Mitchell’s laws:
●The more budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes.
●Austerity starves the economy to feed the government, and leads to civil disorder.
●Until the 99% understand the need for federal deficits, the upper 1% will rule.
●To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments.
●Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
==========================================================================================================================================
Israel, return Arab/Muslim lands!
Eight million Israelis, on a sliver of land, crowd 500 million Arabs/Muslims out of their land.
Disgraceful.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty
Nine Steps to Prosperity:
1. Eliminate FICA (Click here)
2. Medicare — parts A, B & D — for everyone
3. Send every American citizen an annual check for $5,000 or give every state $5,000 per capita (Click here)
4. Long-term nursing care for everyone
5. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone
6. Salary for attending school (Click here)
7. Eliminate corporate taxes
8. Increase the standard income tax deduction annually
9. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America
==========================================================================================================================================
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 Imports
#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY
#Monetary Sovereignty - Mitchell 
HUH!!
LikeLike
Agreed. This map makes it absolutely clear that if only that 50 square miles of land with little or no natural resources (or whatever it is) is returned to Arab control then there will be world peace. Even in Korea.
LikeLike
Matt is correct. The map simply illustrates the counter argument. Israel is a tiny speck of land. It is ridiculous to imagine that if Israelis suddenly disappeared from the Mid-East that the Arabs would all join hands and sing Kumbayah!
LikeLike
Yes, and the question no one answers is: What would guarantee Israel’s survival?
Hello, Turkey. Hello, U.K. Hello, France and the rest of the criticizing nations. Are you ready to guarantee Israel’s survival?
Arafat rejected Israel’s offer of land for peace. Hamas demonstrates daily why land for peace doesn’t work.
I’m sure you’ve heard the words, “If Arabs laid down their arms there would be no more war. If Israel laid down their arms there would be no more Israel.”
See: Onboard video
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
LikeLike
Rodger there is an even more fundamental question no one asks. If this is such a humanitarian crisis then WTF is wrong with Egypt? Egypt shares a border with Gaza. Any food/medicine (and small rockets) can certainly come through that border at a minimum.
LikeLike
Matt,
Even more than that, Israel freely allows all food/medicine to go into Gaza. The notion that Israel has a “blockade” on these things is propaganda. But, for some reason, the media, particularly the liberal media, falls for it.
Look at this: VIDEO
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
LikeLike
Rodger,
My working assumption is that many won’t believe or trust evil jews/zionists no matter what. So if we take Israel out of the equation that still leaves a border with Egypt. There is no answer when you bring up Egypt. They are supposed to be Arab brothers. Whatever.
LikeLike
Matt,
Speaking of brothers, why are the people of Gaza starving while their wealthy brothers (Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates et al) do little for them?
LikeLike
Rodger the answer is that the West Bank and Gaza are nothing more than convenient excuses for other Middle Eastern regimes to divert their population’s attention. These people are purposely left in a state of uncertainty rather than absorbed into Egypt or Jordan so people can blame Israel.
LikeLike
And as I write this, Hamas has refused to allow the “desperately needed” humanitarian supplies to enter Gaza. Israel wants to deliver them but Hamas refuses. Who has more concerns about the people of Gaza?
Meanwhile, the world rails at Israel, and cries its crocodile tears, especially Turkey, which planned the entire exercise.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
LikeLike
The following was written by columnist Charles Krauthammer and published on June 4, 2010
Those troublesome Jews
The world is outraged at Israel’s blockade of Gaza. Turkey denounces its illegality, inhumanity, barbarity, etc. The usual U.N. suspects, Third World and European, join in. The Obama administration dithers.
But as Leslie Gelb, former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, writes, the blockade is not just perfectly rational, it is perfectly legal. Gaza under Hamas is a self-declared enemy of Israel — a declaration backed up by more than 4,000 rockets fired at Israeli civilian territory. Yet having pledged itself to unceasing belligerency, Hamas claims victimhood when Israel imposes a blockade to prevent Hamas from arming itself with still more rockets.
In World War II, with full international legality, the United States blockaded Germany and Japan. And during the October 1962 missile crisis, we blockaded (“quarantined”) Cuba. Arms-bearing Russian ships headed to Cuba turned back because the Soviets knew that the U.S. Navy would either board them or sink them. Yet Israel is accused of international criminality for doing precisely what John Kennedy did: impose a naval blockade to prevent a hostile state from acquiring lethal weaponry.
Oh, but weren’t the Gaza-bound ships on a mission of humanitarian relief? No. Otherwise they would have accepted Israel’s offer to bring their supplies to an Israeli port, be inspected for military materiel and have the rest trucked by Israel into Gaza — as every week 10,000 tons of food, medicine and other humanitarian supplies are sent by Israel to Gaza.
Why was the offer refused? Because, as organizer Greta Berlin admitted, the flotilla was not about humanitarian relief but about breaking the blockade, i.e., ending Israel’s inspection regime, which would mean unlimited shipping into Gaza and thus the unlimited arming of Hamas.
Israel has already twice intercepted ships laden with Iranian arms destined for Hezbollah and Gaza. What country would allow that?
But even more important, why did Israel even have to resort to blockade? Because, blockade is Israel’s fallback as the world systematically de-legitimizes its traditional ways of defending itself — forward and active defense.
(1) Forward defense: As a small, densely populated country surrounded by hostile states, Israel had, for its first half-century, adopted forward defense — fighting wars on enemy territory (such as the Sinai and Golan Heights) rather than its own.
Where possible (Sinai, for example) Israel has traded territory for peace. But where peace offers were refused, Israel retained the territory as a protective buffer zone. Thus Israel retained a small strip of southern Lebanon to protect the villages of northern Israel. And it took many losses in Gaza, rather than expose Israeli border towns to Palestinian terror attacks. It is for the same reason America wages a grinding war in Afghanistan: You fight them there, so you don’t have to fight them here.
But under overwhelming outside pressure, Israel gave it up. The Israelis were told the occupations were not just illegal but at the root of the anti-Israel insurgencies — and therefore withdrawal, by removing the cause, would bring peace.
Land for peace. Remember? Well, during the past decade, Israel gave the land — evacuating South Lebanon in 2000 and Gaza in 2005. What did it get? An intensification of belligerency, heavy militarization of the enemy side, multiple kidnappings, cross-border attacks and, from Gaza, years of unrelenting rocket attack.
(2) Active defense: Israel then had to switch to active defense — military action to disrupt, dismantle and defeat (to borrow President Obama’s description of our campaign against the Taliban and al-Qaeda) the newly armed terrorist mini-states established in southern Lebanon and Gaza after Israel withdrew.
The result? The Lebanon war of 2006 and Gaza operation of 2008-09. They were met with yet another avalanche of opprobrium and calumny by the same international community that had demanded the land-for-peace Israeli withdrawals in the first place. Worse, theU.N. Goldstone report, which essentially criminalized Israel’s defensive operation in Gaza while whitewashing the casus belli — thepreceding and unprovoked Hamas rocket war — effectively de-legitimized any active Israeli defense against its self-declared terror enemies.
(3) Passive defense: Without forward or active defense, Israel is left with but the most passive and benign of all defenses — a blockade to simply prevent enemy rearmament. Yet, as we speak, this too is headed for international de-legitimation. Even the United States is now moving toward having it abolished.
But, if none of these is permissible, what’s left?
Ah, but that’s the point. It’s the point understood by the blockade-busting flotilla of useful idiots and terror sympathizers, by the Turkish front organization that funded it, by the automatic anti-Israel Third World chorus at the United Nations, and by the supine Europeans who’ve had quite enough of the Jewish problem.
What’s left? Nothing. The whole point of this relentless international campaign is to deprive Israel of any legitimate form of self-defense. Why, just last week, the Obama administration joined the jackals, and reversed four decades of U.S. practice, by signing onto a consensus document that singles out Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons — thus de-legitimizing Israel’s very last line of defense: deterrence.
The world is tired of these troublesome Jews, 6 million — that number again — hard by the Mediterranean, refusing every invitation to national suicide. For which they are relentlessly demonized, ghettoized and constrained from defending themselves, even as the more committed anti-Zionists — Iranian in particular — openly prepare a more final solution.
letters@charleskrauthammer.com
LikeLike
well stated!
LikeLike
There are people here who know a lot about economics, but very little about the Arab-Israeli conflict. To quote Abba Eban from memory, “what is striking about the conflict is how easy it is [or was] to resolve” – by the two state solution.
The problem is that one side has consistently and for decades made very reasonable peace offers along the lines of the two state solution, consistent with international law, but they have been consistently rejected by the other side, which has become addicted to terrorism and aggression.
The aggressive and violence-addicted side is Israel. Of course the Arabs have responded with violence against the far greater and frequently unprovoked Israeli violence. Unfortunately, the US media has propagated an incredibly dishonest version of events. The best way to repair ones ignorance is by many trips to the library.
Arafat’s rejection of Israel peace offer is mentioned above – probably referring to Camp David 2000 – a remarkably crappy offer, that would have given insane borders looking like no other borders anywhere past or present. (January 2001 at Taba came close to a reasonable agreement, but things just ended, rather than either side explicitly rejecting.)
But the multitudes of serious and reasonable public Arab comprehensive peace offers – from the Palestinians and Arab states from 1982 onwards are not mentioned. Israel started turning down public peace treaty offers from Arab states in 1949!
On the blockade, one can discuss reasonably whether Israel has the right to blockade, search, etc. But what is quite clear is that this particular blockade, which emphatically does and has blockaded food and medicine and many humanitarian supplies, and has explicitly targetted the civilian population of Gaza, is illegal. Pro-israel propaganda has as usual proceeded simply by making things up, by lies of ommission and commission, and above all, by throwing history down the memory hole.
What would guarantee Israel’s survival would be to accept the Arab peace offers, like the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative accepted by all the Arab states and Palestinians, including Hamas. But what Israel does is to continue a policy of theft and violence against Arabs. It is hard to see how Israel can survive in the longterm with its present irrational policy of preferring force to diplomacy.
LikeLike
And here you have the other side of the propaganda, which demonstrates why the conflict continues. How to accept so called “peace offers” from disparate, warring groups that refuse to recognize even your right to exist, is not explained.
Nor is it explained who speaks for the Arabs and who can enforce any peace agreement: Hamas? Hezbollah? Fatah? Or perhaps Syria? Iran? Iraq? Lebananon? Egypt?
Given the situation, what should be the first step? Would Israel’s suicide be sufficient?
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
LikeLike
The Arab states are not disparate warring groups – they have all accepted the Arab Peace initiative. While the political parties – not states – Hamas and Hezbollah have not accepted it, they have signaled they would abide by it if official governments did achieve a peace agreement with Israel. Hamas and Hezbollah have a much better history of keeping their word and abiding cease fires than Israel, so it is unlikely that they would restart the violence, if the Palestinians got something real, they would become very unpopular for it.
The peace offers are serious and would enormously benefit Israeli security. Israel’s policies are suicidal. A normal, sane state would have accepted such generous peace offers – really admissions of defeat – long ago.
The problem is that Israel can’t accept victory. It can’t accept that the Arabs accepted it.
The first step is very simple – accept these peace offers. Stop launching unprovoked attacks on Arabs. Stop attacking peace activists breaching an illegal blockade. (Israel may have the right to blockade, but not to this particular sadistic blockade.) Go back to the 2001 Taba negotiations and map, where both sides were quite close. Split the difference – do something like the Geneva Initiative. Go home from the land stolen since 1967. Basically, conflict over.
“Right to exist” is a brain-destroying propaganda concoction. The US doesn’t recognize Israel’s “right to exist” – it just diplomatically recognizes Israel. Asking that Hamas recognize anything is crazy – as they have pointed out, they are a political party, it would be like asking the Republicans to recognize Canada. In normal diplomacy, one doesn’t diplomatically recognize until after the deal is done. In any case the PLO recognized Israel as much as it could long ago, it is Israel that refuses to recognize its adversaries.
Israel rejected similar offers long before Hamas and Hezbollah existed, and when the Arab states and/ or the PLO was the only real game in town. Israel wants and has helped create the division and warring. It funded Hamas in its early days. In any case, it is almost always Israel that breaks cease-fires. (The big exception was the 90’s Hamas suicide bombings.)
The conflict continues because one side, the Palestinians – ask for the very least they possibly could – while the other side, Israel, makes insane demands: We can steal your land in slow motion, no matter if you have the legal deeds, and kill you whenever we feel like it. This inevitably leads to endless war and the probable destruction of Israel.
What you believe is propaganda that I once believed, the only side one sees in the US media. Go to a library and see why almost all the world votes against Israel in the UN.
Study the 1982 war for instance – the bloodiest episode in the conflict, where Israel launched a completely unprovoked war, many times killing innocent Lebanese civilians in the hope of getting a response that would lead to pretext for war. Israel has no case, and its irrational demands are utterly inconsistent with Israel’s survival.
LikeLike
O.K., Calgacus, I’m convinced. Hamas is not a terrorist group. Neither is Hezbollah. Suicide bombings are a myth, because of the high value Arabs put on life. They never hide behind women and children during war.
Syria, Iran, Iraq, Jordan and Egypt are innocent victims, with proven human rights and peace records. They never attacked Israel.
Despite occupying millions of acres, they desperately need that minuscule sliver of desert land so they can create whatever it is Arabs historically have created out of deserts. Contrary to popular belief, Jesus was a Muslim, not a Jew, meaning the Muslims were there first.
Everything is Israel’s fault. As you say, they have been defeated, but they have the nerve to keep on surviving. Just stupid, I guess.
I’m convinced.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Give more land to Hamas so there will be peace!
http://goo.gl/1lqwJf
http://goo.gl/jGTLA1
http://goo.gl/uJl320
http://goo.gl/Dahwo8
http://goo.gl/MRzH7w
LikeLike
Rodger,
You have been very objective in your economics posts but here you’ve let your emotions take over rational thinking. For all the empathy you express for the future students and the unemployed, why don’t you try to apply the same to the poor, innocent, suffering Palestinian majority. Granted there are bad actors too. Is the US sending drones to bomb the coyotes, many of who(m) bring death and drugs into the US? Of course not…
Israel came into existence by force. Everyone has a chicken to grill and Palestine/Israel provide the fuel for it. “The West” rails about the uncouth, uncivilised Muslim countries with their religious laws and fundamentalism; why does it not apply the same principle to Israel? If the whole world got together and said, “Never again!”, why did Jews need a country of ‘their own’ that they created by usurping land of those who had been the current masters of the land. I do not know how or why Jews left Israel in the first place. I do not think there is any reason for theocratic states, neither Hindu, nor Muslim, nor Jewish. But then, I am probably too idealistic.
Is it possible that those who have come to know the lands of Israel/Palestine as home for the past few centuries and those who lay claim based on their heritage can come to a just resolution? I remember, there are laws in India that give the tiller the title to the land if the “owner” is absent for [15 years] and the tiller has proof that he has been using the land to derive his livelihood. I presume that the law is based in utilitarianism to a great extent.
I blabber and hope that peace is achieved through peaceful means. Negotiations between unequals can never result in a just solution and today the Zionist state and the Militant Leadership are not equals. Neither is good or just or righteous. If this is true, how is my hope to be realised? Confusing…
LikeLike
hitch,
Jews have lived on that land for thousands of years. Even Jesus, the Jew, was a relative latecomer. How is it that Muslims now “lay claim” to it? From whom did they take it?
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
LikeLike
Christian Science Monitor: “Hamas gunmen killed four Israeli settlers in their car outside the West Bank city of Hebron. The attack appeared to be an attempt to spark violence that could undermine the peace negotiations.”
09/15/2010; At least 2 of the 9 mortar shells fired from Gaza into Israel contained phosphorus, police confirm; regional council head intends to inform UN of Geneva Convention violation.
LikeLike
On the 10th of Tevet of the year 3336 from Creation (425 BCE), the armies of the Babylonian emperor Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to Jerusalem. Thirty months later the city walls were breached, the Holy Temple was destroyed and the Jewish people were exiled to Babylonia for 70 years.
LikeLike
Enter
LikeLike