Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
Note to Lori Montgomery, financial reporter for the Washington Post:
“Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said the goal of slicing more than $2 trillion from the federal budget by 2021 falls far short of the savings needed to stabilize borrowing, re-energize the economy and avert the threat of a debt crisis.”
Hmmm . . . Let’s see. Federal purchases of goods and services increase business sales, therefore are stimulative. But a $2 trillion reduction in federal spending – money that otherwise would have paid to businesses – will “re-energize the economy.” I’d love to see the math on that.
It also would be interesting to hear Sen. Conrad explain how a $2 trillion reduction in federal spending will “stabilize borrowing” (whatever the heck that means).
By the way, did you ever avail yourself of the opportunity to understand Monetary Sovereignty? Do you have any questions?
Previously she had written to me, saying she would review my summary of Monetary Sovereignty. I’ll let you know what she says in response to this letter, if anything.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth. It’s been 40 years since the U.S. became Monetary Sovereign, , and neither Congress, nor the President, nor the Fed, nor the vast majority of economists and economics bloggers, nor the preponderance of the media, nor the most famous educational institutions, nor the Nobel committee, nor the International Monetary Fund have yet acquired even the slightest notion of what that means.
Remember that the next time you’re tempted to ask a teenager, “What were you thinking?” He’s liable to respond, “Pretty much what your generation was thinking when it ruined my future.”