It all boils down to just two questions Saturday, Dec 17 2016 

Uncategorized , , , Rodger Malcolm Mitchell 1:30 pm

Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Economics is complex, so complex that we often do not know how to identify either cause or effect with much confidence.

The central reason is because economics is intermingled with such complex subjects as psychology, meteorology, Artificial Intelligence, game theory, and mathematics.

Even the language of economics is uncertain. Just by way of example, what exactly are “federal debt,” “federal deficit,” “austerity,” “wealth,” and “progressive”? You will hear many definitions, often contradictory.

But economics is simple, so simple that its entire structure rests on the answers to just two questions:

  1. Can the U.S. federal government unintentionally run short of U.S. dollars?
  2. Can the U.S. federal government control the value of the U.S. dollar?

I. Can The U.S. Federal Government Unintentionally Run Short of U.S. Dollars

The first question leads us to a discussion of Monetary Sovereignty (and monetary non-sovereignty).

“Monetarily sovereign” means absolutely sovereign over the currency the nation primarily uses.

The U.S. government and the governments of such other nations as the UK (pound), Canada (Canadian dollar), Australia (Australian dollar), Japan (yen), and China (Yuan Renminbi) are Monetarily Sovereign.

Each of these nations uses a currency it created and over which it is sovereign.

By contrast, the governments of Germany, France, Italy, and other members of the eurozone use the euro, a currency none of them created, and over which they have no control. 

Similarly, Illinois, Los Angeles, and Idaho use a currency, the dollar, they did not create and over which they have no control.

So, the euro nations can run short of euros, and American states and cities can run short of dollars. They are monetarily non-sovereign.

The U.S. government created the first U.S. dollar more than two centuries ago, by creating laws. The laws, written by men, not by God, specified:

a) the number of dollars to be created and

b) the value of those dollars relative to precious metals.

Note that the U.S. dollar never actually was backed by precious metals. “Backed” implies collateral, but when the debtor has the unconditional power to change the collateral, one cannot say the dollar was backed by metals.

Those who pine for a gold-“backed” dollar must understand that even were we on a gold standard, the federal government has the uncontested power to change the dollar-price of gold at any time.

In short, a gold-“backed” dollar is impossible for our Monetarily Sovereign government. The only thing that backs the dollar — the only thing that ever has backed the dollar, even during gold standards — is the full faith and credit of the federal government.

It would be far more accurate to say the U.S. is on a “full faith” standard than ever on a gold standard.

Both a) and b) above were wholly optional. The men could have used any numbers they chose.

As federal laws are under the control of the federal government, the number of U.S. dollars, the way dollars are created, and the value of dollars can be changed at will, by the federal government.

Because all laws are created from thin air,  dollars too are created from thin air. And because laws have no physical existence — they are ideas only — dollars too, have no physical existence. They are nothing more than numbers in balance sheets.

Just as pages in law books in of themselves are not laws — they merely represent laws — so too are dollar bills not dollars. They merely represent dollars. And just as you never have seen, heard, tasted, smelled, or touched

And just as you never have seen, heard, tasted, smelled, or touched a law, you never have seen, heard, tasted, or touched a dollar. Dollars are notations on balance sheets, ultimately controlled by the federal government.

So in answer to question #1, “Can the U.S. federal government unintentionally run short of U.S. dollars?, we respond, “can the U.S. federal government unintentionally run short of laws to create dollars?

Imagine an unlikely scenario, in which the U.S. government finds that current law somehow restricts its ability to create dollars, but needs to create more dollars to pay its bills. What would the government do?

Obviously. It simply would pass new laws that permit creating more dollars. The U.S. federal government never can be prevented from creating more of its own sovereign currency.

Dishonest websites and pundits that warn you the federal “debt” is unsustainable, or simply too high, must explain how our Monetarily sovereign government ever could find any dollar debt to be “unsustainable.” It never has; it never will.

II. Can the U.S. federal government control the value of the U.S. dollar?

Usually, when we describe the impossibility of the U.S. government running short of its own sovereign currency, or finding any debt denominated in U.S. dollars to be “unsustainable,” we are asked, “What about inflation.”

Then we are given examples of nations that have had hyperinflation: Weimar Republic, Zimbabwe, Argentina, et al.

The first answer is that despite massive deficit spending, wars, depressions, recessions and various natural disasters, the U.S. never has experienced hyper-inflation. So it seems odd that anyone would make the possibility of an event that never has happened the focus of financial concern.

Second, there has been no correlation between federal deficit spending and inflation. See: “Deficit Spending Doesn’t Cause Inflation; Oil Does”

Third, deficit spending in Weimar Republic, Zimbabwe, etc. did not cause hyper-inflations. In fact, the inflations caused the deficit spending. 

Weimar’s hyperinflations were caused by the onerous financial punishments the allies put on the Germans after WWI.

The Zimbabwe hyperinflation was caused by Robert Mugabe, who stole farm land from farmers and gave it to non-farmers, which resulted in a food shortage. Argentina’s hyperinflation was caused by government criminality, leading to shortages of goods and services.

In each case, a desperate (and foolish) attempt to keep up with inflation by the government created additional money, which exacerbated the inflation.

Fourth, the belief that federal deficits cause inflation is based on a simple misunderstanding of algebra.

Inflation is the loss of value of money compared with the value of goods and services. The basic formula for value is: Value = Demand/Supply. 

If Demand goes down, and/or Supply goes up, Value goes down. But those who fear deficits because of inflation, unknowingly use this formula: Value = 1/Supply.

In short, they view Demand remaining static, when dollars are pumped into the economy. But this is seldom the case. Think of what happens to those Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, military, infrastructure and education dollars the government spends.

They are received, then spent by the public on food, housing, schooling, clothing, travel, etc.  And the providers of those goods and services, upon receiving more dollars, spend them for payroll, equipment, real estate, etc.

So the very increase in dollars helps increase the demand for goods and services, which increases the demand for dollars.

But let’s say that the increase in Demand is not sufficient to balance against Supply, and inflation begins. What else can the government do to increase the demand for dollars?

The dollar is an investment medium, and as an investment, its Demand is based on this formula: Demand = Reward/Risk.

Further, Reward = Interest; Risk = Inflation.

To increase the Demand for dollars (and thus reduce inflation), the government must increase interest rates, and that is exactly what the Fed does, any time it gets even a sniff of impending inflation.

So for question #2, “Can the U.S. federal government control the value of the U.S. dollar?” the answer is “Yes, as a Monetarily Sovereign government, the U.S. can control the Risk, Reward, Supply, and the Demand for the dollar, and even specify the exchange value of the dollar against other currencies.

Therefore, whether or not you agree with all Ten Steps to Prosperity you should understand this: There is no financial reason not to implement them.

You might argue about whether “Medicare for all,” “free school for all” or “Social Security for all” are good economic ideas, but there is no rational reason to claim they are “unaffordable” or “unsustainable.”

Economics is complex. The science is filled with abstruse concepts, formulae, and opinions. But it all boils down to two facts:

  1. The U.S. federal government cannot unintentionally run short of U.S. dollars. Without collecting even one dollar in taxes, the U.S. government still could pay its bills, forever.
  2. The U.S. federal government has complete control over the value of the U.S. dollar? It not only can prevent excessive inflation, but it can set inflation at any level it chooses.

Keep these two facts in mind whenever you read an article or hear anyone say that some federal agency could be insolvent, or some expense is “unsustainable,” or the federal government cannot “afford” some spending.

Those comments all are part of “the Big Lie.”

The often-asked question about any proposed federal government initiative, “Who will pay for it,” should be answered by just three words: “The federal government.”

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

The single most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the rich and the rest.

Wide Gaps negatively affect poverty, health and longevity, education, housing, law and crime, war, leadership, ownership, bigotry, supply and demand, taxation, GDP, international relations, scientific advancement, the environment, human motivation and well-being, and virtually every other issue in economics.

Implementation of The Ten Steps To Prosperity can narrow the Gaps:

Ten Steps To Prosperity:
1. ELIMINATE FICA (Ten Reasons to Eliminate FICA )
Although the article lists 10 reasons to eliminate FICA, there are two fundamental reasons:
*FICA is the most regressive tax in American history, widening the Gap by punishing the low and middle-income groups, while leaving the rich untouched, and
*The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, neither needs nor uses FICA to support Social Security and Medicare.
2. FEDERALLY FUNDED MEDICARE — PARTS A, B & D, PLUS LONG TERM CARE — FOR EVERYONE (H.R. 676, Medicare for All )
This article addresses the questions:
*Does the economy benefit when the rich can afford better health care than can the rest of Americans?
*Aside from improved health care, what are the other economic effects of “Medicare for everyone?”
*How much would it cost taxpayers?
*Who opposes it?”
3. PROVIDE AN ANNUAL ECONOMIC BONUS TO EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA, AND/OR EVERY STATE, A PER CAPITA ECONOMIC BONUS (The JG (Jobs Guarantee) vs the GI (Guaranteed Income) vs the EB) Or institute a reverse income tax.
This article is the fifth in a series about direct financial assistance to Americans:

Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Employer of Last Resort is a bad idea. Sunday, Jan 1 2012
MMT’s Job Guarantee (JG) — “Another crazy, rightwing, Austrian nutjob?” Thursday, Jan 12 2012
Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Jobs Guarantee is like the EU’s euro: A beloved solution to the wrong problem. Tuesday, May 29 2012
“You can’t fire me. I’m on JG” Saturday, Jun 2 2012

Economic growth should include the “bottom” 99.9%, not just the .1%, the only question being, how best to accomplish that. Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) favors giving everyone a job. Monetary Sovereignty (MS) favors giving everyone money. The five articles describe the pros and cons of each approach.
4. FREE EDUCATION (INCLUDING POST-GRAD) FOR EVERYONEFive reasons why we should eliminate school loans
Monetarily non-sovereign State and local governments, despite their limited finances, support grades K-12. That level of education may have been sufficient for a largely agrarian economy, but not for our currently more technical economy that demands greater numbers of highly educated workers.
Because state and local funding is so limited, grades K-12 receive short shrift, especially those schools whose populations come from the lowest economic groups. And college is too costly for most families.
An educated populace benefits a nation, and benefitting the nation is the purpose of the federal government, which has the unlimited ability to pay for K-16 and beyond.
5. SALARY FOR ATTENDING SCHOOL
Even were schooling to be completely free, many young people cannot attend, because they and their families cannot afford to support non-workers. In a foundering boat, everyone needs to bail, and no one can take time off for study.
If a young person’s “job” is to learn and be productive, he/she should be paid to do that job, especially since that job is one of America’s most important.
6. ELIMINATE CORPORATE TAXES
Corporations themselves exist only as legalities. They don’t pay taxes or pay for anything else. They are dollar-transferring machines. They transfer dollars from customers to employees, suppliers, shareholders and the government (the later having no use for those dollars).
Any tax on corporations reduces the amount going to employees, suppliers and shareholders, which diminishes the economy. Ultimately, all corporate taxes come around and reappear as deductions from your personal income.
7. INCREASE THE STANDARD INCOME TAX DEDUCTION, ANNUALLY. (Refer to this.) Federal taxes punish taxpayers and harm the economy. The federal government has no need for those punishing and harmful tax dollars. There are several ways to reduce taxes, and we should evaluate and choose the most progressive approaches.
Cutting FICA and corporate taxes would be a good early step, as both dramatically affect the 99%. Annual increases in the standard income tax deduction, and a reverse income tax also would provide benefits from the bottom up. Both would narrow the Gap.
8. TAX THE VERY RICH (THE “.1%) MORE, WITH HIGHER PROGRESSIVE TAX RATES ON ALL FORMS OF INCOME. (TROPHIC CASCADE)
There was a time when I argued against increasing anyone’s federal taxes. After all, the federal government has no need for tax dollars, and all taxes reduce Gross Domestic Product, thereby negatively affecting the entire economy, including the 99.9%.
But I have come to realize that narrowing the Gap requires trimming the top. It simply would not be possible to provide the 99.9% with enough benefits to narrow the Gap in any meaningful way. Bill Gates reportedly owns $70 billion. To get to that level, he must have been earning $10 billion a year. Pick any acceptable Gap (1000 to 1?), and the lowest paid American would have to receive $10 million a year. Unreasonable.
9. FEDERAL OWNERSHIP OF ALL BANKS (Click The end of private banking and How should America decide “who-gets-money”?)
Banks have created all the dollars that exist. Even dollars created at the direction of the federal government, actually come into being when banks increase the numbers in checking accounts. This gives the banks enormous financial power, and as we all know, power corrupts — especially when multiplied by a profit motive.
Although the federal government also is powerful and corrupted, it does not suffer from a profit motive, the world’s most corrupting influence.
10. INCREASE FEDERAL SPENDING ON THE MYRIAD INITIATIVES THAT BENEFIT AMERICA’S 99.9% (Federal agencies)Browse the agencies. See how many agencies benefit the lower- and middle-income/wealth/ power groups, by adding dollars to the economy and/or by actions more beneficial to the 99.9% than to the .1%.
Save this reference as your primer to current economics. Sadly, much of the material is not being taught in American schools, which is all the more reason for you to use it.

The Ten Steps will grow the economy, and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and you.

 

 

Save us from our “friends,” again Wednesday, Dec 14 2016 

Uncategorized , , , Rodger Malcolm Mitchell 3:55 pm

Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Two other posts on this blog were titled “Save us from our friends.”

In each, we saw examples of articles by people who, on the surface, seemed to be sympathetic to the plight of the working men and women — those good Americans who will live out their latter days in poverty or as financial burdens on their families, because of America’s insufficient healthcare and Social Security.

I say, “on the surface,” because the articles subscribe to the “Big Lie” that federal taxes fund federal spending. So the suggestions always are of the nature: “If we cut here or add there, we can keep Social Security and Medicare solvent.”

As readers of this blog know, Social Security, Medicare, the White House, Congress, the Supreme Court and the military branches et al are agencies of our Monetarily Sovereign federal government.

Unlike state and local governments, which are monetarily non-sovereign, the federal government cannot run short of its own sovereign currency, the dollar, which it invented.

It cannot become insolvent so none of its agencies can become insolvent unless Congress and the President will it.

I can’t tell for certain, whether the following are examples of innocent ignorance or clever deceit. You decide:

Don’t Eliminate the Link between Social Security Contributions and Benefits

Because of the way the Social Security program is funded — through a payroll tax on workers along with an employer contribution — many people believe there is an account for them at some government agency holding those contributions, or at least giving them credit for them, and that they will be able to collect their contributions when they retire.

It’s their money, collected from them monthly, and no matter their income level they have a right to get that money back when they retire.

First, Social Security is not funded through payroll taxes (FICA) any more than the other federal agencies are funded through a tax. They aren’t.

Even if there were no FICA, the federal government could, and should, provide Social Security benefits — higher benefits than today’s — for every man, woman, and child in America.

Contrary to popular myth, and public ignorance of federal financing, the federal government does not use tax dollars for spending. It destroys them.

Try telling them that they don’t. Even those people who understand that if their income is high enough they may not receive payments equal to all they put in get something back — it’s there for them no matter what — and this increases support for the program.

But if we change the funding so that payments for Social Security come out of the general fund — the money the government collects through taxes for all purposes — and impose means testing (i.e. phase out the payments once income is high enough), the link between contributions and benefits would be broken and I fear support for the program would be broken as well.

” . . . it’s there for them no matter what . . .” Wrong. It (meaning FICA deposits) are not there or anywhere. Once dollars are received by the federal government they cease to be a part of the money supply. They are destroyed upon receipt, and new dollars are created every time the federal government spends.

” . . . so that payments for Social Security come out of the general fund . . . “ I sometimes lazily have used this phrase myself, but strictly speaking, it is wrong. There are no dollars in any federal  “fund.”

Unlike you, me, and local governments, which do pay bills out of income and funds, the federal government creates fresh dollars each time it pays a bill.

” . . . the link between contributions and benefits would be broken and I fear support for the program would be broken as well.”

This is the “what-Franklin-Roosevelt-intended” belief.

President Roosevelt, realizing that FICA was not necessary, supposedly said, “We put those payroll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pensions and their unemployment benefits. With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program”

The contributions do not exist for financial reasons. They exist only for psychological reasons. That fact often is forgotten.

But nice try, Mr. President. The benefits have been cut many times, and today, the right-wing is determined to cut them even more. The whole thing even could be privatized (i.e. given to the rich) if the Republicans have their way.

When programs are supported through the general fund there is competition for funding, there is never enough money to go around, and it wouldn’t be long before the people in power, or with lots of influence over those in power (who don’t really need Social Security in most cases) would argue that the money is best used elsewhere.

” . . . there is never enough money to go around . . . “ This is known as the Big Lie, the lie that the federal government is supported by taxes and can run short of dollars.

There always, always, always is enough money. The U.S. dollar is created from thin air by federal laws that are created from thin air. So long as the federal government doesn’t run short of laws, it never will run short of dollars.

Here are some words from another of our “friends.”

GOP Plans to Gut Social Security
Posted on December 14, 2016,Yves Smith
By Dale Coberly. Originally published at Angry Bear

The  Republicans have opened a new assault on Social Security.  At present all I know about it is what I read  in a Talking Points Memo by Tierney Sneed.

Sneed quotes Paul Van de Water,  who is someone who actually knows that Social Security can be fixed entirely and forever by simply raising the payrolll tax one tenth of one percent per year until the balance between wage growth and growth in the cost of retirement is restored.

But somehow she doesn’t bother to mention this,  or maybe Van De Water forgot to mention it because he favors a “tax the rich” solution…  without understanding that that will turn Social Security into welfare as we knew it, and lead to its ultimate destruction by those rich who would then be paying for it.

Nobody pays for Social Security, not the rich, not the poor, not you and not me.

If Coberly, Sneed and Van de Water “know” their fix for Social Security,  they also must know the moon is made of cheese. Both statements are equally correct.

The CRFB  (Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget). an organization dedicated to the destruction of Social Security by misrepresenting the facts, is playing cute games like “use our calculator to find out how old you will be when SS runs out of funds.”

But SS will never run out of funds as long as the workers are allowed to pay… in advance…for their own benefits. With no change at all in SS, SS will pay 80% of “scheduled benefits,”  but this is 80% of scheduled benefits which meanwhile have grown 25% in real value.

He’s right about the CRFB, whose entire existence is based on the lie that the federal government can run short of dollars and that deficits and debt are “unsustainable.”

” . . .SS will never run out of funds as long as the workers are allowed to pay… in advance…for their own benefits.”  He should have said, “SS never will run out of funds as long as Congress and the President don’t sabotage it.” Workers do NOT pay for their benefits.

Meanwhile, something that calls itself “the Bipartisan Policy Center, says “Ultimately, we are going to need something that’s a little more balanced between benefits saving and revenue changes in order to get a proposal that could pass Congress and get approved by the president,” said Shai Akabas, director fiscal policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center.”

It’s hard to see how much cuts (“benefit savings”) make sense to balance a dollar a week increase in the payroll tax (revenue changes),  but that’s the kind of thinking that “Bipartisan” gets you.  “Hey folks,  we can save you a dollar a week just by gutting Social Security so it becomes meaningless as insurance so workers can retire at a reasonable age.”

I am getting too discouraged.  As long as no one is working to tell the people how this will work for them,  we are just going to stand around like sheep and watch them cut our throats.

I’m even more discouraged than you are, Mr. Coberly, when even our “friends,” who try to defend us, have no idea what they are talking about. Does anyone know how to reach Dale Coberly so we can educate him?

The list of pretend “friends” goes on and on. Simply Google “save Social Security” and you’ll find such nonsense as:

6 ways to save Social Security and keep it from going broke
By Jill Cornfield • Bankrate.com

“Every group should feel like they’re sacrificing something,” says Polina Vlasenko, a senior research fellow at the American Institute for Economic Research in Baltimore. “No one group should feel that someone else is getting off free.”

Vlasenko, of the American Institute for Economic Research, offers these suggestions:

  • Raising the age for early retirement (and partial benefits) to 65, instead of the current 62.
  • Pushing the age for full retirement (and full benefits) to 70. It’s currently in the midst of a gradual rise from 65 to 67, depending on your birth year.

These are known as the “work ’til you drop” solutions, also the. “Only the rich deserve to retire while they are able to enjoy it” solutions.

And then this bit of ignorance: from Bloomberg

How the Next President Could Save Social Security, By Dave Merrill and Chloe Whiteaker October 26, 2016

The problem
Since 2010, the number of workers supporting a growing number of retiring baby boomers is not sufficient to pay all the benefits they are due.

‘Trust fund’ draw down
Since there are not enough payroll taxes being collected day-to-day, money is drawn from Social Security’s “trust fund” reserve to meet the shortfall.

A better way
Congress could restore solvency to the system by combining several smaller, less painful fixes. Actuaries at the Social Security Administration have analyzed more than 100 individual policy provisions and provided estimates of the financial effect of each on the long-range solvency problem.

While simply adding the financial effect of one provision to another does not give an exact measure of a combined proposal, it can give a back-of-the-envelope estimate of the size and scope of the provisions needed to keep Social Security afloat for at least 75 years.

Pick two
For example, adding together any two of these potent provisions eliminates the shortfall, with some left over to replenish the trust fund.

The above is known as the “death by a thousand cuts” solution. Snip a little here and snip a little there, and maybe the public won’t notice that they are less and less able to retire with dignity.

My suggestion: Contact Dave Merrill and Chloe Whiteaker and ask them to defend their completely unnecessary ways to make you poor in your old age.

And finally, the ever-reliable AARP, the insurance agency that pretends to be a lobbyist for the elderly:

Updating Social Security: 12 Proposals You Should Know About
Pros and cons of options on the table in Washington and on the campaign trail:

1. Raise the Full Retirement Age.
2. Begin Longevity Indexing
3. Recalculate the COLA
4. Increase the Payroll Tax Cap
5. Eliminate the Payroll Tax Cap
6. Reduce Benefits for Higher Earners
7. Increase the Payroll Tax Rate
8. Apply Payroll Tax to All Salary Reduction Plans
9. Cover All Newly Hired State and Local Government Workers
10. Benefit Improvements
11. Increase Number of Years Used to Calculate Initial Benefits
12. Begin Means-Testing Social Security Benefits

To see an outline of the proposals, click the article’s link.

This really should have been titled “Screwing the middle- and lower-income groups: 12 Proposals we don’t want you to understand”

But since you do understand, you will recognize that every proposal is based on one Big Lie: The lie that Social Security benefits are funded by FICA.

As long as your “friends” (even Bernie Sanders) tell you the Social Security and Medicare benefits are “paid for” by taxes, you will continue to see complex, convoluted, Rube Goldbergian “solutions” to a non-problem: The supposed impending insolvency of two of a thousand federal agencies.

Yes, you’re being raped, but so long as you don’t object, your politicians will assume you enjoy it.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

The single most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the rich and the rest.

Wide Gaps negatively affect poverty, health and longevity, education, housing, law and crime, war, leadership, ownership, bigotry, supply and demand, taxation, GDP, international relations, scientific advancement, the environment, human motivation and well-being, and virtually every other issue in economics.

Implementation of The Ten Steps To Prosperity can narrow the Gaps:

Ten Steps To Prosperity:
1. ELIMINATE FICA (Ten Reasons to Eliminate FICA )
Although the article lists 10 reasons to eliminate FICA, there are two fundamental reasons:
*FICA is the most regressive tax in American history, widening the Gap by punishing the low and middle-income groups, while leaving the rich untouched, and
*The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, neither needs nor uses FICA to support Social Security and Medicare.
2. FEDERALLY FUNDED MEDICARE — PARTS A, B & D, PLUS LONG TERM CARE — FOR EVERYONE (H.R. 676, Medicare for All )
This article addresses the questions:
*Does the economy benefit when the rich can afford better health care than can the rest of Americans?
*Aside from improved health care, what are the other economic effects of “Medicare for everyone?”
*How much would it cost taxpayers?
*Who opposes it?”
3. PROVIDE AN ANNUAL ECONOMIC BONUS TO EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA, AND/OR EVERY STATE, A PER CAPITA ECONOMIC BONUS (The JG (Jobs Guarantee) vs the GI (Guaranteed Income) vs the EB) Or institute a reverse income tax.
This article is the fifth in a series about direct financial assistance to Americans:

Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Employer of Last Resort is a bad idea. Sunday, Jan 1 2012
MMT’s Job Guarantee (JG) — “Another crazy, rightwing, Austrian nutjob?” Thursday, Jan 12 2012
Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Jobs Guarantee is like the EU’s euro: A beloved solution to the wrong problem. Tuesday, May 29 2012
“You can’t fire me. I’m on JG” Saturday, Jun 2 2012

Economic growth should include the “bottom” 99.9%, not just the .1%, the only question being, how best to accomplish that. Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) favors giving everyone a job. Monetary Sovereignty (MS) favors giving everyone money. The five articles describe the pros and cons of each approach.
4. FREE EDUCATION (INCLUDING POST-GRAD) FOR EVERYONEFive reasons why we should eliminate school loans
Monetarily non-sovereign State and local governments, despite their limited finances, support grades K-12. That level of education may have been sufficient for a largely agrarian economy, but not for our currently more technical economy that demands greater numbers of highly educated workers.
Because state and local funding is so limited, grades K-12 receive short shrift, especially those schools whose populations come from the lowest economic groups. And college is too costly for most families.
An educated populace benefits a nation, and benefitting the nation is the purpose of the federal government, which has the unlimited ability to pay for K-16 and beyond.
5. SALARY FOR ATTENDING SCHOOL
Even were schooling to be completely free, many young people cannot attend, because they and their families cannot afford to support non-workers. In a foundering boat, everyone needs to bail, and no one can take time off for study.
If a young person’s “job” is to learn and be productive, he/she should be paid to do that job, especially since that job is one of America’s most important.
6. ELIMINATE CORPORATE TAXES
Corporations themselves exist only as legalities. They don’t pay taxes or pay for anything else. They are dollar-transferring machines. They transfer dollars from customers to employees, suppliers, shareholders and the government (the later having no use for those dollars).
Any tax on corporations reduces the amount going to employees, suppliers and shareholders, which diminishes the economy. Ultimately, all corporate taxes come around and reappear as deductions from your personal income.
7. INCREASE THE STANDARD INCOME TAX DEDUCTION, ANNUALLY. (Refer to this.) Federal taxes punish taxpayers and harm the economy. The federal government has no need for those punishing and harmful tax dollars. There are several ways to reduce taxes, and we should evaluate and choose the most progressive approaches.
Cutting FICA and corporate taxes would be a good early step, as both dramatically affect the 99%. Annual increases in the standard income tax deduction, and a reverse income tax also would provide benefits from the bottom up. Both would narrow the Gap.
8. TAX THE VERY RICH (THE “.1%) MORE, WITH HIGHER PROGRESSIVE TAX RATES ON ALL FORMS OF INCOME. (TROPHIC CASCADE)
There was a time when I argued against increasing anyone’s federal taxes. After all, the federal government has no need for tax dollars, and all taxes reduce Gross Domestic Product, thereby negatively affecting the entire economy, including the 99.9%.
But I have come to realize that narrowing the Gap requires trimming the top. It simply would not be possible to provide the 99.9% with enough benefits to narrow the Gap in any meaningful way. Bill Gates reportedly owns $70 billion. To get to that level, he must have been earning $10 billion a year. Pick any acceptable Gap (1000 to 1?), and the lowest paid American would have to receive $10 million a year. Unreasonable.
9. FEDERAL OWNERSHIP OF ALL BANKS (Click The end of private banking and How should America decide “who-gets-money”?)
Banks have created all the dollars that exist. Even dollars created at the direction of the federal government, actually come into being when banks increase the numbers in checking accounts. This gives the banks enormous financial power, and as we all know, power corrupts — especially when multiplied by a profit motive.
Although the federal government also is powerful and corrupted, it does not suffer from a profit motive, the world’s most corrupting influence.
10. INCREASE FEDERAL SPENDING ON THE MYRIAD INITIATIVES THAT BENEFIT AMERICA’S 99.9% (Federal agencies)Browse the agencies. See how many agencies benefit the lower- and middle-income/wealth/ power groups, by adding dollars to the economy and/or by actions more beneficial to the 99.9% than to the .1%.
Save this reference as your primer to current economics. Sadly, much of the material is not being taught in American schools, which is all the more reason for you to use it.

The Ten Steps will grow the economy, and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and you.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

 

Intelligence and the primary weakness of economics Tuesday, Dec 13 2016 

Uncategorized Rodger Malcolm Mitchell 3:07 pm

Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

In the post, “What is the illusion of intelligence,” we discussed Artificial Intelligence (AI), and said that our rudimentary computers and lower animals (ants) have “intelligence.”

Reader “scottonthespot” demured, saying in part:

There is no such thing as Artificial Intelligence. It is all just Simulated Intelligence.

Some programming to make it LOOK like the machine is acting like us, motivated by the same things we are. But it is no more real than the animatronics at Disney World.

No computer has true drive, desire, hunger, fear, want, joy, anger, or any of the other complex emotions that are built into our non-conscious brain.
In fact, a single-celled amoeba has more in common with us than IBM’s Watson, even though we’ve programmed the latter to SEEM like us.

The amoeba, like us, gets hungry, flees from danger (in its limited way), desires to reproduce (albeit asexually), etc.

It took about half a billion years to get from that to multi-celled animals and then relatively quickly to complex animals like us – with a whole bunch of fairly arbitrary extinctions along the way.

None of this was planned from the top-down in the way we are trying to do with so-called A.I.

Show me a single computer anywhere that actually fears being turned off – and doesn’t just mimic our fears of death in words and actions.

A.I. Researchers have basically given up on their earlier quest to create intelligence like ours.

Who knows? Big Data may prove more useful. But it isn’t intelligence. It’s just a simulation.

My response was:

No law says “intelligence” must resemble the human brain or have involved an evolution that replicates human evolution.

Further, there are specific parts of the human brain having to do with fear, joy, anger, etc., and there actually are living individuals who do not have one or more of these emotions, because of damage to certain brain cells — yet they have intelligence.

Anyway, we’re talking about “artificial” intelligence rather than duplicating human intelligence, and artificial intelligence may become smarter in many ways than human intelligence.

It depends on the criteria with which you measure intelligence. Even my iRobot Roomba cleaner demonstrates hunger, and it flees from danger.

When it’s hungry it goes to the electrical outlet, and if it’s in danger of falling down the stairs, it moves away.

And yes, even my little desktop computer has “fears.”  It asks me, “Are you sure?” when I want to leave certain pages. Some computer viruses actually prevent shutdown unless you remove all power, and even then, when you power up again the same page may reappear.

But “scottonthespot” was correct when he wrote, “None of this was planned from the top-down in the way we are trying to do with so-called A.I.” And in fact, the “top-down” method, in which programmers try to create algorithms that duplicate thinking, simply does not work for complex problems like face or voice recognition.

NewScientist Magazine: 26 November 2016: If you compare two passport photos of yourself taken one minute apart, they will not be identical at the level of raw pixels.

This is sufficient for the computer to treat them as two completely different images.

We would like the computer to represent those images in a more robust way than just using pixels, so it does not get confused by small irrelevant changes in the images.

Programming this capability directly into a computer has proven difficult, so engineers have resorted to machine learning.

All of AI has moved on to “machine learning,” which actually parallels human intelligence far better than does the “top down” method.

I never have had a completely original thought — nor have you. Our every thought, no matter how creative, is based on all our life’s experiences. I cannot visualize colors beyond ultraviolet simply because I never have seen colors beyond ultraviolet.   No amount of creative effort will change this.

I never will write haiku in Japanese. I don’t know Japanese. No amount of intelligence will change this.

There are many measures and descriptions of intelligence and creativity, but any measure or description requires background data and some form of reassembly.

Everything we think, believe or imagine has devolved from some prior experience, which is exactly how machine learning operates.

You decide on the right thing to wear tonight. Your decision is based on a combination of historical data — all the data from your many, many trillions of life’s second-by-second experiences — subconsciously assembled via repetition and probability.

You cannot explain exactly how you came to your decision. You just “feel” it via an internal algorithm, which you cannot explain. This is “bottom up” intelligence. This is human intelligence.

Machine learning, like you, assembles trillions of historical data points, and via repetition and probability, comes to a mathematical “best-fit” conclusion.

For face recognition, machine learning involves showing the computer trillions of images, and telling the computer which ones depict the same faces. Over time, the computer begins to “get it,” by creating its own internal algorithms.

Even when the pixels may differ substantially, the computer has “learned” which differences are important. No human could write such algorithms, though we use similar algorithms subconsciously every time we recognize a face. 

Which brings us to economics:

Every economist produces “if/then” hypotheses. If interest rates go up, then this will happen. If the minimum wage goes up then that will happen. And if deficits go up, then another thing will happen.

And we repeatedly are wrong, especially in the details.

I can tell you, with much assurance, that if the federal government were to run a surplus, or merely to reduce deficit growth (as in a balanced budget), we would have a recession. I know this because it has happened many times before — history, repetition, probability.

But I can’t tell you how soon, how deep, and how long the recession will be. No one can.

Stock market chartists try to predict future market moves by analyzing past market moves, but they too often are wrong, being unable to factor in the underlying causes of past market moves.

Machine learning will do this. “Big data” will compile all past market changes, together with data about world currencies, GDP, censuses, leaderships, politics, technology, energy, discoveries, wars, weather, ecology, and other factors.

There need be no assumptions. It all will be data and probability.

No human could write an algorithm that could take into account so many factors, but the machine does, not by “intelligence” in the way we think of it, but rather by running those numbers again and again until it arrives at a “best fit.”

The machine does not “know why” its answer is correct. It just spits out the the most mathematically probable answer — which would be close to the way human reasoning and intuition operate, if we were able to handle as much data as a machine can.

Given sufficient data and computing power, machines will be able to predict the future far better than we humans can.

Not only will they be better able to predict the future based on today’s reality, but they will be better able to predict “if/then” futures.

Using big data and machine learning, they will answer such questions as:

“If we pass a Balanced Budget Amendment today, then how soon will the depression probably begin; how deep will it probably it go; how long will it probably last?”  What are the best fit probabilities?

And, “If the U.S. President is an egomaniacal, mean-spirited liar, who cares nothing for the people, but is interested solely in using the Presidency to grow his own wealth and glory, and if he appoints similarly mean-spirited incompetents as advisors, then what are the best-fit probabilities of what will happen to the “99%” of America?”

That will be the beginning of economics as a real science.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

THE LAWS

•Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.

•Any monetarily NON-sovereign government — be it city, county, state or nation — that runs an ongoing trade deficit, eventually will run out of money.

•The more federal budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes..

•No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth.

•Cutting federal deficits to grow the economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia.

•A growing economy requires a growing supply of money (GDP = Federal Spending + Non-federal Spending + Net Exports)

•Deficit spending grows the supply of money

•The limit to federal deficit spending is an inflation that cannot be cured with interest rate control. The limit to non-federal deficit spending is the ability to borrow.

•Until the 99% understand the need for federal deficits, the upper 1% will rule.

•Progressives think the purpose of government is to protect the poor and powerless from the rich and powerful. Conservatives think the purpose of government is to protect the rich and powerful from the poor and powerless.

•The single most important problem in economics is the Gap between the rich and the rest.

•Austerity is the government’s method for widening the Gap between the rich and the rest.

•Until the 99% understand the need for federal deficits, the upper 1% will rule.

•Everything in economics devolves to motive, and the motive is the Gap between the rich and the rest..

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

 

The Chicago Tribune lies again. Monday, Dec 12 2016 

Uncategorized , , , Rodger Malcolm Mitchell 4:21 pm

Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

As always, the lying Chicago Tribune wants you to believe the United States government can run short of its own sovereign currency.

The purpose: To take away your Social Security and Medicare benefits that the richest .1% do not want you to have.

Welcome back, balanced budget amendment
The Republican Congress should launch this ‘desperate but necessary device’
Chicago Tribune, 12/12/16

In 1994, Congress was considering a constitutional amendment to require the federal budget to be balanced. A stubborn habit of running deficits had gotten out of control in the previous decade and a half, quadrupling the national debt.

“The balanced-budget amendment is a desperate but necessary device for restoring discipline to the management of the nation’s treasury by Congress and the president,” this page said then.

It was a lie then, and it is a lie now. The federal deficit is the federal government’s method for growing the economy by adding dollars to the money supply.

Larger economies have more money than do smaller economies.  Therefore, to go from smaller to larger an economy must have more money. Federal deficit spending is how the government accomplishes that goal.

The amendment, sponsored by Illinois’ own Democratic Sen. Paul Simon, passed the House but fell one vote short of the necessary two-thirds majority in the Senate. Ensuing developments only highlight how useful the rule could have been.

After a brief spell of budget surpluses during the Clinton administration, deficits came roaring back, topping out at $1.55 trillion in 2009, during the Great Recession.

What the lying Chicago Tribune fails to mention is:

1. Clinton’s surpluses caused the recession of 2001.
2. That recession was cured by the reduction in the surplus during 2001.
3. Almost every recession has been caused by reduced deficit growth
4. Almost every recession has been cured by increased deficit growth.
5. The federal government has not and cannot run short of dollars.
6. There is not mechanism by which removing money from an enconomy can help that economy grow. Federal surpluses remove dollars from the economy.

One might think that a Balanced Budget Amendment would merely stagnate the economy, because it would freeze the amount of federal dollars entering the economy. However, even the smallest amount of inflation would deflate the economy, as the value of the money supply would shrink.

Clinton’s surpluses began in the 1st quarter of 1998 and reversed  in the 2nd quarter of 2001 when a recession began. 

The total government debt has tripled since 2000, and projections say it will expand at an unhealthy pace in the coming decade.

The lying Chicago Tribune, either by ignorance or intent, switches from “deficits” to “debt.” The two are substantially different.

Deficits are the differences between taxes and spending. Debts are deposits in T-security accounts at the Federal Reserve Bank.

It would be possible for the government to run trillions of dollars in deficits, while accepting zero deposits in T-security accounts — and vice versa.

And what is it that makes the pace of deposits in those T-security accounts “unhealthy”? The Tribune never says, nor does any other debt fear-mongering site ever say.

They all feel it’s enough to claim the deficit and debt are “too high,” without providing any substantiation.

On the contrary, there is massive evidence that deficits stimulate economic growth, and insufficient deficit growth causes recessions and depressions.

It doesn’t even embarrass the lying Chicago Tribune that the federal “debt” has tripled in 16 years and we are in a period of economic growth.

(Actually, the federal debt has, since 2000, gone from about $3.7 trillion to $13.9 trillion — almost quadrupled, and yes, the economy is growing.)

It is a symptom of serial liars, that they are not embarrassed by the revelation of their lies (See: Donald Trump).

But there is one glimmer of hope: the revival of the balanced budget amendment.

With Republicans in control of 33 legislatures after this year’s election, the chances of ratification by the states are good. And 28 states have already gone so far as to call for a constitutional convention to consider such a measure.

The prospect of a convention that could stray into further amending the Constitution may be enough to spur Congress to approve the amendment and send it to the states, with 38 required for ratification.

The last time such a proposal came to a vote, in 2011, it fell well short in the House, partly because supporters of the idea couldn’t agree on the particulars — notably whether to include a spending limit of 18 percent of GDP.

The version introduced last year by Rep. Bob Goodlatte, the Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, set the spending ceiling at 20 percent of GDP.

First, the lying Chicago Tribune said it was a deficit problem. Then it became a debt problem. Now it’s a spending problem. Make up your mind, Tribune.

“Deficit,” “debt,” and “spending” are strikingly different, but when one has zero facts one uses zero facts. So the Tribune changes subjects from paragraph to paragraph in its efforts to deceive you.

Where did 20% come from?  What is the evidence that federal spending should be limited to 20% of GDP?  

There is none, but that doesn’t bother the lying Chicago Tribune.

But there hasn’t been much appetite in Washington for tough fiscal decisions, so the details didn’t much matter.

Apparently, the details don’t much matter to the lying Chicago Tribune, either.

Each version contains an escape hatch for emergencies like wars and recessions, allowing Congress to run a deficit by a three-fifths vote of each house. The spending limit, if included, could be waived by a two-thirds vote of each.

Wait a minute! An “escape hatch” to increase spending (or deficits or debt) in case of recessions??  If spending (or deficits or debt) are bad for the economy, why would anyone want to institute these supposedly harmful actions in the case of a recession?

Wouldn’t a recession be the last time one would want to introduce an “unhealthy” action?

Apparently, the lying Tribune has forgotten it’s premise that spending (or deficits or debt) are harmful.  There’s an old saying, “If you lie, you need a good memory.” 

In practice, all this means a constitutional amendment is no guarantee of fiscal responsibility. With enough members who are averse to restraining spending or raising taxes, the limit could be breached in good times as well as bad.

State experience indicates that ingenious lawmakers can find ways around the balanced budget requirement that exists in 49 states, including ours. Illinoisans know all too well that the mandate is hardly airtight: Next year, the state government, already awash in unpaid bills, is expected to go into the red once again, possibly by another $5 billion.

And now, the lying Chicago Tribune sneaks from Monetary Sovereignty to monetary non-sovereignty. The federal government is Monetarily Sovereign, meaning it never can run short of its own sovereign currency the dollar.

Illinois is monetarily non-sovereign, meaning it has no sovereign currency. It uses the dollar, over which it is not sovereign, so it can run short of dollars.

Not to differentiate between the two either is ignorance on the level of abject stupidity, or it is lying on the level of abject enormity. I suggest it is the latter.

Still, the federal experience shows that without such a requirement, lawmakers have an even easier time spending beyond the government’s means. The fact that a constitutional amendment could be evaded is no reason to reject it. A determined thief can get into a locked car by smashing a window, but most people lock their cars anyway.

The lying continues and continues.  The U.S. federal government has no “means.” It can pay any invoice of any amount at any time.  All through wars, recessions, depressions, inflations and stagflations, the U.S. government never has bounced a check.

The better course would be for Congress and the president simply to summon the will to keep outlays at a level not to exceed income, year after year. As we learned in the 1990s, that option is not outside the realm of possibility. But until such time as our leaders volunteer to abandon their irresponsible ways, a balanced budget amendment offers a good way to make them.

In the event the federal government and the states are deceitful enough to pass a “Balanced Budget Amendment,” we absolutely, positively will have a depression that will make the Great Depression look like Disneyland.

If such a ridiculous amendment actually looks like it might pass, here is my advice for you:

Don’t buy stocks. Don’t buy corporate bonds. Don’t buy gold or silver. Don’t switch to euros or yen or to any other foreign currency.  Don’t move to Canada or to Switzerland.

Do this: Sell all your assets and deposit every dollar into U.S. T-bond accounts at the Federal Reserve Bank.  Those will be the only investments in the world that reliably will gain value.

Why? Because the U.S. government always pays its bills, no matter how high they may be, and no matter what the lying Chicago Tribune might imply.

By the way, don’t give this advice to the lying Chicago Tribune.  Let them go under. Serve them right.

Sadly, their employees would suffer more than the rich owners. It is ever thus.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

The single most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the rich and the rest.

Wide Gaps negatively affect poverty, health and longevity, education, housing, law and crime, war, leadership, ownership, bigotry, supply and demand, taxation, GDP, international relations, scientific advancement, the environment, human motivation and well-being, and virtually every other issue in economics.

Implementation of The Ten Steps To Prosperity can narrow the Gaps:

Ten Steps To Prosperity:
1. ELIMINATE FICA (Ten Reasons to Eliminate FICA )
Although the article lists 10 reasons to eliminate FICA, there are two fundamental reasons:
*FICA is the most regressive tax in American history, widening the Gap by punishing the low and middle-income groups, while leaving the rich untouched, and
*The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, neither needs nor uses FICA to support Social Security and Medicare.
2. FEDERALLY FUNDED MEDICARE — PARTS A, B & D, PLUS LONG TERM CARE — FOR EVERYONE (H.R. 676, Medicare for All )
This article addresses the questions:
*Does the economy benefit when the rich can afford better health care than can the rest of Americans?
*Aside from improved health care, what are the other economic effects of “Medicare for everyone?”
*How much would it cost taxpayers?
*Who opposes it?”
3. PROVIDE AN ANNUAL ECONOMIC BONUS TO EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA, AND/OR EVERY STATE, A PER CAPITA ECONOMIC BONUS (The JG (Jobs Guarantee) vs the GI (Guaranteed Income) vs the EB) Or institute a reverse income tax.
This article is the fifth in a series about direct financial assistance to Americans:

Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Employer of Last Resort is a bad idea. Sunday, Jan 1 2012
MMT’s Job Guarantee (JG) — “Another crazy, rightwing, Austrian nutjob?” Thursday, Jan 12 2012
Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Jobs Guarantee is like the EU’s euro: A beloved solution to the wrong problem. Tuesday, May 29 2012
“You can’t fire me. I’m on JG” Saturday, Jun 2 2012

Economic growth should include the “bottom” 99.9%, not just the .1%, the only question being, how best to accomplish that. Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) favors giving everyone a job. Monetary Sovereignty (MS) favors giving everyone money. The five articles describe the pros and cons of each approach.
4. FREE EDUCATION (INCLUDING POST-GRAD) FOR EVERYONEFive reasons why we should eliminate school loans
Monetarily non-sovereign State and local governments, despite their limited finances, support grades K-12. That level of education may have been sufficient for a largely agrarian economy, but not for our currently more technical economy that demands greater numbers of highly educated workers.
Because state and local funding is so limited, grades K-12 receive short shrift, especially those schools whose populations come from the lowest economic groups. And college is too costly for most families.
An educated populace benefits a nation, and benefitting the nation is the purpose of the federal government, which has the unlimited ability to pay for K-16 and beyond.
5. SALARY FOR ATTENDING SCHOOL
Even were schooling to be completely free, many young people cannot attend, because they and their families cannot afford to support non-workers. In a foundering boat, everyone needs to bail, and no one can take time off for study.
If a young person’s “job” is to learn and be productive, he/she should be paid to do that job, especially since that job is one of America’s most important.
6. ELIMINATE CORPORATE TAXES
Corporations themselves exist only as legalities. They don’t pay taxes or pay for anything else. They are dollar-transferring machines. They transfer dollars from customers to employees, suppliers, shareholders and the government (the later having no use for those dollars).
Any tax on corporations reduces the amount going to employees, suppliers and shareholders, which diminishes the economy. Ultimately, all corporate taxes come around and reappear as deductions from your personal income.
7. INCREASE THE STANDARD INCOME TAX DEDUCTION, ANNUALLY. (Refer to this.) Federal taxes punish taxpayers and harm the economy. The federal government has no need for those punishing and harmful tax dollars. There are several ways to reduce taxes, and we should evaluate and choose the most progressive approaches.
Cutting FICA and corporate taxes would be a good early step, as both dramatically affect the 99%. Annual increases in the standard income tax deduction, and a reverse income tax also would provide benefits from the bottom up. Both would narrow the Gap.
8. TAX THE VERY RICH (THE “.1%) MORE, WITH HIGHER PROGRESSIVE TAX RATES ON ALL FORMS OF INCOME. (TROPHIC CASCADE)
There was a time when I argued against increasing anyone’s federal taxes. After all, the federal government has no need for tax dollars, and all taxes reduce Gross Domestic Product, thereby negatively affecting the entire economy, including the 99.9%.
But I have come to realize that narrowing the Gap requires trimming the top. It simply would not be possible to provide the 99.9% with enough benefits to narrow the Gap in any meaningful way. Bill Gates reportedly owns $70 billion. To get to that level, he must have been earning $10 billion a year. Pick any acceptable Gap (1000 to 1?), and the lowest paid American would have to receive $10 million a year. Unreasonable.
9. FEDERAL OWNERSHIP OF ALL BANKS (Click The end of private banking and How should America decide “who-gets-money”?)
Banks have created all the dollars that exist. Even dollars created at the direction of the federal government, actually come into being when banks increase the numbers in checking accounts. This gives the banks enormous financial power, and as we all know, power corrupts — especially when multiplied by a profit motive.
Although the federal government also is powerful and corrupted, it does not suffer from a profit motive, the world’s most corrupting influence.
10. INCREASE FEDERAL SPENDING ON THE MYRIAD INITIATIVES THAT BENEFIT AMERICA’S 99.9% (Federal agencies)Browse the agencies. See how many agencies benefit the lower- and middle-income/wealth/ power groups, by adding dollars to the economy and/or by actions more beneficial to the 99.9% than to the .1%.
Save this reference as your primer to current economics. Sadly, much of the material is not being taught in American schools, which is all the more reason for you to use it.

The Ten Steps will grow the economy, and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and you.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

 

Next Page »