–Who cares about jobs?

The debt hawks are to economics as the creationists are to biology. Those, who do not understand Monetary Sovereignty, do not understand economics. Cutting the federal deficit is the most ignorant and damaging step the federal government could take. It ranks ahead of the Hawley-Smoot Tariff.

House Speaker John Boehner was asked about the probability that the GOP plan to cut $100 billion from government spending would cause federal job cuts: He replied, “Over the last two years since President Obama has taken office, the federal government has added 200,000 new federal jobs. And if some of those jobs are lost in this, so be it. We’re broke. It’s time for us to get serious about how we’re spending the nation’s money.

Two problems with this:

1. We’re not “broke.” As a Monetarily Sovereign government, the U.S. has the power to pay any bill of any size. No federal check ever has bounced and none ever will (unless this silly Congress fails to raise their silly debt ceiling) – not even during the Great Depression, and not even during the worst recession in recent history, and not even while spending trillions to cure that recession.

In short, John Boehner simply does not know what the heck he is talking about. The man is completely ignorant of modern economics and is using that ignorance to guide the American economy. Visualize the Large Hadron Collider run by Mortimer Snerd (You young folks can look him up.)

2. The GOP repeatedly criticized the Obama initiatives for failure to add jobs, but their own “job-killing” (GOP phraseology) plan receives a shrug and a “. . . so be it.”

Not that the Democrats are without guilt. Obama wishes to “pay for” federal spending by raising taxes on the rich. Two problems with this:

1. In a Monetarily Sovereign government, taxes do not “pay for” spending. In fact, federal taxes have zero relationship to federal spending; the two processes are completely separate, independent and unconnected. The proof: We could eliminate federal taxes without changing federal spending, and we could eliminate federal spending without changing federal taxes. Federal taxes are a relic of the gold standard days.

2. Soaking the rich either is meaningless or harmful, depending on how successful it is. The more taxes collected, the more damage is done. Contrary to popular myth, taxing the rich does not add one penny to the pockets of the poor, in fact, such taxes remove money from the pockets of the poor. (See: Does taxing the rich help the poor? )

So here is what I think will happen, based on what we know now: The economy will grow, albeit slowly, for the next three years, because of projected, large, so-called “deficits” (i.e., money creation), while Congressional ignorance and hubris will cause a continual struggle to maintain spending on beneficial projects.

The poor and the jobless will be the primary losers, as these beneficial projects will be squeezed. Obama repeatedly will play the class-warfare card, using poverty as evidence taxes on the rich should be increased. (Visualize warming the poor by shredding the clothes of the rich.)

After three years, when fiscal “prudence” (i.e., reduced money creation) takes hold, the economy will tank, again. Meanwhile, the right will offer a plan to solve the economic problem: Eliminate abortion and Medicare, and allow everyone to carry a gun. The left also will offer a plan: Raise taxes on everyone making “too much” money and require the states (who really are broke) to absorb more unfunded mandates for the poor.

In answer to the title question, ‘Who cares about jobs?”, Congressmen and Congresswomen do. But, it’s their own jobs, not yours.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

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

4 thoughts on “–Who cares about jobs?

  1. Hello again Rodger. I am on board with the fact that the Government could pay for any program it would like because it is monetarily sovereign. However, I still can’t imagine that printing more money doesn’t effect inflation. I imagine a scenario where the infrastructure of the US is ordered to be completely replaced over the next 3 years. The president wants 95 to be made twice as big, and add many more insterstates to places such as Myrtle Beach which don’t have one. Many workers will be needed all over the country, and thus much money will need to be printed, or “created” on the books. Don’t you think that over the three year period businesses would start to charge more, because they know that they can get the money for good and services now that millions of blue collar workers are getting paid a fairly large amount of money? Intuitively this makes sense to me. If I was getting paid more, I wouldn’t care about paying more for things. Although this is not inflation because the worth of the dollar isn’t going down, prices are still going up. What do you base your opinions of inflation on? I see that you have many statements saying that the creation of money isn’t linked to inflation. Where can I find this data? I apologize if you have answered similar questions that I have evidently overlooked.

    I have been reading a book which claims that some contemporary financial institutions have been created by Fabian socialists in an effort to spread socialism through the world. The book goes on to say that the US is the main obstical in achieving their goal, and so to break down our government and make it into a socialist country, they have started taxing the rich and cutting help to the poor. What do you make of these wild theories?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s