–How can we bankrupt America in one easy step?

Mitchell’s laws:
●The more budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes.
●Austerity is the government’s method for widening the gap between rich and poor,
which 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.

Answer: Run a balanced federal budget.

The federal deficit (red line, below) has exceeded $1 trillion since early in the recession, and the most recent figures show the deficit to be about $1.2 trillion. The reason the deficit is this high: The recession.

Monetary Sovereigny

Curing a recession requires stimulating Gross Domestic Product (GDP). And GDP = Federal Spending + Non-federal Spending – Net Imports. So curing a recession requires a combination of increased Federal Spending plus reduced taxing (to increase Non-federal Spending), i.e. increased Federal Deficit Spending.

Notice, that in the formula for GDP, Net Imports (shown by the green line) is deducted. This is because Net Import dollars flow out of the country. (By the way, the graph shows an addition of net exports. Net imports and net exports, both being net, actually are the same thing, and because the data are provided as a negative, we need to add them.)

The most recent figures show Net Imports to be somewhat greater than $500 billion. This means that in order for GDP to grow, there first must be enough federal deficit spending to make up for the $500+ billion lost through Net Imports. The bigger the Net Imports, the greater must be Federal Deficit Spending, just to make up for the loss of dollars.

So, the difference between Federal Deficit Spending and Net Imports represents the dollars the federal government adds to the domestic economy. For want of a better name, call that “Net Deficits,” which is shown by the blue line (above), and the most recent data show “Net Deficits” to be about $600 billion.

Is $600 billion a big number in federal government terms? I’ll let you decide. It’s about half the so-called “deficit” that has the debt hawks all in a tither. It’s about ten times the assets of one citizen, Bill Gates. It’s small when compared with GDP:

Monetary Sovereignty

But there is a larger point to be made — or rather, several larger points:

1. So long as the U.S. continues to be a net importer, it always will be necessary for the federal government to deficit spend, just to break even on our money supply. But breaking even on our money supply, while our population grows (nearly 1% per year), would mean there are fewer dollars available for each man, woman and child in America. So to keep the economy from contracting, deficit spending at least must exceed Net Imports and population growth.

2. Those who wish for a “balanced budget,” actually are wishing the U.S. economy would contract $500 billion per year — at an approximate cost of $5,000 annually, to every household in America. (Compare this with the “debt clocks” that claim the debt costs Americans, when in fact, the debt benefits Americans.) Reducing the deficit reduces GDP.

3. The U.S. federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, has the unlimited ability to deficit spend, forever. Contrary to popular “wisdom,” there has been zero relationship between federal deficit spending and inflation.

4. The world’s net import/export is zero. Our imports are other nation’s exports. The U.S. pumps %500+ billion into the world’s economies. Were the U.S. to become a net exporter, the entire world would suffer — particularly the monetarily non-sovereign nations, all of which survive long term on net exports.

The terms “balanced budget,” “live within our means,” and “don’t spend what we don’t have” sound oh-so prudent, and they are — for you and me, and the states, counties, cities and euro nations, all of which are monetarily non-sovereign. But when these ideas are applied to a Monetarily Sovereign government, they are totally imprudent — disastrous, actually.

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’s 99%

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


8 thoughts on “–How can we bankrupt America in one easy step?

  1. America is already bankrupt Rodger — morally bankrupt!

    Your great remedial plans will never get airborne until the hijacked, now blatant selectively enforced scam, ‘rule of law’ is cleansed of all of its Xtrevilist, Noble Lie wielding, sociopathic immorality.

    You are like a big brand new 707 Rodger, loaded with high octane fuel and all of the correct remedial solutions, but the runway — the rule of law — has been hijacked!

    At some point one has to recognize that all of this corruption — being sold under the guise of well meaning bumbling of ‘free market’ philosophy — is very intentional evil that must be addressed more directly. America does not have Monetary Sovereignty, it has Monetary Xtrevilsm, where the credit and money supply is controlled by the aberrant, self anointed elite few. Pumping up the deficit under these conditions will only serve to further enrich them.

    Deception is the strongest political force on the planet.


  2. Rodger, we had a budget surplus (no deficits) during Clinton years, while our net exports remained negative, and yet GDP growth was well over +4%?


      1. I am trying to learn, and that’s exactly my question 🙂 We know for a fact, Net Imports was a high +ve number. So, it seems FED spending + Non-Fed spending can indeed grow @ 4%+ without deficit spending. If private savings are productively spent, you may not need federal deficits, after all?


        1. Your comment has some short term validity.

          You’re actually talking about velocity. Non-federal Spending is additive. If I spend $1 with you, and you spend $1 with someone else, and they spend $1 and on and on — the faster this occurs, the greater will be total Non-federal Spending.

          While velocity can increase in the short term, continuously increasing velocity (to increase GDP) is impossible, so ultimately, deficit spending is necessary.


        2. The stock of private savings is finite. GDP grew in the Clinton years with a budget surplus because people were spending more than their incomes, borrowing the difference. (The private sector was in deficit, in an amount equal to the sum of the trade deficit and the budget surplus.) That is unsustainable, and when it stopped, the economy collapsed in recession.


  3. John,

    Your conclusion is basically correct, though it’s not exactly true that the stock of private savings is finite: Net Private Savings = Federal Deficits – Net Imports — unless you consider Federal Deficits to be finite. (Depends on your time scale.)

    The blue line represents the annual increase in mortgage and credit card debt:

    Monetary Sovereignty

    So yes, private borrowing increases Non-federal Spending, which affects the formula:

    GDP = Federal Spending + Non-federal Spending – Net Imports

    I’ve put those two formulas at the end of each post, because they are fundamental to economics.


    1. The stock of anything is the amount of it at a moment in time. Right now, there is about $16T of private savings, a finite number. If we deplete it continuously, we will eventually run out.

      Flows are changes over time, as shown in your graph. Since the government is not limited in how much money it can create, there can be net positive flows of private savings forever. But not net negative flows.


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