Mitchell’s laws: Reduced money growth never stimulates economic growth. To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments. Austerity breeds austerity and leads to civil disorder. Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
I came across a website called The Robin Hood Tax. It seems to have originated in the U.K., but the goal is to spread the idea around the world. In their own words:
A tax on banks that would give billions to tackle poverty and climate change, here and abroad.
This tax on the financial sector has the power to raise hundreds of billions every year globally. It could give a vital boost to the NHS, our schools, and the fight against child poverty in the UK – as well as tackling poverty and climate change around the world.
Remember now, the UK brilliantly did not surrender its Monetary Sovereignty. It did not adopt the disastrous euro. It retained the pound. So the UK, like the U.S., has the unlimited ability to create its sovereign currency. It can pay any bill of any size at any time. It never can be forced into bankruptcy.
However, the UK, like the U.S., is burdened with politicians, media and economists who still live in the pre-1971, gold standard days. Though economics changed dramatically in 1971, the economists still spew the same, debt-hawk, gold-standard nonsense. It’s as though upon discovering the world is round, not flat, sailors still worried about falling off the edge.
Here, again in their own words, is how the Robin Hood tax would work:
In a nutshell, the big idea behind the Robin Hood Tax is to generate billions of pounds – hopefully even hundreds of billions of pounds. That money will fight poverty in the UK and overseas. It will tackle climate change.
Hundreds of billions of dollars pulled out of the economy. This is supposed to be beneficial? And “poverty and climate change”? How did those two initiatives get to be the focus of this tax – a tax that most assuredly will not reduce poverty or prevent climate change? (No tax could.)
A tiny tax on the financial sector can generate £20 billion annually in the UK alone. That’s enough to protect schools and hospitals. Enough to stop massive cuts across the public sector. Enough to build new lives around the world – and to deal with the new climate challenges our world is facing.
Now it’s £20 billion? And, now it’s “schools and hospitals,” too? And building “new lives around the world”? Have they left anything out? How about motherhood and the American – oops – the British way of life?
As a result of the financial crisis, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has calculated UK government debt will be 40% higher. That 40% equates to £737 billion pounds, or £28,000 pounds for every taxpayer in the country. Having to pay back that debt means cuts in vital services on which millions of people around the country rely.
No, paying that debt will cut nothing. The British government, being Monetarily Sovereign, can pay any debt. No vital services need be reduced. Pure scare tactics. What is the British word for “bullsh*t”? Poppycock?
Total cost to the UK of financial crisis in terms of lost output according to the IMF was 27% of 2008 GDP.
Yes, the financial crisis caused reduced output – which has absolutely nothing to do with UK debt. I’m surprised they didn’t blame British debt for causing starvation in Armenia, and the bird flu.
So it’s time for justice. It’s time for justice for ordinary families and businesses. For the one in five British families faced with a choice between buying food or paying the heating bill. For the millions of people around the world forced into poverty by a financial crisis they did absolutely nothing to bring about.
The Robin Hood Tax is justice. The banks can afford it. The systems are in place to collect it. It won’t affect ordinary members of the public, their bank accounts or their savings. It’s fair, it’s timely, and it’s possible.
Ah, yes. The old class-warfare ploy. Justice = soak the rich. And who are the geniuses behind the Robin Hood Tax? The usual suspects. According the their web site:
We are charities, green groups, trade unions, celebrities, religious leaders and politicians.
Who could doubt the expertise of that bunch? But wait, now we get to the real winners:
President Sarkozy of France, Chancellor Merkel of Germany, Prime Minister Zapatero of Spain
Hmm, France, Germany and Spain. Aren’t those three countries that each voluntarily surrendered the single most valuable asset any nation can have – its Monetary Sovereignty – and are now in a crisis of their own making? By all means, let’s follow them over the cliff.
FSA Chairman Lord Turner, George Soros, Warren Buffet
Just shows money and economic knowledge don’t always go together. Turner has called for more central planning ala the communist countries. Buffet wants a tax increase on the wealthy, which would reduce the money supply.
And here are my favorites:
Nobel Prize winners Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman, Earth Institute Director Jeffrey Sachs and 1,000 other economists from across the world.
Therein lies the problem. People, who are completely ignorant of Monetary Sovereignty, award prizes to other people, who are completely ignorant of Monetary Sovereignty, who then teach the media, the politicians and the public how to be ignorant of Monetary Sovereignty. It’s the most vicious of vicious circles.
So you have it. Yet another group of debt-hawks believing taxes are beneficial. If anyone can explain how removing money from the economy can reduce poverty, reduce unemployment or grow the economy, I sure would like to hear it.
I award 1 dunce cap to The Robin Hood Tax. It would be more, but they are just one more debt-hawk group of which there are dozens. And as any debt-hawk will tell you, if I give out too many dunce caps, I could have an unsustainable deficit, and need to start taxing people – or banks.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth. Monetary Sovereignty: Cutting federal deficits to grow the economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia. The key equation in economics: Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings