(Article about economics of academia and “strategic practice” -from (current) last section of section free download at top.)

Any economic marker addressed in the course of Macroeconomic practice requires explanation to the laymen, -and many miss that when Fed Rates are changed, professional “Macroeconomists” offer “their best guess” as to which market-dominant, impacting factors are being responded to in the current Fed Rate cycle, to repeat:

                Macroeconomics, the branch of economics concerned with assessing the facts of the international economy, knowing all the factors the Federal Reserve “pushes” through its network of macroeconomic equations before adjusting “Fed Fund rates”, does not -apparently- educate economists to a sufficient degree, -or “trends of learning” cloud clear sight of the economy. Example:

                GDP (Gross Domestic Product), is taught to be a more accurate measure of how “robust” a nation’s economic positioning is in the world (The global economy is twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, and all currency supply is generated by global central banking “consortiums”.), and the GNP (Gross National Product), is taught to be a less accurate indicator. One reason makes enough sense:

                “The GNP is impacted by currency exchange rates, the GDP is not.”

-Looking at two factors used to calculate the GNP, “Exports” and “International Citizens”:

A citizen of the US starts a business in China, and he does exceedingly well, with a large customer base in the US and with this application of math, anything the “China-based US businessman” sells to a customer in his home country cannot be counted as an “import” -it isn’t a “foreign owned” business. GNP counts production of all international citizens, and though it is not common that a US businessman is allowed to become a citizen of China, even after he starts a business there, should he be allowed to, all production generated by his business will now be calculated as a part of China’s GNP.

Regardless of how hard it is to find wealthy US ex-patriots in China, the model is a global measure, and the practice of world economics includes in GNP calculations “hypothetical formularies” like “covert imports”: Internationally traded goods counted as domestic product available to potentially become exports “at any time”. Naturally there is no marker called covert import in the Global economy, but upon becoming citizens, every Mexican American has their production now counted as part of the US’ GNP. (It is no longer reporting to “Mexico’s global position as reflected in its GNP”.)

Addressing “trends in learning”, to say “GNP is impacted by exchange rates” is only stating half the issue, because as a quarter and annual macroeconomic indicator, taken with the volume of chaotic networking figures, valuations, and markets accounted at every moment globally, it is impossible to eliminate the possibility of GNP indicators having unique impacts on exchange rates.

Fractional reserve currency valuation involves International trading partners (US & China for example; it involves all international trade), keeping record of how much is exported and imported between two countries. As a (fading) global reserve currency, all US dollars held as reserve in China are not counted in the “balance of valuated worth” arrived at by taking all exports, subtracting all imports, and measuring the “trade deficit”. However, with too lop-sided a trade relationship shared between two countries for too long, the country (China) always recording a deficit in international balances, (US) come to remove the marker “reserve” from an amount of US currency, increasing US debt “too reflect protracted trade imbalances”; it is accepted practice founded in Reserve/Central banking math.

-The paradigm paints a scene:

People laboring for currency across the planet too tired, distracted, or concerned with personal matters to notice two six packs of beer cost 3 dollars and change in the seventies, and now,

“The twelve-pack’s the best deal. Let’s chip in Friday at work for a coworker’s party this weekend.”  –They came up with the math “for us”, and people let their math dictate value.


This and the previous article are both in the (current) last section of the second download at top.)

Please step away from any set of policies affiliated to any party, just enough to look at how this information draws a direct fiscal motive capitalized upon by the elite, no matter the political party they support. The same paradigm is found globally, concealed under different systems of government, and by dealing specifically with Ronald Reagan, Donald Trump, and rates set by the Federal Reserve contemporaneous to their terms, a template for “what to look for” will begin to take shape.


Handling the inquiry with an adjudicating eye, -conceding the too often unacknowledged- people are prone to accept financial compensation (or rewards of other types) in return for positions of power, which opens the paradigm of “Lobby and Super PAC” to a morally ambiguous arena at best, with never a discussion of a universal, fiscal ethic gradually becoming the norm in the subculture of American Political Leadership. For this reason, there is cause to suspect works funded in the course of general commerce are used to structure political opinion, independent of anyone in any office because after all, the same interests are served. Example:

It is common for media conglomerates to fund centralized recording of editorials about news topics that is played nationally through local syndicates after each local channel wraps up their nightly news. Everyone watching in every town, without knowing where the character editorializing is from gets used to a voice and a name, and a consensus starts building across the country.      

Building a consensus with a program including written media, (fit to his terms in office) is all the Reagan era of political climate building would have needed, -but starting with Trump, citing Federal Reserve action, where increases in Fed rates translate to gradually higher operating costs across the market place which are offset by higher consumer prices, and is the cause of “your dollar buying less”:

(Fractional reserve banking is the result of a network of macroeconomic equations justifying its own components; the above scenario is not required “in the fundamental philosophy of monetary currency”, but it is most commonly cited as the reason for inflation.)

Sources for information below: “Fed Raises Rates By 25 Basis Points, 1st Since 2006” by Jeff Cox, 12/26/2015, https://www.cnbc.com/2015/12/16/fed-raises-rates-for-first-time-since-2006.html; “Why Immigrants Were Given Legal Status By Ronald Reagan”, Newsweek Archive, https://www.newsweek.com/reagan-immigration-reform-and-control-act-1986-641806; and“Here’s What the Major Interest Rate Cycles Since the 1970s Have Looked Like”, The Alert Investor, 12/19/2015, https://www.businessinsider.com/every-interest-rate-cycle-since-1970s-2015-12


The Fed “under” Obama, raises rates in December of 2015, (CNBC) Trump takes office in 2017, and the protracted fallout of the rate hikes begin showing higher consumer costs, gradually noticed as things just getting more expensive.

Both Presidents when asked (they are far from the only two), have claimed a lack of legal taxpaying citizens is the cause for fiscal austerity and personal hard times (felt by the voter), introducing some version of Immigration Reform into their policies and campaigns.


Ronald Reagan saw a legacy piece of legislation passed, The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. A 1981 Newsweek article mentioning another policy Reagan is famous for, giving Immigrants amnesty, outlines the plan and when the 1986 Act took effect it applied to immigrants after 1982:

“Illegals with 10 years’ continuous residency could become eligible immediately for permanent-resident status. Others would become eligible by degrees, providing they had immigrated before January 1, 1981. The purpose of spacing out the granting of permanent-resident status, officials say, is to soften its demographic and financial impact.”

(Charts from the Business Insider Article verify the “Reagan side”.)

The Fed hikes rates in August 1980, the “Fed Funds Rate”; the “1-year Treasury Interest Rate”; and the “10-year interest rates”, are measure in periods called “Interest Rate cycles”, and the “FFR” is up 11%; the “1TIR” is up 7.54%, and the “10TIR” is up 3.98 at the end of the cycle, in mid-June 1981, when rates were cut. In 1984 Ronald Reagan ran for re-election, and Immigration was mentioned in his campaign debates; -things like:

“The illegals have no voice or protections because they are not citizens.”, and in September 1984, the “Fed Funds Rate”, and the “1yr & 10yr Interest Rates” were all between 11 and 13 percent (estimate of graph). Watching rate fluctuations, citing their strain on economic outlooks (and personal lives), rates settled in the timeframe of the Immigration Reform Act becoming law, coming to their “universally” lowest rate in 1986. The correlation is:

As the impact of Fed rate actions is being noticed by the citizenry, an issue is built around immigration policies, because “with more legal taxpayers there will be more money”, is the “acknowledged to varying degrees, depending on the local political climate” -reason for Immigration Reform policy. In the case of Reagan, verified in history, the issue of immigration is not fully settled legislatively until the newest rate fluctuation cycles have settled.

With Trump we have the “first half” already enacted with calls for the wall, and actions of the fed are not the actions of the President -they never are-, but the same correlation between calling for Immigration Reform and Fed action is present. Of course immigration is an issue, but it is one of many systemic problems. Ignoring the currency and how its value is manipulated legally -how the fluctuations create life-impacting concerns regularly-, is an ill-fated course.