Mitchell’s laws: The more budgets are cut and taxes inceased, the weaker an economy becomes. To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments. Austerity = poverty and leads to civil disorder. Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
In 1983, Woody Allen directed and starred in a truly hilarious movie titled “Zelig.” It was a fake documentary about a man (Zelig) who adopts the appearance, mannerisms, indeed the entire persona, of whomever he is near — a human chameleon. The movie incorporated actual newsreel footage of such celebrities as Babe Ruth, President Wilson — even Hitler! Woody Allen as Zelig played each role.
Quoting from a review by a writer named Salon Kitty, “Allen plays a man so devoid of identity, so eager to assimilate, that he literally takes on the appearance or, at least, the attributes of anyone he comes in contact with.”
Sound familiar? It’s the perfect description of Mitt Romney, and with each passing day, he becomes more and more hilarious — a veritable Woody Allen/Zelig of American politics.
In that vein, you might find a few excerpts from an article in THIS WEEK amusing.
Team Romney claims Mitt saved GM: ‘The height of hypocrisy’?
The Romney camp boasts that GM survived bankruptcy only because President Obama followed the GOP candidate’s advice. Really?
POSTED ON MAY 1, 2012
Mitt Romney’s campaign has news for you: It was Romney, not President Obama, who saved the U.S. auto industry. This week, Romney’s campaign manager, Eric Fehrnstrom, said the reason General Motors and Chrysler survived the recession is because Obama followed Romney’s prescription to put the automakers through a “managed bankruptcy process.” That means “the only economic success that President Obama has had,” Fehrnstrom said, “is because he followed Mitt Romney’s advice.”
Fehrnstrom is referring to a New York Times editorial that Romney penned in 2008, in which he called for a “managed bankruptcy” of the two auto giants. Critics were quick to deride Fehrnstrom’s claim as “mindboggling” and “the height of hypocrisy.” Did Obama really follow Romney’s lead on GM?
Romney opposed the hefty bailouts that the government extended to GM and Chrysler, which were crucial in saving the companies from bankruptcy. In late 2008 and early 2009, credit markets were in a deep freeze, and private companies were in no position to finance Detroit’s restructuring.
Romney is just shape-shifting again: “Mitt Romney, who was for the auto bailout before he was against it, is back to being for it,” says Jonathan Cohn at The New Republic. Once the GOP primaries got underway, he attacked Obama for risking taxpayer dollars, a popular position with conservatives.
But during the February primary in car-loving Michigan, he backtracked, saying he “would never have let the companies go bankrupt.” Now that the general election is nearing, he’s “backtracking all the way,” but only because Obama is enjoying the political fruit of saving the two companies.
I’m waiting for someone to write a book — not an article, but a complete book — describing all the Romney flip-flops in the past two years. No, not just one book; a complete multi-volume “Romney Flip-Flops” set will be needed.
Then, of course:
Obama hasn’t been honest about the bailouts either: “The Obama camp can’t stop clucking about how he saved GM and the car industry,” but the bailout was hardly a ringing success, says Investor’s Business Daily in an editorial. The government still owns a huge chunk of GM, and the company still owes the Treasury billions of dollars. “Taxpayers have not been paid back and are still on the hook as GM continues to require government help.”
If that is how Obama defines success, it “speaks volumes about his policies.”
Actually, it speaks volumes about the economics ignorance of Investor’s Business Daily. Taxpayers did not pay for the loans to GM. No taxpayer pays for federal spending. And no taxpayer will collect one cent from GM’s payback. In fact, taxpayers will lose.
And, for the federal government to lend, instead of giving, money to industry also speaks volumes about the economics ignorance of federal planners. If anyone can explain why a Monetarily Sovereign government should be paid its own sovereign currency — a currency that government has the unlimited ability to create merely by pushing a computer button — I’d love to hear it.
GM has the dollars. To pay those dollars to the federal government is identical with a tax on GM. Will that help or hurt GM? Will that help or hurt the economy? Will that increase or decrease unemployment?
For those just learning Monetary Sovereignty, know this: Repaying the debt will hurt GM, hurt the economy and increase unemployment.
It’s difficult to say who is the funnier and who the more horrifying, Zelig Romney or the Democrats who devised that loan plan. I award them each clown symbols, not as loans, but as gifts. Don’t worry, I can make more, for I am sovereign clown symbols.
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. Two key equations in economics:
Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings
Gross Domestic Product = Federal Spending + Private Investment and Consumption + Net exports