The debt hawks are to economics as the creationists are to biology. Those, who do not understand Monetary Sovereignty, do not understand economics. If you understand the following, simple statement, you are ahead of most economists, politicians and media writers in America: Our government, being Monetarily Sovereign, has the unlimited ability to create the dollars to pay its bills.
==============================================================================================================================================
Read this article: Article by John T. Harvey Don’t ask why. Just read it.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com
No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth.
MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY
#Monetary Sovereignty - Mitchell 
You might want to read this -> http://mercatus.org/publication/interest-payments-federal-debt
LikeLike
hiscross,
The article you suggest is typical debt-hawk nonsense. Here is the key sentence, “A large portion of the current debt ($4,509 billion, or 65 percent of total federal debt) must be paid in the coming four years, and payment will require either a tax increase, or a drop in government spending, or a refinancing of debt.”
The authors, Thomas Stratmann and Gabriel Okolsk, demonstrate they haven’t even the most basic idea of how the U.S. economy works, and surely never have read Monetary Sovereignty.
If their paper is typical of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, I suggest the name be changed to the Mercatus Center for Economic Ignorance and Obsolete Belief.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
LikeLike
Well, since they both work in the field on economics, maybe you can point to your background. I would especially like to see you show imperial data to back your claims. Milton Friedman always had clear and accurate data to prove his claims. I also find the writings of Thomas Sowell follow the same pattern to certify his statements. You may want to show how this article is wrong by providing imperial data to prove your point -> http://mercatus.org/publication/does-government-spending-affect-economic-growth. Thank you for your reply.
LikeLike
hiscross,
I absolutely agree that hypotheses should be supported by data. But, I guess you’re new to this site, else you would know it’s loaded with supporting data. You can begin at Summary, the very first post, and work your way forward.
You’ll notice that nowhere do Stratmann and Okolsk supply any data to back their claim that “payment will require either a tax increase, or a drop in government spending, or a refinancing of debt.” It is quite typical for debt hawks to supply reams of data showing how large the deficit and debt are, but zero data proving this is a problem. They expect their readers to accept on faith, the notion that large debt = bad problems, which is true for monetarily non-sovereign entities, but not for Monetarily Sovereign entities.
In short, no data supplied by debt hawks proves their fundamental hypothesis. They do not differentiate between the two, and that is their blindness.
Modern economics asks just two basic questions:
1. How much money can the federal government create?
2. How much money should the federal government create?
How would you answer those two questions?
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
LikeLike
Your summary, which I read in December, has very little references to your claims. The correct you on Fact#1 Money does Not define a countries economic health, but it’s Wealth. Both are very different. Just to make humor out my point, the comedian Chris Rock was said, rich people (people who have large suns of money) but 21″ wheels for their SUVs, and weathly people invest their money for the purpose of gaining more wealth. Once again, I suggest you read “Basic Economics” by Thomas Sewell and the writings of Milton Friedman because I have.
LikeLike
Hiscross,
Specifically, which claim is unsupported?
Specifically, which data supports the claim that “payment will require either a tax increase, or a drop in government spending, or a refinancing of debt”?
You use “wealth” to define a country’s economic “health”? Interesting. I never used the word “health,” so perhaps you better read the summary again.
Exactly how much “wealth” does the U.S. have today compared with the past 10 years, and exactly how “healthy” does that make the U.S.? Data, please.
Oh, and his name is Sowell, not Sewell. And you would learn more from reading my friend Randall Wray.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
LikeLike
Mr. Wray is a Keyne support seemly like you. No Thanks. Keynes ideas have failed and will always fail. Why? Because i n practice our current US economy is lead by his ideas and are a huge failure. Give me F.A. Hayek anyday. Send the Keynes people to North Korea. They don’t deserve that good of a place, but they got to go someplace.
LikeLike
Hiscross,
Classic debt hawk. You demand data, yet supply none. You say claims are unsupported, yet refused to identify which claims. You make staterments about “wealth” and “health” while having no idea what those words mean. You claim Wray and I are Keynesians, while knowing nothing of Keynes, Wray or Mitchell.
I’ve continued to post your responses as a demonstration of debt hawk nonsense, which always is based on generalities, intuition and smoke, never on facts. If you would like to see any more of your comments posted, they will have to be accompanied by the answers to the questions in my 3/20/11 comment.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
LikeLike
Mr. Mitchell,
After reading many of the dialogues you have with commenters, I can only say you have the patience of no other. It is surprising that such a simple and observable concept is not more easily understood, at least in a “Big Picture” way. I recently read an article where Jamie Galbraith recounted a statement made by his father: It is a process so simple the mind recoils from it.
Just one more thing, when I try to explain this to others, I invariably get, “If you put a 100 economist in a room you will get 100 theories”, reply. To which I now give a response I got from Warren Mosler’s book: It is not a theory, it is an operational reality. It still does not help though: almost like arguing religion.
LikeLike
Eric,
That’s because you are arguing religion.
LikeLike