Mitchell’s laws:
●The more budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes.

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


As happens all too frequently, I was pondering the phenomenon that otherwise intelligent people can’t seem to understand the consummate simplicity of Monetary Sovereignty.

The basis of MS is straightforward: A Monetarily Sovereign nation has the unlimited ability to create its sovereign currency. That’s it. Could anything be simpler, more direct, easier to understand?

If you had the unlimited ability to create dollars, would you ask me for dollars? The U.S. government has that ability. So why does it ask you for dollars? Why does the U.S. ask China for dollars? Why do people worry the U.S. could run short of dollars? There are no facts to support these beliefs.

Yet, when I try to explain this to those who don’t understand Monetary Sovereignty, I am met not just with disbelief, but with active hostility, as though I had insulted someone’s baby.

The May 1, 2012 issue of Scientific American Magazine contained two, seemingly unrelated articles, that bear on this question. The first bemoans the fact that budget cuts have hamstrung NASA. Here are some excerpts:

NASA’s Planetary Science Program Endangered by Budget Cuts
Planetary science is NASA’s most successful and inspirational program. It should not be gutted — July 12, 2012

Last year, after a lengthy, circuitous journey through the solar system, a NASA probe known as MESSENGER entered into orbit around Mercury. No spacecraft had visited the innermost planet in more than three decades, and none has paid an extended visit.

With MESSENGER’s arrival, NASA and its international counterparts now have spacecraft stationed at Mercury, Venus, Mars and Saturn—not to mention Earth and the moon. Two more NASA craft are en route to Jupiter and Pluto; yet another ought to reach the dwarf planet Ceres in 2015. Humankind’s presence has never stretched so far.

It could stretch farther still, with robots spying down on bizarre moons that might harbor alien life or on the little-understood outermost planets. An even more novel campaign would ferry Martian rocks back to Earth for analysis. NASA had been on track to begin such an ambitious project, but alas, political maneuvering recently forced the space agency to scrap its plans.

The president’s proposed budget for 2013 includes drastic cutbacks to planetary science of more than 20 percent that could derail many future missions. Sending robotic missions out into the solar system requires years of preparation. Interplanetary probes depend on cutting-edge technologies that are developed and tested over time.

Shaking up the planetary science division now, for a relatively meager savings of $300 million, would force NASA away from these sensible, well-defined goals.

The most severe cuts were to Mars exploration, long a U.S. specialty. NASA was to begin the process of returning samples from the Red Planet during a joint 2018 mission with the European Space Agency (ESA). That campaign, perhaps the most important flagship project this decade, appears to be dead.

The budgetary ax also threatens to push other top targets for exploration further into the distance. Foremost among them is Jupiter’s moon Europa, which scientists suspect holds an internal ocean that could harbor life.

This year NASA’s planetary science program cost about $1.5 billion—less than what NASA spent designing a congressionally mandated rocket, the Space Launch System, which appears more likely to satisfy aerospace contractors than to aid the cause of space exploration.

A mere fraction of a cent from every tax dollar seems a small price to pay for the extension of humanity’s robotic reach to distant worlds—one of our greatest accomplishments as a nation, not to mention as a technological species. If planetary science must suffer, the reduction should be phased in gradually so that scientists can try to soften the disruption to long-term plans.

Translation: Science is suffering from federal budget cuts. Although we are a science magazine, we blindly accept the popular faith that taxes pay for federal spending, and budgets must be cut, so we have no counter argument to present to Congress and the President.

And then there is this article:

How Critical Thinkers Lose Their Faith in God
Religious belief drops when analytical thinking rises. Faith and intuition are intimately related.
By Daisy Grewal

Why are some people more religious than others? New research suggests that whether we believe may have to do with how much we rely on intuition versus analytical thinking.

In 2011 Amitai Shenhav, David Rand and Joshua Greene of Harvard University published a paper showing that people who have a tendency to rely on their intuition are more likely to believe in God. They also showed that encouraging people to think intuitively increased people’s belief in God.

Gervais and Norenzayan’s research is based on the idea that we possess two different ways of thinking that are distinct yet related. System 1 thinking relies on shortcuts and other rules-of-thumb while System 2 relies on analytic thinking and tends to be slower and require more effort.

In . . . two studies, they created a task that subtly primed analytic thinking. Participants received sets of five randomly arranged words (e.g. “high winds the flies plane”) and were asked to drop one word and rearrange the others in order to create a more meaningful sentence (e.g. “the plane flies high”).

Some of their participants were given scrambled sentences containing words associated with analytic thinking (e.g. “analyze,” “reason”) and other participants were given sentences that featured neutral words (e.g. “hammer,” “shoes”). After unscrambling the sentences, participants filled out a survey about their religious beliefs. In both studies, this subtle reminder of analytic thinking caused participants to express less belief in God and religion.

The researchers found no relationship between participants’ prior religious beliefs and their performance in the study. Analytic thinking reduced religious belief regardless of how religious people were to begin with.

Prior research had shown that difficult-to-read font promotes analytic thinking by forcing participants to slow down and think more carefully about the meaning of what they are reading. The researchers found that participants who filled out a survey that was printed in unclear font expressed less belief as compared to those who filled out the same survey in the clear font.

These studies may help explain why the vast majority of Americans tend to believe in God. Since System 2 thinking requires a lot of effort, the majority of us tend to rely on our System 1 thinking processes when possible. Evidence suggests that the majority of us are more prone to believing than being skeptical.

Translation: Intuition, backed by repeated reinforcement from the press, admired leaders and one’s peers, is far more seductive than the agony of rational analysis.

Ironically, a dearth of supporting facts may actually solidify belief, in that facts lead to analysis. Consider the strongest belief system among humans: Religion. Dare to disagree about religion by presenting facts, and you will be met with hostility — the same kind of hostility one meets when trying to present the facts of Monetary Sovereignty.

Religion relies on essentially zero facts. That’s why it’s called “faith.” The belief that federal deficits must be reduced also relies on zero facts. But it’s called “mainstream economics.” Both are defended vehemently.

Congress and the President promulgate the faith that federal deficit spending should be decreased. They support their positions with slogans, not facts.

Fewer facts = stronger belief.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

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