–Does R. Bruce Dold not understand the meaning of the prefix, “non”?

Mitchell’s laws: The more budgets are cut and taxes inceased, the weaker an economy becomes. To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments. Austerity = poverty and leads to civil disorder. Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
==========================================================================================================================================

R. Bruce Dold is the Editorial Page Editor of the Chicago Tribune, a gentleman with whom I have corresponded on many occasions. Being the Editorial Page Editor of one of the world’s major newspaper requires, at the very least, some understanding of language. But strangely, I believe Mr. Dold does not understand the meaning of the prefix “non.”

If a nonsmoking friend were having a birthday, Bruce might gift her an ashtray. If asked for a nonverbal comment, he might give a speech. Perhaps, he’ll eat something nondigestible, and spend his life looking for a nonexistent cure.

Why do I speculate so? Because he seems to have no idea about the differences between Monetarily Sovereign and monetarily non-sovereign.

Here are excerpts from an editorial in today’s (April 29, 2012) Chicago Tribune:

Enough posturing. Act.
We can soak in the same cold bath as Europe. Or we can make our debt stop growing right now.

Immediately, he puts us “in the same cold bath as Europe,” clearly not understanding how different we are, we being Monetarily Sovereign and the euro nations being monetarily non-sovereign.

Every minute of every day, federal taxpayers in this country borrow another $3 million. With Washington running its fourth trillion-dollar deficit in four years, those taxpayers soon will owe a total of $16 trillion — an amount larger than the U.S. gross domestic product: As of now, we owe more than everything we produce in a year.

That might be true of a monetarily non-sovereign nation, which having no sovereign currency, does not have the unlimited ability to create it. But it is not true of a Monetarily Sovereign nation, which neither needs nor uses tax money to pay its debts. Its taxpayers do not owe those debts, nor do they pay for any government spending.

Where will this fast and furious pace of spending (entitlements are our biggest category) and borrowing (the Chinese are our biggest creditors) deliver us?

The Europeans went decades without asking themselves that question. As they took on more debt, much of it for fabulously generous social programs, interest payments eclipsed the ability of governments to comfortably meet them. Now rescue schemes are forcing those governments to do what their weak self-discipline never could: cut spending. Because those governments are huge players in their domestic economies, cutbacks choke growth. In the turmoil:

• Britain has double-dipped back into recession. Recession also grips Italy, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Greece and the Czech Republic.

• With Monday’s resignation of its prime minister, the Netherlands, the eurozone’s fifth-biggest economy, is the sixth nation to see the crisis defrock its leader.

• In Spain, where unemployment approaches 25 percent, the potential need for a massive European Union bailout has grown so great that dark wits are calling the country “too big to save” — a play on banks once thought “too big to fail.”

• In France, Socialist challenger Francois Hollande is favored to take the presidency from Nicolas Sarkozy, who has supported German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s insistence on eurozone austerity to reduce nations’ debts; Hollande exploits anti-German resentments by saying the French Resistance inspires him.

• Portugal’s bonds now are rated as junk.

• And while some politicians call for a reversal of austerity policies, with more government borrowing and spending, German central bank chief Jens Weidmann nailed the tendency of pols to weasel out of budget restraints: “If policymakers think they can avoid this (debt reduction), they will try to,” he told The Wall Street Journal. “That’s why the pressure has to be kept up.”

All of the above, but Britain and the Czech Republic, are monetarily non-sovereign. Britain (like the United States, for that matter) acts as though it were monetarily non-sovereign, by limiting its deficit spending. The Czech Republic is caught between the desire to stimulate via deficit spending and the European Union finance ministers misguided criticism of “excessive” deficits.

Bruce, because your editorial wrongly indicates zero difference between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, I’ll help you by listing just a very few of those differences:

*A Monetarily Sovereign nation is sovereign (in complete control, absolute authority) over its nation’s sovereign currency. It can create its sovereign currency at will, destroy it at will and spend it at will. A monetarily non-sovereign (restricted, submissive) nation does not control its nation’s currency. It has no sovereign currency. It cannot create it at will, destroy it at will nor spend it at will.

*Because a Monetarily Sovereign nation has the unlimited ability to create its sovereign currency, it neither needs nor uses its sovereign currency obtained from others. That is, it neither needs nor uses taxes or borrowed currency. It creates all it needs. A monetarily non-sovereign government does need and use taxes and borrowed currency.

*For the above reason, a Monetarily Sovereign nation’s taxpayers do not pay for government spending or debts, while a monetarily non-sovereign government’s taxpayers do pay for government spending and debts.

*A Monetarily Sovereign nation pays creditors by creating its currency ad hoc. A monetarily non-sovereign government needs to pay creditors by transferring tax and borrowed currency from its own bank accounts to the creditors’ bank accounts.

*A Monetarily Sovereign government never can run short of its sovereign currency. It can pay any bill of any size, any time. A monetarily non-sovereign government can run short of the currency it uses, and can be unable to pay bills.

*A Monetarily Sovereign government can run unlimited and endless trade deficits and current account deficits, and never needs its sovereign currency to come in from outside its borders. To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government needs currency coming in from outside its borders. Germany, for instance, survives by exporting.

So Bruce, before next April 15th, please learn the difference between deductible and nondeductible, or taxable vs nontaxable. Before you go on a diet, learn the difference between caloric and noncaloric, or between toxic and nontoxic. Before you try to hop on a train, know the difference between moving and nonmoving.

And before you write another editorial, learn the difference between Monetarily Sovereign and monetarily non-sovereign.

Bruce, I assume you are wealthy and part of the 1%. You seem all too anxious to cut entitlements, which benefit the 99%. But, please Bruce, no more nonsense. If the 99% ever catch on to what you are doing, they’ll stop buying the Chicago Tribune, at which time you’ll be a nonworker with a non-job and completely nonplussed.

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


==========================================================================================================================================
No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth. Monetary Sovereignty: Cutting federal deficits to grow the economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia. Two key equations in economics:
Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings
Gross Domestic Product = Federal Spending + Private Investment and Consumption + Net exports

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

8 thoughts on “–Does R. Bruce Dold not understand the meaning of the prefix, “non”?

  1. Roger M Mitchell,please help me fully understand.
    I believe in MS. My problem is as per your definition I believe that the United States of America has given away to private banks its “sovereignty” of its currency.
    This has occured ever since the purposes of the Federal Reserve Bank
    has mis-intererted its functions.
    As in (( Justaluckyfool comments)) on a must read article:

    A Piece Of My Mind, by Jim Grant
    http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2012/04/a-gold-standard/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheBigPicture+%28The+Big+Picture%29

    In the not quite 100 years since the founding of your institution, America has exchanged central banking for a kind of central planning and the gold standard for what I will call the Ph.D. standard. I regret the changes and will propose reforms, or, I suppose, re-reforms, as my program is very much in accord with that of the founders of this institution. Have you ever read the Federal Reserve Act? The authorizing legislation projected a body “to provide for the establishment of the Federal Reserve banks…
    ((Where they went wrong-they established Federal Reserve Banks owned by private banks, domestic and foreign.
    How we can fix it-establish Federal Reserve Banks owned “by the people,of the people,for the people))
    … to furnish an elastic currency…
    ((Where we went wrong-the elastic currency’s quality and quantity can be controlled by private banks using a legalize counterfeit system called Fractional -Reserve Banking.
    How we can fix it- end Fractional Reserve Banking making the correctly established Federal Reserve Bank the ONLY supplier of new currency.))
    … to afford means of rediscounting commercial paper and to establish a more effective supervision of banking in the United States…
    ((Where we went wrong-allowing private banks to charge compound interest on the paper they create “out of thin air”.
    How we can fix it-private banks will only be allowed to invest, or purchase assets with 100% margin.They will be responsible for all
    losses and entitled to all gains.))
    … and for other purposes.” By now can we identify the operative phrase? Of course: “for other purposes.”
    ((THAT IS -TO ASSIST : ““We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,…””))

    Like

      1. To RMM,
        Private banking has a right to existence and a function in an economy.
        What should be ended is their right to issue “unlimited” currency and their right to charge”unlimited ” compound interest on it.

        A practice that can only end with a bust and/or servitude
        Banking could be a noble industry as Dr. M. Yunus has inspired.(Banker To The Poor)
        But they should only be allowed to work with 100% of what their shareholders wish them to invest and to redistribute their rewards accordingly.
        (as stated on ” 60 minutes” (12/11/11)”
        President Obama said,”You can’t raise revenues by lowering taxes unless you get the money from somewhere else.” ?
        YES, JUST COLLECT INTEREST ON OUR OWN MONEY, INSTEAD OF TAXES !

        AND FOR WE THE PEOPLE ,WHY NOT INTEREST INSTEAD OF TAXES !

        Like

        1. Justaluckyfool, there is a continuum between private, TBTF bankster banks as we have now & federally owned banks. The sort of highly regulated banks we had in 1950 say, when there was a higher degree of general understanding of economics and the danger of unregulated finance, was close to “federal ownership”, and changing to federal ownership would not have had much effect.

          the United States of America has given away to private banks its “sovereignty” of its currency. This is just not true. There are a lot of tempting but somewhat flaky “reformers” out there who get things half right, but not completely.

          The TBTF bankster banks try to make it true. The banksters try to make their banks incur bad debts, the proceeds of which the banksters give to themselves, and try to make Uncle Sam pick up the check. But they wouldn’t have to work so hard to corrupt regulators if it were true merely because of the structure of “fractional-reserve” banking. The only person who can sign a check, issue a bond for “Uncle Sam” is Uncle Sam.

          Just a few honest regulators & congressmen, an honest Treausury Secretary or President at the top, and the banks’ power would melt away like dew.

          Like

  2. if bruce is really concerned, why dont he suggest raising the top rate to what it was when eisenhower was commander in chief? seeing how we are in a time of war and all. seems like the patriotic thing to do. i guess he, along with other “patriotic” people just aint that patriotic after all.

    Like

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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