is often significantly greater than that. Of course the bad news is that whenever the government borrows money it is stealing consumption from the future.  So we are literally destroying the future that our children and our grandchildren were supposed to have in order to make the present look a little bit brighter.

At this moment, the US national debt is a whopping $19,901,545,151,126.51, and it will cross the 20 trillion dollar mark by the time Donald Trump is inaugurated on January 20th. But when Barack Obama was inaugurated, the national debt was only 10.6 trillion dollars.  That means that we have added about 9.3 trillion dollars to the debt since that time.

So we have borrowed and spent 9.3 trillion dollars under Obama that we did not have.  But because of the “multiplier effect”, that 9.3 trillion dollars actually had a far greater impact on the US economy …without all of this debt that Barack Obama and Congress have been getting us into, we would be in the worst economic depression in US history right now.

Donald Trump is talking about cutting taxes and reducing regulations, and all of those things are good, but ultimately those measures are not going to matter that much. What is going to matter is what Donald Trump decides to do about our exploding debt. If Donald Trump continues to steal money from future generations of Americans at the same pace that Barack Obama has been doing, he will literally be destroying the future of America.  It will be a crime on a scale that is almost beyond words, and if they get a chance to do it, future generations of Americans will look back and curse him for what he has done to us.

So Donald Trump is really in a no-win situation when it comes to the economy. As a nation we have been consuming far more wealth than we produce for a very, very long time, and the only way that we have been able to do this is because we have been able to go into so much debt. But now a day of reckoning is fast approaching, and I am not sure if Donald Trump even realizes that he will soon be faced with some incredibly heartbreaking choices.

In fact, Allison takes that rhetoric one step further. While acting as the head of the Cato Institute, Allison published several theses indicating that the Federal Reserve was obsolete and needed to be abolished as it restricts power from the people and allows billionaire cronies to run banks globally. “I would get rid of the Federal Reserve because the volatility in the economy is primarily caused by the Fed,” Allison wrote in 2014 for the Cato Journal.

As an alternative, Allison argues that if we allow the market to regulate itself, it would be preferable to the Federal Reserve harming the stability of the financial system. “When the Fed is radically changing the money supply, distorting interest rates, and over-regulating the financial sector, it makes rational economic calculation difficult,” Allison wrote. “Markets do form bubbles, but the Fed makes them worse.”

Trump’s meeting is more than notable, it is almost groundbreaking. No president has dared to take power away from the Rothschilds’ and other billionaire elites that control all of the world’s banks. We could possibly be taking steps to eliminate one of the most corrupt banking schemes to ever take hold in this country.

Elaborating ways to fill the gaps in the ranks of the military (Bundeswehr), which is set to get an enlargement in the coming years, was one of the main points of the meeting. “The minister increasingly wants to attract more school leavers without a diploma for the Bundeswehr,” Handelsblatt writes. According to the plan, those students will get an ability to graduate while already fulfilling their military service.

“We find that it’s important to give everyone a chance,” von der Leyen stressed as quoted by the news outlet. After getting rid of the compulsory military service in 2011, the Bundeswehr was reduced to a number of almost 177,000. Yet in July the German army introduced its new roadmap to the national parliament, stating that the country has “a responsibility to help shape the world order.”

The Catholic presentation sought to assess whether and to what extent religions can play a role in the resolution of conflicts and the construction of a new international order based on justice, peace and the care of Creation. In affirming the divine sanctity of human life, our religions demand respect for each person’s life and identity. This must be guaranteed to refugees and migrants, also by receiving them in such a way that the rights and freedoms of all are promoted.

The Jewish presentation surveyed the various factors that lead to aggression, violence and war, and sought to define criteria and values available in particular to the Abrahamic traditions in combatting these – specifically, the sanctity of the human person, the principle of free will, and appreciation of diversity as a reflection of the Divine Presence and Will.

In discussion on current issues, the principle of universal respect for the holy sites of each religion was affirmed; and note was made of attempts to deny the historical attachment of the Jewish People to its holiest site. The bilateral commission vigorously cautioned against the political and polemical denial of biblical history and called on all nations and faiths to respect this historic religious bond.

But all that schmoozing was merely the warm-up for Trump’s escapades over the weekend. First, he issued a White House invitation to Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, the man who called President Barack Obama a son of a bitch and who is leading a killing campaign against drug dealers in his country that borders on a war crime.

Following that, the president-elect “took a call” from Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen – and shattered a diplomatic consensus between Washington, Taipei and Beijing that has been in place since 1979. That year the United States recognized the People’s Republic of China and cut ties with Taiwan, a diplomatic situation that remains in place.

In response to the spate of condemnation following the call, Trump defended himself on his favorite medium, Twitter. He pointed out the absurdity of the United States selling billions of dollars in arms to Taiwan while he’s forbidden to take a call from that country’s president.

Indeed, the President elect’s undiplomatic behavior put the spotlight on one of the international community’s many agreed-upon lies. It’s not just that Taiwan is one of the largest importers of US weapons, but that Washington is obliged by treaty to defend it against a Chinese invasion. (Though the issue is defined by sufficiently vague diplomatic jargon to leave America’s options open and deter Taiwan from issuing a unilateral declaration of Independence.)

As Eurozone finance ministers prepare to meet in Brussels on Monday to discuss short-term debt relief for Greece, Schaeuble delivered an ultimatum to Athens: the country, which already has a staggering €330 billion ($349 billion) debt burden, must reform or face an exit from the EU.

“Athens must finally implement the needed reforms,” Schaeuble told Bild am Sonntag on Sunday. “If Greece wants to stay in the euro, there is no way around it – in fact completely regardless of the debt level.” Athens has received three international bailouts since 2010, and its debt, at about 180 percent of GDP, is still the highest in the Eurozone, amounting to over €300 billion of emergency loans.

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) are a concern for a number of reasons. When consumed, GMOs have been shown to cause gastrointestinal problems, increase cancer risk, and even silence human genes, not to mention their harmful effects on the environment and endangered species such as bees. Within the US, there is also a dearth of safety testing as most tests that show that GMOs are “safe” are short-term studies, lasting only a matter of months. Longer-term studies, even those conducted for just a few months longer than industry-funded studies, have found that the consumption of GMOs causes serious problems, such as an increase in tumor risk.

For those US consumers who are rightly concerned about the presence of GMOs in their food, mandatory GMO labeling is one solution that gives consumers the right to know what is in their food while not affecting the GMO food purchases of those who support biotechnology.

A handful of US states have successfully passed GMO labeling laws such as Connecticut, Maine, and Vermont. Similar initiatives in other states, like California, only failed due to the massive amounts of money funneled to the opposition by Industrial Agriculture and Food companies as well as the corporations who create GMO seeds and associated agrochemicals, such as Monsanto.

The bill, under the title S.764 or “A bill to reauthorize and amend the National Sea Grant College Program Act, and for other purposes,” skipped a house vote and was voted on by the Senate on July 7th, a month after it had been introduced. Obama signed and enacted the legislation a few weeks later on July 29th with little fanfare. All of this took place while media attention was focused on Brexit as well as the Republican and Democratic National Conventions, marking the opening stages of the general election.

Regardless of how one feels about GMOs, the passage of this law in such an under-the-radar manner is a chilling blow to state’s rights. The nullification of state laws, especially one passed in several states, should, at the very least, be an issue debated upon by the entire Congress and the American public at large. However, some senators, and the president himself, chose to pass this law without so much as a peep while the populace was conveniently distracted by the US election circus.

There are concerns the instability may trigger a deeper crisis for Italy's already vulnerable banking sector. A consortium organising a possible bailout for one leading bank, Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena, is meeting on Monday to consider whether to pursue the rescue bid. With most ballots counted, the No vote leads with 60% against 40% for Yes, with a 70% turnout. Mr Renzi staked his political future on his attempt to change Italy's cumbersome political system. He wanted to strengthen central government and weaken the Senate, the upper house of parliament.

His opponents - including some within his own party - had argued that the reforms would give the prime minister too much power. The electorate agreed. But the referendum was more than a vote on constitutional reform, it was widely regarded as a chance to reject establishment politics. It was a resounding victory for the No camp, a medley of populist parties headed by the Five Star Movement, which capitalised on Mr Renzi's declining popularity, years of economic stagnation, and the problems caused by tens of thousands of migrants arriving in Italy from Africa.

EU leaders won't have slept much on Sunday night. Angst about Italy makes an uncomfortable bedfellow and there's plenty for them to worry about. Particularly in Brussels. Prime Minister Renzi was the only premier left in Europe with a vision for the EU's future. Angela Merkel is too busy crisis-managing while much of France is in thrall to Front National eurosceptics.

But Matteo Renzi is no more. The self-styled reformer with his promise to stabilise politics and kick-start the Italian economy has managed quite the reverse. Italy wakes up on Monday to the threat of a banking crisis, political turmoil, and a group of anti-establishment populists banging on the doors of government. Eurozone beware and EU be warned. Italy is the euro currency's third largest economy and it's in for a bumpy ride. And there are more unpredictable votes to come in 2017: in France, Germany, the Netherlands and perhaps here in Italy too.

The result is being seen as a blow to the EU, although there is no question of Italy following the UK out of the door. Both Five Star and the Northern League are opposed to the eurozone but not to membership of the EU itself.

The road ahead is unclear. No state has left the European Union before, and the rules for exit  – contained in Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon – are brief. 

The Lisbon Treaty, which became law in December 2009, is designed to make the EU "more democratic, more transparent and more efficient" and is an agreement signed by the heads of state and governments of countries that are EU members.

Theresa May finally revealed ahead of her first speech as Prime Minister at the Tory Party Conference that she would trigger Article 50 no later than the end of March 2017.

That means Britain should officially leave the EU no later than April 2019. The process is supposed to take two years but many people believe that it could take longer. Triggering Article 50, formally notifying the intention to withdraw, starts the clock running. After that, the Treaties that govern membership no longer apply to Britain. 

The terms of exit will be negotiated between Britain’s 27 counterparts, and each will have a veto over the conditions. It will also be subject to ratification in national parliaments, meaning, for example, that Belgian MPs could stymie the entire process. The process is supposed to take two years but many people believe that it could take longer.

One option will be to simply recreate EU laws as British statute. But Civil Service insiders expect a new Brexit government to opt for something much more radical, and to use the opportunity of “throwing off the shackles” to re-regulate Britain.

It means that the Government would have to perform three acts simultaneously:

- Negotiate a new deal with Brussels

- Win a series of major bilateral trade deals around the world

- Revise its own governance as EU law recedes

Running the show would be an effective “Ministry for Brexit”, under a senior minister. Officials expect the scrapping of EU law could result in an avalanche of new legislation in every corner of Whitehall – perhaps 25 Bills in every Queen’s Speech for a decade.

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it. A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.