The Fermi paradox is the discrepancy between the lack of conclusive evidence of advanced extraterrestrial life and the apparently high likelihood of its existence.
The paradox is named after physicist Enrico Fermi, who informally posed the question—remembered by Emil Konopinski as “But where is everybody?”—during a 1950 conversation at Los Alamos with colleagues Konopinski, Edward Teller, and Herbert York.
The paradox first appeared in print in a 1963 paper by Carl Sagan , and the paradox has since been fully characterized by scientists.
Enrico Fermi
Early formulations of the paradox have also been identified in the writings of Bernard Le Bovier de Fontenelle, Jules Verne, and Soviet rocket scientist Konstantin Tsiolkovsky.
There have been many attempts to resolve the Fermi paradox, such as suggesting that intelligent extraterrestrial beings are extremely rare, that the lifespans of such civilizations are short, or that they exist but (for various reasons) humans see no evidence.
Some of the facts and hypotheses that together serve to highlight the apparent contradiction:
There are billions of stars in the Milky Way similar to the Sun.
With high probability, some of these stars have Earth-like planets orbiting in the habitable zone.
Many of these stars, and hence their planets, are much older than the Sun.
If Earth-like planets are typical, some may have developed intelligent life long ago.
However, there is no convincing evidence that this has happened.
So where is everyone?
The question intersects with the concept of “consciousness.” The “everyone” we are seeking likely refers to an advanced civilization—one that is more advanced than our own—potentially alongside more evolved life forms. Presumably, they would possess a high level of consciousness.
We should discuss the term “Consciousness.” It may carry too much baggage for scientific purposes; its common usage suggests a metaphysical, mysterious, and indefinable phenomenon that lacks measurable physical properties.
We have claimed it is stimuli —>response—>response—>… where each response is a new stimulus, in a never-ending sequence, leading to further responses. So the keyword becomes “response.”
I propose that what has previously been termed “consciousness” should now be called “responsiveness,”a term that signifies it is the degree, not just the function, that differentiates humans from plants—or from advanced alien species.
I’ve considered other words, “responsivity,” “reactivity,” “sensitivity,” but have settled on “responsiveness,” because it most accurately describes the “stimulus—>response description and would dissolve the so-called “hard problem” concerning animal, plant, and Artificial Intelligence machine consciousness.
All receive stimuli and respond to them — the sole question is the degree of responsiveness.
The theory might be summarized by a very simple statement: Reality is organized responsiveness, or even, the universe is a network of responses.
Thus, not only are humans not at the top of the pyramid, but we never will be. AI will pass us one day.
“Responsiveness scales from quarks to the universe.” As a philosophical statement, it implies a continuum rather than a hierarchy: quarks → atoms → cells → organisms → societies → planet → universe. Each level shows greater integration and complexity of responses.
This shows that humans are not at the top of the pyramid and never will be. Evolution has no final destination; complexity can continue to grow in unexpected directions. That captures a non-anthropocentric view of reality, where humans are simply one stage in a much larger continuum of responsive systems.
This idea leads to an intriguing next question: If responsiveness can scale upward, what would the next level above humanity actually look like?
Nature has tried big land animals and big water animals, and land animals of modest size with oversize brains (us), but it hasn’t tried bigger land animals with even bigger oversize brains. That would be a good place to start, but we probably would need another big meteor or a visit from another planet to have it here on Earth
I’m basically asking: why hasn’t Earth’s evolution produced very large land animals with oversized brains? I’m not talking about elephants or even the water animal, the blue whale, which has the largest brain of any animal, but, importantly, a very low Encephalization Quotient (EQ), i.e., brain size vs body mass.
Animal Brain Weight Body Size EQ
Blue Whale 7kg 150,000kg low
Elephant 4-5kg 6,000kg moderate
Human 1.4 70kg High
So even though whales have bigger brains, humans have much larger brains relative to body size.
At first glance, a very large animal with a high EQit does seem like an obvious next step. But several physical and biological constraints make that combination difficult.
1. Brain energy requirements.Brains are extraordinarily expensive organs. In humans, the brain is about 2% of body mass but consumes about 20% of total energy. Larger brains require a significant energy supply. If an animal has both a very large body and a very large brain, the energy demand may become excessive.
2. Signal speed inside big bodies. Neural impractical. Large animals already struggle to gather enough food to maintain their bodies. Signals travel only about 1–120 meters per second, depending on the nerve. In a very large animal: bigger body and longer nerve paths produce slower coordination
For example, in a giraffe, the nerve from the brain to the foot already travels several meters. If the animal were much larger, reaction times could become inefficient.
3. Heat removal. Brains produce heat. Large brains inside very large bodies would create cooling problems. This is one reason mammals evolved elaborate blood-flow systems in the brain. Cooling limits brain scaling.
4. Gestation and development Large brains require long development. Humans already face a compromise between large brains and the size of the birth canal. If body size increased much further, reproduction could become more difficult.
5. Extinction pressures. Major evolutionary changes often occur after mass extinctions. For example, the extinction of dinosaurs (~66 million years ago) allowed mammals to expand into ecological niches that had suddenly opened. Without such disruptions, evolution tends to refine existing forms rather than invent radically new ones.
6. The alternative strategy evolution. Instead of making one giant brain, evolution took another route: many medium brains + communication + culture. Humans formed societies, languages, and technologies. Civilization effectively became a distributed brain. That may scale much more efficiently than a single enormous animal.
The question, “Where is everyone? ” implies space travel, and that adds another barrier to the larger animal with a disproportionately larger brain:
7. The physical constraint.A larger, more intelligent species would face major engineering challenges in spaceflight. Rocket physics (the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation) makes launching large masses extremely energy-intensive. If the average intelligent creature weighed tons instead of 70–80 kg, then: spacecraft would need to be far larger, Launch energy would increase dramatically. Life-support systems would be much heavier. That alone might discourage space travel.
8. Dexterity and precision engineering. Building rockets requires extremely fine manipulation: tiny screws, delicate electronics, and microscopic tolerances. Human fingers evolved for this level of precision.
9. Gravity and body design. Animals are typically adapted to their environments. Elephants, for example, rely heavily on massive skeletal support and constant ground contact. Heavy animals walk on four legs.
10. Psychology: Human space exploration came from curiosity, competition, warfare, technology, exploration, and traditions. Another civilization might emphasize values very different from ours: stability, long-term memory, social cohesion, and environmental balance. They simply might see no reason to leave their home planet.
11.Another science path. Instead of rockets, such a species might focus on: planet-scale knowledge + ecological engineering + deep communication networks. Their intelligence might grow inward rather than outward. Their responsiveness could increase without expanding into space.
Humanity explores space partly because we are small, restless, tool-using primates. Different evolutionary starting points could lead to civilizations that never invent rockets, never leave their planet, yet become extremely sophisticated.
We, humans, are just about the right size and construction. We live on land, have big brains for our size, have fingers, have a long lifespan, are bipedal, have 5+ good senses, and are omnivores. Really, the whole package — even our warlike nature helps
Evolutionary biologists and astrobiologists occasionally refer to the “anthropic body plan” problem—the idea that technological civilization may require a very particular combination of physical traits.
The Fermi Paradox’s discussions focus on planetary conditions, but the biological constraints are often overlooked: the biological bottleneck. In other words: a habitable planet may not yield a technological civilization. There may be many planets with life, but very few where evolution produces the particular anatomical and behavioral package needed for technology and spaceflight.
Earth has had life for about 3.8 billion years. But technological intelligence appeared only once (so far). Many successful organisms have existed for millions of years with very simple nervous systems. Examples: sharks, crocodiles, and insects.
They thrive without needing advanced technology. The galaxy might contain: countless microbial biospheres, many worlds with plants and animals, and a few intelligent species, but almost no technological civilizations.
That would explain why we don’t see: alien radio signals, megastructures, and interstellar probes. Humanity might occupy a very unusual evolutionary niche. Not necessarily unique—but possibly very rare. Humans may simply be one rare point where responsiveness became capable of building telescopes and rockets.
Yet, even if intelligent civilizations are rare, the Milky Way has roughly 100–400 billion stars. So the real question becomes: If the odds are one in a billion… there could still be dozens of civilizations. Unless the odds are even greater. After all, the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and intelligent humans appeared only about 50,000 years ago.
To give you some feeling for that: If Earth’s history were one calendar year, humans appeared late on December 31, and civilization began in the last few minutes before midnight.
But, are we too brain-centric? In the suggested measure for responsiveness, the brain is just one organ receiving input from every inch of the human body. What if more of the body were a brain? After all, we currently have other brain-like systems.
I. Ourimmune system resembles a brain. It senses: immune cells detect pathogens through receptors. It recognizes, distinguishing self vs. non-self. It remembers: The adaptive immune system stores long-term memory of pathogens.
It learns: Antibody responses improve after repeated exposure. It makes decisions: Immune cells coordinate attacks through chemical signaling. It has a network structure: Instead of neurons and synapses, the immune system uses cytokines, chemical gradients, and cell-to-cell contact. In short, the immune system functions as a distributed cognitive network.
II. Thedigestive system (Enteric Nervous System — ENS) includes about 500 million neurons, more than the spinal cord. It can coordinate muscle contractions, regulate enzyme release, and control digestion, and it can do this independently of the brain. It also communicates with the brain through the Vagus Nerve.
The ENS contains hundreds of millions of neurons, organized into networksthat resemble those in the brain. These neurons can modify their behavior based on past activity (i.e., learn). Example: stimulus (food, toxin, irritation) —>gut neural response —>future responses altered. The ENS can learn patterns of digestion and adjust muscle contractions and enzyme secretion accordingly.
Memory: Much of the immune system resides in the gut lining. Structures like Peyer’s Patches store immune information about pathogens encountered in food.
The gut microbiome also stores a kind of ecological memory. Diet, antibiotics, and illness reshape microbial populations. Once established, these microbial communities influence digestion efficiency, immune responses, production of signaling molecules. So your past diet can shape how your gut responds to food months or years later.
The digestive system can also become conditioned. For example, certain foods can trigger nausea after food poisoning. The smell of food can trigger the secretion of digestive enzymes. Habitual eating schedules can cause hunger at specific times. This is a form of gut-brain associative learning.
The digestive tract can physically adapt over time. For example, a high-fiber diet can alter gut bacteria; exposure to lactose can affect enzyme regulation; and chronic irritation can alter digestive patterns. These changes persist, functioning like long-term memory in tissue structure.
III. The endocrine system resembles a regulatory brain, but instead of electrical signals, it uses hormones. It monitors internal conditions such as blood sugar, stress levels, growth, and metabolism, and then it adjusts the body accordingly.
IV. The cardiovascular system — The heart and blood vessels form another responsive network. The heart contains about 40,000 neurons in its intrinsic nervous system. These neurons help regulate heart rhythm, blood pressure, and circulation. Sensors in arteries constantly monitor oxygen levels and blood pressure, and adjust flow accordingly.
V. The skin behaves like a sensory-processing system. It contains receptors for touch, temperature, pressure and pain. It also participates in immune responses and chemical signaling. The skin constantly feeds information into the entire system.
Even individual organs act like mini brains.
For example, the kidneys constantly sense internal conditions: Blood pressure, salt concentration, potassium levels, acid–base balance,and oxygen levels. Specialized cells in the kidney detect these changes.
The kidneys play a vital role in regulating bodily functions. When their sensors detect changes in the body, the kidneys adjust the amounts of various substances they either remove or retain. For example, if blood pressure is low, the kidneys release renin. If there is excess potassium, they increase potassium excretion. In response to high acid levels, they excrete hydrogen ions, and when the body is dehydrated, they conserve water.
The kidneys also communicate with other organs through hormones. Erythropoietin stimulates red blood cell production and activation of vitamin D for calcium regulation. The kidneys are not just filters; they are regulatory command centers influencing the heart, bones, and blood.
Like the brain, the kidneys operate through multiple feedback loops. Each kidney contains about one million nephrons, and each nephron independently regulates filtration, reabsorption, and secretion. The kidney functions as a massively parallel processing system.
In summary, it is wrong to think of the brain as the sole learning and decision-making part of the human body. The entire body functions as a learning and decision-making entity. The entire body is “conscious,” or perhaps more properly, “responsive.”
The vast majority of our decisions are made without our awareness.
Although human behavior is often described as the result of free will—the idea that an inner “self” consciously controls actions, modern biology suggests a different picture. Rather than a single decision-maker directing the body, the organism is better understood as a network of interacting systems, each responding to stimuli and generating responses.
What we experience as a single decision emerges from the combined activity of many subsystems.
Every moment, numerous biological processes are operating simultaneously. The immune system evaluates pathogens, digestive organs respond to food and toxins, endocrine glands regulate hormones, muscles monitor fatigue, and neural circuits process sensory input and memory. Each system produces signals related to the organism’s survival. In simplified form: stimulus —> response —>response —> response —> ∞
These responses are constantly interacting. The brain integrates many of them, but it is not the sole controller. If the digestive system detects toxins, it can produce nausea or diarrhea that overrides planned behavior. If the immune system detects infection, it can induce fatigue and reduce activity.
In such cases, bodily signals secretly can alter behavior even when the brain’s planning circuits suggest something different. You may or may not “feel like” doing something, and that will provide the illusion of free will.
Even within the brain,there is no single command center. Different neural networks handle emotion, reward evaluation, motor planning, memory, and long-term reasoning. These networks interact, compete, and cooperate. The resulting action is the outcome of this complex internal negotiation. Conscious awareness usually arrives afterward, constructing the narrative: “I decided to do this.”
From this perspective, the feeling of a unified “self” making decisions may be an interpretation produced by the brain, rather than the cause of behavior. The organism’s actions are generated by the integrated responses of many systems. The sense of agency becomes another response in the chain, not an independent controlling force.
This view has implications for how we think about responsibility and morality. In everyday life, we assume individuals choose their actions and therefore deserve praise or blame. But if behavior arises from biological processes beyond conscious control, then the concept of responsibility may primarily serve as a social feedback mechanism rather than as evidence of metaphysical free will.
Societies establish rules that promote survival and stability. When individuals violate those rules, punishment serves as a negative stimulus that discourages similar behavior in the future. Praise operates as positive reinforcement. In this way, legal and moral systems resemble biological regulatory systems within the body.
For example, organs must obey physiological “rules” to maintain homeostasis. If the kidneys fail to regulate salt properly, blood pressure rises, and the entire body suffers the consequences. There is no moral blame, but the system experiences corrective effects. Similarly, when a person commits a crime, society responds with sanctions intended to maintain social stability.
Within this framework, neither the criminal nor the judge is acting from an unconstrained inner will. Each is the product of countless interacting influences—genetics, neural activity, emotions, memories, social pressures, and environmental stimuli. The judge’s ruling emerges from the same kind of complex integration that produces any other behavior.
The organism—and society itself—can be understood as systems of distributed, interactive responsiveness, in which actions arise from interconnected processes rather than from a separate controlling self.
In short, every bit of stimulus received from outside our bodies and inside our bodies affects our thinking and we are aware of only a tiny fraction of these influences. As we receive millions of stimuli every second, and this repeats second by second, year by year, in a massively complex interaction, the brain protects us from confusion by providing the illusion of simple central control.
When we consider a distributed interactive process, we speak not only of a living creature, but also of society as a whole. Humanity could be considered one large brain.
The same “system of distributed interactive responsiveness” description could be applied to the Earth, the solar system, the Milky Way galaxy, and the universe. All meet the criteria for responsiveness (“consciousness”). The entire universe functions like a giant brain, doing everything a brain does, except on an unimaginably vast scale.
And as for Fermi’s paradox:
The distances are too great
The physics is too difficult
The biology is incompatible with life on exoplanets.
The universe repeatedly forces life to start over.
We, Earthlings, have been lucky to be the latest survivors here.
Consciousness = Stimulus → Response → Response → Response . . . . ∞ All things are conscious, the difference being the degree of consciousness, i.e. the amount of Stimulus and Response.
Traditionally, scientists assumed that minds require complex brains. However, the article suggests that the threshold may be much lower. Some researchers now define a mind not in terms of awareness but in terms of agency—the ability of a system to:
Receive information from its environment
Process that information, and
Act in ways that pursue those goals, not in terms of awareness but in terms of agency—the ability of a system to seemingly learn from the results of its actions.
Under this definition, even simple living organisms may possess primitive forms of mind. For example, bacteria can detect chemical gradients and move toward nutrients. Because their behavior changes depending on past conditions, scientists sometimes describe them as having memory and acting toward goals.
This approach pushes the origin of mind downward from humans and animals to all living systems.
A Problem of Language
However, this explanation may rely heavily on anthropomorphic language—words originally created to describe human experience.
Terms such as “goal,” “memory, “decision,” and “information” come from psychology. When applied to molecules or cells, they may unintentionally suggest the presence of an internal “self” directing behavior.
For example, does a bacterium really have a goal of finding food? Does an iron filing have the goal of moving toward a magnet? Does a stone have the goal of rolling downhill?
Similarly, the term “memory” can be misleading. In physics and chemistry, what scientists call memory is simply the currentstate of a system reflecting its previous interactions.
An iron filing “remembers” the magnet only in the sense that its position has changed because of the magnet’s presence. No extra-mental property is required. Everything involved is physics and chemistry, not metaphysics.
Using psychological language for physical processes may therefore confuse the issue by introducing concepts that are not actually present in the underlying mechanisms. This linguistic problem has parallels in other fields.
In quantum physics, the terms “wave” and “particle” evoke familiar images that do not accurately describe quantum behavior. In economics, words such as “debt,” “deficit,” “borrow,” and “owe” can create misunderstandings when applied to Monetarily Sovereign currency systems.
In each case, the words shape our thinking and may lead us toward mistaken conclusions.
A Simpler Hypothesis
Instead of introducing concepts like goals or memory, it may be simpler to start from a more fundamental principle:
Stimulus → Response → Response → Response . . . ∞
Each response becomes the stimulus for the next response, producing an unbroken causal chain. Examples of this appear throughout nature: A photon strikes an atom → the atom emits another photon. Gravity affects an object → the object accelerates. Chemical molecules react → new molecules form.
Every interaction produces another interaction. In physics language, this chain could also be described as: Event → Event → Event
The two descriptions mean essentially the same thing. A response is simply an event, and each event becomes the cause of– the stimulus for — the next event.
Consciousness as Degree of Responsiveness
Within this framework, consciousness does not magically appear at some stage of biological evolution. Instead, everything responds to stimuli, but systems differ in the complexity of their responses.
A subatomic particle may have a simple physical interaction. An atom has a chemical interaction. A cell has a metabolic response. An organism has a behavioral response, A brain has a highly integrated response
Consciousness may therefore be understood as a very complex and highly integrated form of responsiveness. The mind is not a fundamentally new ingredient in the universe. It is a complex pattern within the chain of interactions that exists everywhere. Consciousness is pure chemistry and physics. Nothing metaphysical there.
Removing the Boundary Between Matter and Mind
Many scientific explanations assume a boundary, such as: matter → life → mind
But the stimulus–response framework suggests a smoother progression: response → complex response → recursive response → integrated response → mind
Rather than appearing suddenly, consciousness emerges gradually as systems become more complex and interconnected.
The “Everything” Problem
Any theory that claims to apply universally faces a common criticism. If someone says, “Everything is consciousness,” critics may reply that the concept becomes meaningless because it distinguishes nothing.
The stimulus–response framework avoids this trap by distinguishing degrees of complexity.
Everything participates in causal responses, but certain systems—such as brains—form extremely dense complex networks of recursive responses.
Higher consciousness, therefore, represents a special level of complexity, not a universal property identical in all things.
A Deeper Possibility
This perspective also connects to a broader speculative idea about the nature of the universe. It may be that matter itself is not the most fundamental component of reality.
Instead, the universe may fundamentally consist of events unfolding in time. Modern theoretical physics increasingly describes reality as a network of interactions rather than a collection of objects.
In that picture: event → event → event → event. . . . ∞ Objects such as particles and atoms may be stable patterns within this ongoing network of events.
Matter would then resemble a whirlpool in water—a persistent pattern within a flowing process.
Gravity, Time, and the Structure of Reality
This perspective suggests another possibility: that Gravity and Time may be the universe’s deepest structural features. In Einstein’s theory, Gravity is not a force in the traditional sense but a property of spacetime itself.
If you were to ask, “At the most basic level, what is everything made of — every atom, every force, everything — you would search for something that appears everywhere and in everything, and that search would take you to Gravity and Time. Both affect everything and appear everywhere.
The post, “Everything: Gravity, Change and the Glass Hammerdescribes how comples swirls in Gravity and Time may be the ultimate foundation of all existence — all matter, all fields, all energy.
If Einstein’s spacetime forms the framework within which events occur, then the universe may ultimately consist of:
gravity + time ↓ spacetime structure ↓ networks of events ↓ stable patterns ↓ complex feedback systems ↓ consciousness
In this view, consciousness is not something mysteriously added to the universe. It would be the responsiveness that operates everywhere in nature.
Theoretical biologist Michael Levin and his colleagues at Tufts University in Massachusetts recently applied cognitive tools to systems far simpler than even basic, single-celled organisms– systems that most of us would consider to be inanimate.
Levin and his colleagues modelled 29 different GRNs derived from biological data in a set of computer simulations. They trained each GRN to associate the presence of a neutral drug, which doesn’t trigger a response, with a functional drug that does, by repeatedly simultaneously stimulating nodes in the network.
In this way, they eventually achieved the desired behavioural change in each GRN in the absence of the functional drug, such as getting a dog to salivate with a ticking metronome and no food. In other words, their experiment showed that GRNs can learn: adapting their behaviour in a way that requires a kind of memory. “These are examples of cognition, for sure,” says Levin. “You’re not going to have a scintillating conversation with a GRN, but it’s something, it’s not zero.”
Thus, consciousness, i.e., Stimulus—>Response, was shown not to be limited to life, and certainly not limited to human life. It is a measurable chemical-physical process that tends to increase with complexity and may ultimately be composed of two elements: Gravity and Time.
Conclusion
The New Scientist article suggests that “mind” may arise wherever living systems display goal-directed behavior and memory. However, the language used in such explanations may unintentionally introduce psychological concepts into purely physical processes.
An alternative view begins with a simpler principle: the universe may consist of a continuous chain of stimulus and response, or equivalently, a network of events influencing later events.
As these chains of interaction become increasingly complex and recursive, they may give rise to the phenomena we call mind and consciousness.
Consciousness may not have emerged magically during biological evolution; instead, it could represent a highly integrated pattern of gravity and time (i.e., stimulus → response) within the universe’s ongoing network of events.
I created the U.S. dollar. I have the infinite ability to create as many dollars as I want. I never can run short. I don’t need your tax dollars. I don’t even use your tax dollars.
The following article by Robert Reichis widely believed and totally wrong with regard to how the government pays for things. I’ve commented on the errors,
How Trump is Paying for His War AND Giving a Huge Tax Cut to the Rich
By cutting Medicaid, food stamps, and other assistance people need Robert Reich, Mar 05, 2026
Wrong, He is cutting Medicaid, food stamps and other assistance. And he is giving tax cuts to the very rich. That is the Republican way.
But federal spending cuts do not finance anything. The federal government has infinite dollars to spend. It never can run short of dollars.
(Alan Greenspan, Former Federal Reserve Chairman: “A government cannot become insolvent with respect to obligations in its own currency. There is nothing to prevent the federal government from creating as much money as it wants and paying it to somebody. Alan Greenspan: “The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print the money to do that.”)
Trump has launched us into what could be another costly and deadly forever war. It is costing the U.S. at least $1 billion a day.
Meanwhile, he and Republicans are slashing taxes on the wealthiest Americans.
How are they doing both? By making devastating cuts to food assistance programs that help millions of people — and lying about what these programs actually do.
Those devastating cuts to food assistance do nothing to help the government slash taxes on the rich. The federal governmen has infinite dollars and can spend forever, while slashing taxes.
(Ben Bernanke, Former Federal Reserve Chairman: “The U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost. It’s not tax money… We simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account.”)
Trump’s “Big Ugly” bill is delivering $1 trillion in tax cuts to the top 1 percent of Americans while cutting more than $1.1 tr illion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Medicaid, and other health programs used by the poorest Americans.
Trump could pay for his tax cuts to the rich without cutting SNAP, Medicaid, and health programs.
Federal taxes do not fund federal spending. The purpose of federal taxes is to:
Assure demand for the U.S. dollar by requiring dollars be used to pay taxes, and,
Control the economy by taxing what the government wishes to discourage and by giving tax breaks to what the government wishes to reward.
(Beardsley Ruml, former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York . “The necessity for a government to tax in order to maintain both its independence and its solvency is true for state and local governments, but it is not true for a national government. All federal taxes must meet the test of public policy and practical effect. The public purpose which is served should never be obscured in a tax program under the mask of raising revenue.”)
Remember: It’s not about what this country can or can’t afford. It’s about priorities.
That is correct. The federal government can afford any amount of spending.
(Federal Reserve Chairman, Jerome Powell: “As a central bank, we have the ability to create money digitally.”)
If Trump and the Republicans really cared about reducing the number of people who need SNAP (also called food stamps), there are many things they could do. For example, they could raise the federal minimum wage, which is still stuck where it was in 2009.
Or, more easily, the federal government simply could pay for SNAP.
(Statement from the St. Louis Fed: “As the sole manufacturer of dollars, whose debt is denominated in dollars, the U.S. government can never become insolvent, i.e., unable to pay its bills. In this sense, the government is not dependent on credit markets to remain operational.”)
But they would rather fund endless wars and deliver tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans than invest in programs that actually help people.
This is not an either/or situation. The federal government has the financial ability to fund endless wars and to deliver tax cuts to everyone.
(Paul O’Neill, “I come to you as a managing trustee of Social Security. Today we have no assets in the trust fund. We have promises of the good faith and credit of the United States government that benefits will flow.”)
So the next time you hear Republicans spouting lies about SNAP or any other assistance that millions of Americans depend on, know the truth — and help spread it by sharing this video.
While the video is informative regarding the Republican tax cuts for the rich, it is dead wrong about benefit cuts “paying for” tax cuts. Benefit cuts pay for nothing.
(Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize–winning economist: “The U.S. government is not like a household. It literally prints money, and it can’t run out.” “The government can always finance its spending by creating money.”)
The next time you read an article by Robert Reich, keep in mind:
(Eric Tymoigne (Economist) “A sovereign government does not need to collect taxes or issue bonds to finance spending. It finances directly through money creation.”)
It’s truly sad that a prominent figure like Robert Reich promulgates such nonsense, but that’s the way of the economics world. I’ve been beating that drum for over 2 decades, and it’s getting close to quitting time.
I never planned on this when I cancelled the Iran agreement and then started this war. And now I need help from Ukraine, but I prevented Congress from giving them help.
US asked Ukraine for help fighting Iranian drones, Zelensky says Story by James Landale – Diplomatic correspondent, in Kyiv
The US has asked Ukraine for help defending Gulf allies against Iranian drones, according to President Volodymyr Zelensky.
He said Ukraine’s partners had been reaching out and there had been “requests from the American side”. The Pentagon declined to comment.
Zelensky made clear Ukraine would help only on the condition that its own defence was not weakened and that there were diplomatic gains for Kyiv – suggesting, in particular, that Ukraine would be willing to swap its interceptor drones for more US Patriot air defences to protect against Russian ballistic missiles.
The war in the Middle East has raised fears Ukraine could suffer if its allies are distracted by the conflict.
There have also been concerns about a potential shortage of interceptor missiles and Russia benefiting from rising oil prices, the proceeds from which are a key source of funding for its war effort.
Zelensky has acknowledged these risks but also seems keen to take advantage of the crisis to further Ukraine’s national interest.
He has spoken to counterparts across the Gulf – in the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, Jordan and Kuwait – and is promising what he calls “concrete steps” to help them defend their military bases and civilian infrastructure from Iranian attack.
“It is clear what their main request to Ukraine is,” Zelensky said on social media.
“Anyone who has faced Iranian strikes encounters a serious challenge – Shaheds, which are difficult to intercept without the proper expertise and adequate weapons.”
He added: “It is in our common interest to help people defend themselves and to restore stability in critically important supply routes.
“Partners are reaching out to Ukraine for assistance in defending against Shaheds – for expertise and practical support. There have also been requests from the American side.”
Ukraine has for years been subject to strikes by Russian-made Shahed drones – one-way unmanned aircraft based on an Iranian design.
The irony of the US asking for help has not been lost on Ukrainians who have suffered from US President Donald Trump’s erratic policy towards their defence against Russia’s full-scale invasion.
The US has ceased direct military support under his administration but continues to provide vital intelligence that helps Ukraine both defend against drones and missiles, and strike targets deep within Russia.
Stupid voters vote for stupid leaders who make stupid decisions, and the stupid people who voted stupidly suffer for their stupidity.
#Monetary Sovereignty - Mitchell 