Mitchell’s laws:
●The more budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes.
●Austerity starves the economy to feed the government, and leads to civil disorder.
●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.
●Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
====================================================================================================================================================

When you vote in November, you may think you are deciding between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. But that’s the least of it. The next President will have the power to nominate Supreme Court justices, and following the current trend, the President probably will appoint youngish people, who, long after the President leaves office, will continue to rule for many years.

Contrary to popular wisdom, and contrary to the Supreme Court’s own claims and stated opinions, the Court’s decisions do not obey the word of the Constitution. Rather, despite self-proclaimed “originalists,” (Anton Scalia and Clarence Thomas being the most notorious), the Court interprets the Constitution in light of its own personal, political leanings.
====================================================================================================================================================

Consider Guns: The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution reads: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

The Court has “infringed” that right in many ways. Criminals are prohibited from owning guns. The Constitution doesn’t say that. You can own a semi-automatic gun, but cannot own not a fully automatic gun. The Constitution doesn’t make that exception.

You need to be 21 years old to purchase a handgun, and 18 years old to purchase a long gun. The Constitution doesn’t say anything about that “infringement.”

There are dozens, indeed hundreds of laws, that in one way or another “infringe” on the right to bear arms. Even the word “bear” is suspect. Does it mean “own” or does it mean “carry” (the more usual definition of “bear”)? The Court makes a distinction not mentioned in the Constitution.

====================================================================================================================================================
Consider Abortion: The landmark abortion case, Roe v. Wade, was decided under the “due process” clause of the 14th Amendment, which reads: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Right wing “Originalists” would be hard pressed to find the word “abortion” anywhere in that clause – not even hinted at. All the clause says is there must be “due process.”

Presumably, if there were a law allowing a mother to have an abortion at any time, and for any reason, that would constitute “due process of the law.” Contrarily, if the law prohibited any abortion, ever, that also would constitute “due process of the law.”

Further, the left wing invented a “right to privacy,” which also cannot be found in the 14th Amendment.
====================================================================================================================================================
Consider Campaign Finance: In the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case, the Supreme Court ruled on the basis of the 1st Amendment, which reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The Court decided that corporations are peaceable assemblies of people, and that spending money is part of free speech, and “There is no such thing as too much speech,” and “independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.”

Yet, apparently the Court believes there is such a thing as too much speech, and corporate expenditures do give rise to corruption, because we do have campaign contribution laws. Political action committees (PACs and “super PACs”) are restricted by various laws, which even today are in a state of flux.

The very existence of campaign finance restrictions indicates that rather than interpreting the “original intent” of the Constitution, the Court restricts speech by making law according to its modern political beliefs.
====================================================================================================================================================
In each of the above arguments, and in dozens of others, the Court claimed to base its decisions on the word of the Constitution, then created laws that if taken literally, deny the very decisions the Court has just rationalized.

Clearly the right to bear arms is infringed every day; The right to an abortion is both allowed and proscribed, though not mentioned in the Constitution; and speech neither is free nor limited. So much for “original intent.”

Today, the Court is almost, but not quite, evenly divided between the right wing and the left wing. Though the Constitution makes no such distinction, the readers and interpreters of the Constitution do.

Both the right and the left claim to believe in “freedom.” The right wing leans toward the moneyed class and its belief in freedom from government interference in its finances, along with male domination and religious absolutism.

The left wing leans toward empathy with the less powerful and their desire for freedom from government interference in personal matters, human equality, and freedom from religious absolutism and domination by the moneyed class.

So when you vote in November, the less important issue is Obama vs Romney as leaders. Presidents come and go. The real issue is right vs left.

Who are you?

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

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

Nine Steps to Prosperity:
1. Eliminate FICA (Click here)
2. Medicare — parts A, B & D — for everyone
3. Send every American citizen an annual check for $5,000 or give every state $5,000 per capita (Click here)
4. Long-term nursing care for everyone
5. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone
6. Salary for attending school (Click here)
7. Eliminate corporate taxes
8. Increase the standard income tax deduction annually
9. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America

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 Imports

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Mitchell’s laws:
●The more budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes.
●Austerity starves the economy to feed the government, and leads to civil disorder.
●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.
●Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
==========================================================================================================================================

Politicians, as a group, get crazy, because they have no real talent and no real control over their futures. Theirs is a strange, secluded world of “ins” and “outs,” where they can find themselves in either place, without understanding why.

The only thing that matters to politicians is votes, and to acquire votes, politicians say and do the nuttiest things. In that sense, politicians most closely resemble entertainers, who become successful or unsuccessful because of face, voice and money — an uncertain, process whose unpredictability drives them crazy.

That said, the right wing seems to have an advantage in the nuttiness sweepstakes, and I’m not sure why.

We had to live through crazy Michele Bachmann, crazy Herman Cain, crazy Newt Gingrich, crazy Ron Paul, crazy Rick Perry and crazy Rick Santorum, as nutty a group as ever collected election money from crazy people who actually paid good money to help these boobs become President.

We’re living through crazy Todd Akin, crazy Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, crazy Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio and crazy potential New Hampshire sheriff Frank Szabo – all right-wing and certifiable.

We duck for cover as every day a right wing, NRA backed nut, kills one or a dozen Americans, though as the right wingers tell us, even AK47 “guns don’t kill people.”

We continually hope to survive a right-wing, Dark Ages education thanks to Louisiana’s, Tennessee’s, Kansas’s and who knows what other states’ nutty anti-evolution laws.

We may have as our future President, a self-proclaimed, extreme right wing and simultaneously moderate, Mitt “I’m-on-both-sides-of-every-issue,-but-trust-me-to-lead-you” Romney.

And just when we try to take a breath from all this incredible goofiness, up pops this:

Republicans eye a return to gold standard
By Annalyn Censky | CNNMoney.com

Is gold money? Some Republicans think it should be.

The Republican Party is considering setting up a commission to examine the pros and cons of going back to the gold standard, according to draft documents of the party platform.

The official party platform won’t be decided until Monday, but a Republican National Committee spokeswoman confirmed the draft language to CNNMoney.

The commission harkens back to the early 1980s, when President Ronald Reagan set up a Gold Commission with the same intention. Only two members of the 17-member commission endorsed a return to the gold standard. One of them was Rep. Ron Paul, who remains an avid gold supporter.

“Now, three decades later, as we face the task of cleaning up the wreckage of the current Administration’s policies, we propose a similar commission to investigate possible ways to set a fixed value for the dollar,” the new proposal says.

It’s highly unlikely the United States would actually return to the gold standard. The country first moved away from the gold standard in 1933, and dropped it altogether in 1971. Despite support for its return by some on the political right, few mainstream economists support its reinstatement.

I’m almost afraid to say that advocating for a gold standard is as crazy as it gets, because no sooner will the words leave my mouth, than the right wing will come up with something even nuttier. It’s like we’re playing a Whac-a-Mole with right wing crazies instead of moles.

What next? Cut federal spending to cure unemployment and grow the economy? Whack!

Bomb abortion clinics and kill their nurses and doctors to save lives? Whack

Loosen political contribution limits to prevent “buying” of elections?
Whack!

Cut back on bank regulation to prevent future bank dishonesty? Whack!

While most politicians are nuts, the right wing seems to have an edge on crazy, and I’m not sure why.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

Nine Steps to Prosperity:
1. Eliminate FICA (Click here)
2. Medicare — parts A, B & D — for everyone
3. Send every American citizen an annual check for $5,000 or give every state $5,000 per capita (Click here)
4. Long-term nursing care for everyone
5. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone
6. Salary for attending school (Click here)
7. Eliminate corporate taxes
8. Increase the standard income tax deduction annually
9. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America

==========================================================================================================================================
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 Imports

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Mitchell’s laws:
●The more budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes.
●Austerity starves the economy to feed the government, and leads to civil disorder.
●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.
●Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
==========================================================================================================================================

Here are excerpts from an article in today’s New York Times.

China Confronts Mounting Piles of Unsold Goods
Forbes Conrad for The New York Times

GUANGZHOU, China — After three decades of torrid growth, China is encountering an unfamiliar problem with its newly struggling economy: a huge buildup of unsold goods that is cluttering shop floors, clogging car dealerships and filling factory warehouses.

The glut of everything from steel and household appliances to cars and apartments is hampering China’s efforts to emerge from a sharp economic slowdown. It has also produced a series of price wars and has led manufacturers to redouble efforts to export what they cannot sell at home.

Problems in China give some economists nightmares in which, in the worst case, the United States and much of the world slip back into recession as the Chinese economy sputters, the European currency zone collapses and political gridlock paralyzes the United States.

Let’s stop at this point to ask ourselves:

Why does China export? Answer: To obtain foreign currency.
What does China do with foreign currency? Answer: Either spend or invest it abroad, or exchange it for Yuan, to be spent or invested domestically.

Hold those thoughts and let’s continue with the article:

China is the world’s second-largest economy and has been the largest engine of economic growth since the global financial crisis began in 2008. Economic weakness means that China is likely to buy fewer goods and services from abroad when the sovereign debt crisis in Europe is already hurting demand, raising the prospect of a global glut of goods and falling prices and weak production around the world.

China not only is the world’s second-largest economy, but its government is Monetarily Sovereign. That is, the Chinese government has the unlimited ability to spend. Through its spending, it has the unlimited ability to create Yuan, as well as the unlimited ability to exchange Yuan for foreign currency.

As a Monetarily Sovereign nation, China does not need to export.

Do you see where I’m going with this?

Let’s continue:

Corporate hiring has slowed, and jobs are becoming less plentiful. Chinese exports, a mainstay of the economy for the last three decades, have almost stopped growing. Imports have also stalled, particularly for raw materials like iron ore for steel making, as industrialists have lost confidence that they will be able to sell if they keep factories running.

When jobs are less plentiful, the Chinese workers could run short of Yuan. But the Chinese government never can run short of Yuan.

Real estate prices have slid, although there have been hints that they might have bottomed out in July, and money has been leaving the country through legal and illegal channels.

Wu Weiqing, the manager of a faucet and sink wholesaler, said that his sales dropped 30 percent in the last year and he has piled up extra merchandise. Yet the factory supplying him is still cranking out shiny kitchen fixtures at a fast pace.

Premier Wen Jiabao has imposed a strict ban on purchases of second and subsequent homes, in the hope that discouraging real estate speculation will improve the affordability of homes. The ban has resulted in a steep decline in residential real estate prices, a sharp fall in housing construction and widespread job losses among construction workers.

The Chinese auto industry has grown tenfold in the last decade to become the world’s largest, looking like a formidable challenger to Detroit. But now, the Chinese industry is starting to look more like Detroit in its dark days in the 1980s.

Inventories of unsold cars are soaring at dealerships across the nation, and the Chinese industry’s problems show every sign of growing worse, not better. So many auto factories have opened in China in the last two years that the industry is operating at only about 65 percent of capacity — far below the 80 percent usually needed for profitability.

Yet so many new factories are being built that, according to the Chinese government’s National Development and Reform Commission, the country’s auto manufacturing capacity is on track to increase again in the next three years by an amount equal to all the auto factories in Japan, or nearly all the auto factories in the United States.

Let’s put it all together. The Chinese economy is controlled by its Monetarily Sovereign government, which can produce unlimited Yuan and distribute them to the Chinese people in any manner and amount it chooses. China’s government also can exchange Yuan for Dollars, for import purposes.

As a large, Monetarily Sovereign government, particularly one that doesn’t need to worry about political agendas, China, and the Chinese people, never should have a shortage of their sovereign currency.

China can buy all domestic production and simply destroy all excess inventory. It can close unneeded production plants, and put the workers on the government payroll. It can exchange Yuan for Dollars, and import anything in the world. The Chinese government has the financial and political freedom to do anything it wants. It can create Optimum Employment. There is no reason for the Chinese people ever to suffer poverty, starvation, unemployment, homelessness, a recession or a depression.

While China remains a net exporter, it doesn’t need to be. The U.S., also being Monetarily Sovereign, is a net importer. Our imports exceed exports by $600 billion. That’s net $600 billion leaving America every year, and still there is no possibility we will run short of Dollars. We really don’t need to export at all.

Only monetarily non-sovereign governments (Italy, France, Illinois, Chicago et al) need to be net exporters — one fundamental difference between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty. So, if China imports less, the euro nations, which rely on export, will suffer. The U.S. will not need to suffer (depending on the actions of our leaders).

Just as China easily can avoid any economic downturn, we could do the same. Our recession could end tomorrow, and we could rise to the greatest prosperity we ever have known. But we have one constraint the Chinese may (?) not have: We have warring political parties, where the “outs” cynically want the economy to be as bad as possible, so they can win the next election and become the “ins.”

So far, our “outs” have done an excellent job of sinking America, by insisting on federal deficit reduction, which reduces Dollar creation. We’ll see whether China encounters a similar problem.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

Nine Steps to Prosperity:
1. Eliminate FICA (Click here)
2. Medicare — parts A, B & D — for everyone
3. Send every American citizen an annual check for $5,000 or give every state $5,000 per capita (Click here)
4. Long-term nursing care for everyone
5. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone
6. Salary for attending school (Click here)
7. Eliminate corporate taxes
8. Increase the standard income tax deduction annually
9. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America

==========================================================================================================================================
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 Imports

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Mitchell’s laws:
●The more budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes.
●Austerity starves the economy to feed the government, and leads to civil disorder.
●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.
●Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
==========================================================================================================================================

Recently I posted, “How IBM can change the world.” and “Who, in the world of economics, is asking for that next super-computer? Both posts described why the field of economics desperately needs, and will radically be changed by, a computer having the skills of Watson, the IBM machine that won Jeopardy.

More recently, I posted “The new paradigm: Disemployment. Less work; more life,” New Paradigm II: What are your plans for the Age of Disemployment? and “How would you make disemployment work?”

These posts told why increasingly, thinking machines will replace human labor, and why the thrust of economics must change from “full employment” to optimum employment – the situation in which people will be required to work less and have the opportunity to live more, while machines do more work.

In “How would you make disemployment work?” I suggested these preliminary steps for our Monetarily Sovereign government:

1. Legally reduce the traditional 40 hour work week to 30 hours and less.
2. Prevent hunger for lack of dollars. The government could provide for everyone’s basic food supplies by paying grocery stores to offer free milk, meat, fish and vegetables.
3. Provide health care for everyone. The government could pay for 100% Medicare for every American of all ages.
4. Keep people from suffering homelessness. The government to pay for home mortgages at a minimum level (Rather than “minimum wage,” we could have “minimum home mortgage,” where people could add dollars for more expensive homes. Or “minimum rent,” something akin to the government paying for hotel stays).
5. Just as today we provide free education, grades 1-12, the government should provide free college and advanced degree education to every American.
6. Begin with government-paid-for local, public transportation, then expand this by paying airlines and railroads for free national public transportation.

Now comes NewScientist Magazine, with articles bearing on this subject:

NewScientist Magazine, August 22, 2012
Watson turns medic: Supercomputer to diagnose disease
by Jim Giles

More than a year after it won the quiz show Jeopardy!, IBM’s supercomputer is learning how to help doctors diagnose patients. Progress is most advanced in cancer care. “It’s a machine that can read everything and forget nothing,” says Larry Norton, a doctor at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center.

When playing Jeopardy!, Watson analysed each question. Then it looked for possible answers in its database, made up of sources such as encyclopaedias, scoring each according to the evidence associated with it and answering with the highest rated answer. The system takes a similar approach when dealing with medical questions, although in this case it draws on information from medical journals and clinical guidelines.

Watson is now absorbing records – tens of thousands at Sloan-Kettering alone – of treatments and outcomes associated with individual patients.

William Audeh, a doctor at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, says the last few months have involved “filling Watson’s brain” with medical data. The technology is particularly useful in oncology because doctors struggle to keep up with the explosion of genomic and molecular data generated about each cancer type.

Nurses are now training Watson by feeding it test requests and observing the answers.

Watson’s system is virtually identical with that used by human doctors – compare symptoms, treatments and outcomes – except Watson “can read everything and forget nothing” and has no emotional biases, and can work 24/365.

Here’s another snippet from the same article:

Preparing for your financial future

Is your pension invested in the best possible way? To answer this question involves weighing up multiple investment options, future income prospects and the experience of others in similar situations. It is the kind of problem that most people struggle with, but which IBM’s supercomputer Watson may be able to tackle.

IBM announced in May that it has partnered with Citi, a multinational bank, to explore the idea of training Watson as a financial adviser.

Again, this is exactly how you and your financial advisor decide your investments. Compare historical risk and opportunity with current and project economic fact. Except you can handle only a few variables, and have many human biases that cloud your judgement. Humans are notoriously poor judges of risk and reward (thus the existence of Lotto.)

A “Watsonesque” machine would learn everything and forget nothing — and not buy Lotto tickets. It also would do a better job projecting those economic facts.

And then NewScientist published this:

Digital doppelgängers: Building an army of you
15 August 2012 by Sally Adee

Alex Schwartzkopf can be in more than one place at once and, in principle, do thousands of things at the same time. He and his colleagues at the US National Science Foundation have trained up a smart, animated, digital doppelgänger – mimicking everything from his professional knowledge to the way he moves his eyebrows – that can interact with people via a screen when he is not around. He can even talk to himself.

It’s becoming possible to create digital copies of ourselves to represent us when we can’t be there in person. They can be programmed with your characteristics and preferences, are able to perform chores like updating social networks, and can even hold a conversation.

These autonomous identities are not duplicates of human beings in all their complexity, but simple and potentially useful personas. If they become more widespread, they could transform how people relate to each other and do business. They will save time, take onerous tasks out of our hands and perhaps even modify people’s behaviour.

For example, the website rep.licants.org, developed by artist Matthieu Cherubini, allows you to create a copy of your “social media self”, which can take over Facebook and Twitter accounts when required. You prime it with data such as your location, age and topics that interest you, and it analyses what you’ve already posted on your various social networks. Armed with this knowledge, it then posts on your behalf.

In principle, such services could one day perform a similar job to the ghostwriters who manage the social media profiles of busy celebrities and politicians today.

The Australian company MyCyberTwin allows users to create copies of themselves that can engage visitors in a text conversation, accompanied by a photo or cartoon representation. These copies perform tasks such as answering questions about your work, like an interactive CV. “A single CyberTwin could be talking with millions of people at the same time,” says John Zakos, who co-founded the firm. MyCyberTwin also uses tricks to add a touch of humanity. Users are asked to fill in a 30-question personality test, which means that the digital persona may act introverted or extroverted, for example.

In the past year or two, Apple has filed a series of patents related to using animated avatars in social networking and video conferencing. Microsoft, too, is interested. It has been exploring how its Kinect motion-tracking device could map a user’s face so it can be reproduced and animated digitally. The firm also plans to extend the avatars that millions of people use in its Xbox gaming system into Windows and the work environment.

So could avatars be automated too? It already happens in gaming: many people employ intelligent software to control their avatars when they’re not around. For example, some World of Warcraft players program their avatars to fight for status or to farm gold.

To similar ends, in 2007 the National Science Foundation began Project Lifelike, an experiment to build an intelligent, animated avatar of Schwartzkopf, who at the time was a program director. The hope was to make the avatar good enough to train new employees.

Jason Leigh, a computer scientist at the University of Illinois at Chicago, used video capture of Schwartzkopf’s face to create a dynamic, photorealistic animation. He also added a few characteristic quirks. For example, if Schwartkopf’s copy was speaking intensely, his eyebrows would furrow, and he would occasionally chew his nails. “People’s personal mannerisms are almost as distinguishing as their signature,” Leigh says.

These tricks combined to make the copy seem more, well, human, which helped when Leigh introduced people to Schwartzkopf’s doppelgänger. “They had a conversation with it as if it were a real person,” he recalls. “Afterwards, they thanked it for the conversation.”

The Project Lifelike researchers are now building a copy of the astronaut Jim Lovell, who flew on Apollo 13 and will answer questions at Chicago’s Adler Planetarium, and one of Alan Turing, who will field questions at the Orlando Science Center in Florida. Others are working on ways to create doppelgängers that will persist after people die.

And the beat goes on:

Meanwhile, Bickmore and his team are developing animated avatars of doctors and other healthcare providers. One of the nurse avatars they created is designed to discharge people from hospitals. In tests, he found 70 per cent of patients preferred talking to the copy rather than a real nurse, because they felt less self-conscious. Doctors, meanwhile, could use avatars to streamline their work. “A doctor might want to make a copy, for example, if they are the pre-eminent expert in a field,” Bickmore says.

As with doctors, academics could spread their workload too. “This would allow you to teach as many sections as your department desires,” Bailenson says. With several copies operating simultaneously, a teacher could jump between them at will, inhabiting any one without ever letting on to the students.

A British company called Philter Phactory makes autonomous bots called Weavrs (that) can operate Twitter accounts and other social media on a person’s behalf. The company’s selling point is that Weavrs can be used to trawl the web for interesting links about certain topics, then post status updates or share videos and articles about them.

Many actors and performers have digital personas, sometimes created against their will. It seems laws will need to be adapted to define who can control people’s digital selves (see “Double jeopardy”).

Jaron Lanier, an author and Microsoft researcher, worries about technologies that claim to amplify our efficiency. “If you’re a history professor and you can operate 10,000 of these (bots), why does the university have to hire any other history professors?” Lanier asks.

Visualize you always have lived in a grass hut. A hurricane is coming. You know with absolute certainty, the hurricane winds will destroy your hut. Do you ignore it, or do you build, and move to, a concrete building?

We know with absolute certainty, hurricane “Disemployment” is coming to the island of economics. We already have felt the rising wind. Will we continue doing what we always have done, using the same old ways to search for “full employment.”

Several excellent economists, whom I know, belong to “The Center for Full Employment and Price Stability.” I hope they change the thrust of their thinking from “full employment” to optimum employment, and help our island prepare for the hurricane.

What do you think?

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

Nine Steps to Prosperity:
1. Eliminate FICA (Click here)
2. Medicare — parts A, B & D — for everyone
3. Send every American citizen an annual check for $5,000 or give every state $5,000 per capita (Click here)
4. Long-term nursing care for everyone
5. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone
6. Salary for attending school (Click here)
7. Eliminate corporate taxes
8. Increase the standard income tax deduction annually
9. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America

==========================================================================================================================================
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 Imports

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY