–See the #OWS bat signal. They believe, sincerely believe, the 1% are screwing the 99%. Do you? Thursday, Nov 24 2011 

Uncategorized , , , , , , , , , , , , , Rodger Malcolm Mitchell 12:51 am

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.
==========================================================================================================================================

The people of Occupy Wall Street (#OWS) believe, sincerely believe, the 1% are screwing the 99%. Do you? They camp in cold, damp parks. They face sometimes brutal police. They are condemned, disparaged and mocked by the 1%, for the inconvenience they cause, and the “99%” clothing they wear. Not too many Armani suits in that group.

Some of the 99% are so accustomed to obeying the 1%, they join in the disparagement, condemnation and mocking, against their own best interests.

Who are the police? They are the 99%, yet they willingly, enthusiastically do the bidding of the 1%. They vote their abject submission with MACE, pepper spray, nightsticks and SWAT uniforms. They beat down the very people who try to lift them. “Oh those bedraggled rowdies, why dare they disturb the peace so carefully crafted by our masters, the 1%?“

Who are the media, the newspaper, radio and TV barons? They are the 1%, who write the editorials and twist the news to suit their own privilege? Their fortunes come from the pockets of the 99%, yet they show no respect. For them, the 99% are fools, cows to be milked, and when there is no milk left, to be sent to slaughter.

Have you seen the wonderful, #OWS Bat Signal? Check it out. Feel the enthusiasm, not just of youth, but of a righteous cause. I remember these marchers. They marched against Vietnam. They were right about Vietnam. They were condemned and disparaged by Nixon and the media and the politicians and Nixon’s henchmen, some of whom went to jail. But not Nixon. He was too big to jail.

And not today’s bankers who stole far more than Bernie Madoff ever dreamed of. Bernie is in jail. The crroked bankers are not. The friends of Timothy F. Geithner are not. The friends of Eric H. Holder, Jr. are not. The friends of Barack H. Obama, Jr. are not. Why not?

And why does #OWS march? Why do they endure the slings and arrows of the outraged 1%? Are you among those firing those slings and arrows? Are you part of the 1%, or do you merely obey the 1%?

Yes, the #OWS has not expressed itself clearly. They need to articulate these specific goals. They need to understand Monetary Sovereignty so they can answer the question, “How will you pay for this?”

But they believe, sincerely believe. There are easier ways to live than camping in a hostile park, being pepper sprayed and herded about. Would you do it? Would you be ready to sacrifice your human comfort for an ideal? I wouldn’t, and most of the 99% wouldn’t either, though this ideal benefits them.

But there is something we can do. We can stand by #OWS. We can cheer rather than jeer. We can support rather than ignore. We can write to our Congresspersons and tell them we’re angry at those misguided attempts to reduce the federal deficit, as each cut will take money and benefits, not from the 1%, but from the 99%.

Cutting military budgets hurts the 99%, as does cutting Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, food stamps, aid to the poor, construction projects, aid to education — they all hurt the 99% while barely laying a glove on the 1%.

The 1% try to brainwash you into believing the federal budget is like your personal budget, so must be reduced. It’s a lie, a damn lie. In August 1971, the federal budget became the exact opposite of your personal budget. Did the 1% ever let you know?

While you pay your bills by spending money, the federal government now pays its bills by creating money. You must live within your means. The federal government has no means to live within. You can run out of money. The federal government cannot. You need income, in order to spend. The federal government spends without needing income.

Make no mistake, this is not a class war. It is not the 99% versus the 1%. Destroying the 1% will not help you. This is the 99% versus the current status, which was created by the 1%. This is the 99% versus a lawless system, that presses down on the 99%. It is the system #OWS marches against. It is the system they hope you will oppose.

How? Write. Call. Demand. Vote. Support #OWS. Oppose anyone who says “the federal deficit must be cut,” because that is their code phrase for, “Your benefits must be cut, your life must worsen, your money must be taken from you and from your children and from your grandchildren.“

The deficit-cut austerity preached by the 1% will not be suffered by the 1%; it will be suffered by you.

So, march with #OWS, if not in person then in spirit. Write. Call. Demand. Vote. Support. Oppose government cuts. Oppose austerity. Oppose the gap. Demand prosperity. The 1% are cowards who will yield if they see your resolve. Your voice can be loud. Your life can be better. The tide of history is with you.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com


==========================================================================================================================================
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

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

 

–Why the U.S. owns China Thursday, Oct 7 2010 

Uncategorized , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Rodger Malcolm Mitchell 9:56 am

The debt hawks are to economics as the creationists are to biology.

Despite all appearances, we own China. China has sold its soul to the U.S. By focusing on export, and accumulating dollars and T-securities, China has strengthened the dollar. Now, what can China do with its enormous cache of T-securities? If it stops “lending” to us, i.e. stops using its dollars to buy more T-securities, it simply will accumulate more dollars.

So, what else can China do with its dollars? Three bad choices: It can trade more dollars for other currencies. This would flood the market with dollars, weakening the dollar, and making export to the U.S. more difficult (while making our export easier). Or, it can increase its worldwide purchase of assets – real estate, hard and soft goods, etc. – which in addition to being politically risky, also would flood the world with dollars. Or it simply can keep more dollars in it’s checking account at the Federal Reserve Bank.

So aside from purchasing T-securities, which effectively locks up (actually destroys) dollars, China is stuck. If they wish to keep exporting to us, they are forced to keep accepting dollars, which in turn, forces them to purchase T-securities. All those pundits who worry about “What will happen if China stops lending us money?” do not understand that China cannot stop buying T-securities.

China does not lend us yuan; it cannot use yuan to buy T-securities. It lends us only dollars, the dollars we previously created. The U.S. does not need China to lend us dollars; we are a monetarily sovereign nation with the unlimited ability to create dollars. We don’t need China’s.

Previously, we discussed the China trade deficit myth, when we said:

”A trade deficit is an example of one country devoting great effort to creating scarce materials for another country in exchange for something that requires no effort by the other country. In that sense, China is our servant. They work, sweat and strain and use their valuable resources to create and ship to us the things we want, while we, hardly lifting a finger, ship dollars to them. Who has the better deal?”

“To satisfy our desires, China could ship us every yard of cloth and every ounce of steel in their country; they could burn all their coal and oil; they could employ every man, woman and child in dismal sweatshops; they could empty their nation of all physical resources, and still we would have plenty of dollars to send to them, simply by touching a computer key.”

So, we own China. By emphasizing export rather than internal money creation (aka deficit spending), China has dug a deep pit for itself. Yes, China has had strong economic growth, but at what price? It has received in return for its exports, an asset it cannot use – U.S. dollars. These dollars are unusable, not because they are worthless. On the contrary, dollars are quite valuable. The problem is that in using the dollars, China would depreciate their value, which would destroy China’s export-based economy.

Of course, China knows this. Sadly, U.S. pundits, who fret about our so-called “debt” to China, don’t understand it. And the debt-hawks, who believe exporting is more prudent than deficit spending, really don’t understand that for a monetarily sovereign nation, deficit spending is the most prudent, controllable way to grow an economy.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com

No nation can tax itself into prosperity

 

–The China trade deficit myth Thursday, Nov 19 2009 

trade and Trade Deficit , , , , , Rodger Malcolm Mitchell 3:14 pm

An alternative to popular faith

For years, there has been increasing concern about our growing trade deficit, especially with China. But do trade deficits really benefit us?

China creates the goods/services we want and sends them here in exchange for dollars. The goods/services are scarce to China. Time, manpower and physical resources are necessary for their creation. By contrast, dollars are not scarce to the U.S. Our government has the unlimited power and authority to produce dollars, without using any resources, whatsoever. The press of a computer key sends billions of dollars from our government to anywhere. Lately, many have gone into our economy as a stimulus.

A trade deficit is an example of one country devoting great effort to creating scarce materials for another country in exchange for something that requires no effort by the other country. In that sense, China is our servant. They work, sweat and strain and use their valuable resources to create and ship to us the things we want, while we, hardly lifting a finger, ship dollars to them. Who has the better deal?

Obviously, for any given individual, the situation is different. None of us has the unlimited ability to create dollars. We have to work hard for our dollars. Dollars are scarce to each of us. But when we talk about trade deficits, we are talking about governments, and there the situation changes. Dollars are not scarce to the U.S. government.

To satisfy our desires, China could ship us every yard of cloth and every ounce of steel in their country; they could burn all their coal and oil; they could employ every man, woman and child in dismal sweatshops; they could empty their nation of all physical resources, and still we would have plenty of dollars to send to them, simply by touching a computer key.

This may be more easily understood by looking at Saudi Arabia, with whom we also have a trade deficit. One day, the Saudis will have sent us every drop of their oil, leaving their country a hollow, empty sand dune, while we blithely will go on producing dollars. Who has the better deal?

Of course, as monetarily sovereign nations, China and Saudi Arabia are able to create as much of their own money as they wish. They don’t need to work so hard to send us their precious resources in exchange for our money. But that’s a discussion for another posting.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 232 other followers