–Under the title, “Any Idiot Can Express An Opinion,” here is the opinion of Washington Post’s Jonathan Rauch

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 upper 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.

==========================================================================================================================================

You cattle can moo all you want. You don’t understand what’s going to happen to you, and no one is listening, anyway.

A plan that offers Obama a fighting chance
By Jonathan Rauch, Published: July 5, 2012

Obama should draw a map and send it to Capitol Hill in the form of a bill — a president’s strongest statement that he intends action. A big legislative proposal can frame the issue and paint Obama’s intentions in bold colors. It should include three elements:

1) Long-term fiscal retrenchment. The easiest and best way is to adopt the Simpson-Bowles deficit plan.

2) Short-term economic stimulus. Republicans will howl about more spending. Let them. Stimulus measures make sense when unemployment is high and the world is teetering on the edge of a second recession.

3) A two-year debt-limit extension. Declare that another debt-limit fiasco is unacceptable and demand that the issue be taken off the table. Let Republicans explain why they want to hold a gun to the economy’s head.

For those who may have tried to forget that ill-fated, ill-considered Simpson-Bowles plan, here is a summary from the New York Times:

Deep cuts in domestic and military spending starting in 2012.
–Overhaul the tax code, eliminating or reducing the $1 trillion a year in popular tax breaks for individuals and corporations and using the revenues mostly to slash income tax rates but also to reduce deficits.
–To make Social Security solvent for 75 years, raise payroll taxes for the affluent and reduce future benefits, including by slowly raising the retirement age for full benefits to 69 from 67 by 2075.
Reduce deficit spending by about $4 trillion over the coming decade.

So let’s add it all up. Mr. Rauch would adopt a plan that cuts federal spending, increases federal taxes and thereby, reduces federal deficits. It would take money out of the pockets of the poor and middle classes, not only by increasing FICA, but by reducing Social Security benefits.

But, Rauch also says (his words), “Stimulus measures make sense when unemployment is high and the world is teetering on the edge of a second recession.” Huh? Is this man daft?

How (and for that matter, why) does a nation simultaneously cut spending and increase taxes, while instituting economic stimulus? Shall we also give a left-arm transfusion to someone who has lost blood, while we drain blood from his right arm? Is this what passes for intelligence in today’s media?

Bottom line: Money is the lifeblood of our economy. GDP is a common measure of the economy. And:

GDP = Federal Spending + Private Consumption and Investment + Net Exports

So, for you media writers who do not understand algebra, to grow GDP, it’s necessary to increase Federal Spending and/or Private Consumption and Investment, or Net Exports.

But a tax increase reduces Private Consumption and Investment. And a spending cut reduces Federal Spending (as well as Private Consumption and Investment). And there is nothing mentioned about Net Exports.

Everything in Simpson-Bowles is designed to reduce GDP. That plan is just another name for “austerity,” which has destroyed the economies of Europe, and which presumably makes it attractive to American media.

Finally, as for the two-year debt-limit extension, any economist worth his salt will tell you the debt limit is obsolete, nonsensical, unnecessary and overall stupid. It effectively limits yesterday’s budgets (Think about that), and is meaningless for a government that became Monetarily Sovereign on August 15, 1971.

Sadly, the Jonathan Rauch’s of America (prime candidates for the flat-earth society) have the public’s ear. Voters do not realize what the media/political establishment is doing to them, in the name of the upper income 1%, and nobody with a voice is talking.

We voters are cows being pushed into the slaughter house. We go where we are prodded, mooing loudly and ignorantly, not understanding what awaits us, while the upper 1% just laughs.

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

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

7 thoughts on “–Under the title, “Any Idiot Can Express An Opinion,” here is the opinion of Washington Post’s Jonathan Rauch

  1. “The freshly printed paper US Dollars (mostly electronic credits) and the freshly printed paper US Treasury Bonds that the US government periodically prints and sells at public auction (to get back US Dollars that US citizens paid to foreigners to make the consumer products that US citizens consumed) have absolutely NO VALUE, except that the US government is allowing these Dollar denominated security items to be redeemed to purchase title to (corporations that own) privately owned businesses, movie houses, factories, casinos, hotels, farms, land, ports, refineries, forests, ports, breweries, distilleries, and other privately owned NATIONAL WEALTH and other assets located in the USA (that were created by previous US generations prior to de-industrialization) instead of redeeming these freshly printed paper US Treasury Bonds with gold from Ft. Knox.

    The Federal government will not be able to borrow funds to facilitate deficit federal spending to pay for our US government expenses such as bureaucratic payrolls, military payrolls, government contracts, wars, welfare, unemployment, infrastructure expansion, highways, bridges, etc., after there are no more privately owned US assets available to exchange for freshly printed paper US Treasury Bonds and US dollars.

    The US Government will then probably just start printing (Fiat money) US dollars to pay for their government expenses as many other nations have done”.-Gerald4 (5,600! “Fans”, HuffPost)

    Dear Rodger:I wanted to present an “opinion”, a typical rambling commentary from an apparently enlightened opinionist on the ever more ridiculous Huffington Post.This clown has 5,600 “Fans” exactly, as of today-unbelievable! Of course I have mentioned things to him in past responses like monetary sovereignty, what T-bills really are, etc. and of course always to no avail. Anything at all redeeming in this recent outburst by gerald4? Care to respond?

    Like

  2. bambi, it’s a hopeless rant, so out of touch with reality, there’s nowhere to begin correcting him.

    His very last sentence however, essentially is correct, in that it describes Monetary Sovereignty. For true accuracy, change his “will then probably just start printing” to “creates.”

    Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

    Like

  3. Roger,
    You often say a growing economy needs a growing money supply. Which, in your opinion, increases GDP the most: tax cuts, or government spending?

    Like

    1. Mathematically, there is no difference in the equation:

      Gross Domestic Product = Federal Spending + Private Investment and Consumption + Net exports

      So any difference would relate to the specific tax cut and the specific spending.

      Some federal spending increases can have a fast effect. For instance, if the government sent each man, woman and child in America a check for $5,000, that instantaneous infusion of dollars would immediately stimulate.

      Some tax cuts can have a longer-lasting effect. For instance, the elimination of FICA would have benefits for many years.

      My personal preference is for the elimination of FICA.

      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 )

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