–Congratulations Yahoo Finance on publishing the dopiest poll of the year.

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.


There is ignorant. There is stupid. And then there is Yahoo Finance and Chris Nichols. I didn’t see Part I, but I assume it was as silly as Part II is:

Here’s Your Chance: You Fix the Economy, Part II
By Chris Nichols | The Exchange – Fri, Oct 26, 2012

The best way for the federal government to balance the budget is through a combination of spending cuts and increased taxes, more than half of the voters in an informal Yahoo! Finance poll said Thursday.

With 10,283 total responses to the question, 52% said some combination of those two actions would be preferred to the other choices provided. However, 41% of respondents wanted to only cut spending in order to balance the budget, making for a very strong second-place showing.

With those two options making up 93% of the total vote, you can see quickly how readers feel about raising taxes alone as the preferred course of action. Our poll ran the same day that a group of corporate CEOs called on Congress to implement tax hikes and lower spending to tackle the nation’s budget deficit.

The question was one of seven we asked readers in a bid to get a sense of what they believe the government should do to improve its financial standing.

Notice that the poll directs voters to determine the best way to balance the budget, not the best way to grow the economy.

Now, if you really want to know the best way to grow the economy, the answer definitely is NOT to balance the budget, but rather to grow the deficit. But, by assuming the answer is to balance the budget, Yahoo Finance and Chris Nichols perpetuate the ignorance of the American voters.

Unfortunately (or fortunately?), when Americans vote for candidates who promise to reduce the deficit, thereby assuring another recession, these poor, ignorant souls will be hung by their own petards. They either will pay higher taxes (aka eliminating “loopholes” or “broadening the tax base”) or they will receive lower Social Security and Medicare benefits. Talk about pulling the switch on your own electric chair . . .

Anyway, if it weren’t for the fact that my own children and grandchildren will be injured, I might take a perverse delight in seeing the 99% cause their own suffering — especially when these are the folks who get angry at me when I tell them that reducing the dollar supply hurts the economy.

So, Chris Nichols, for your next survey, I suggest this question: What is the best way to effect world starvation: Destroy all the crops or poison all the water?

World starvation is as good a goal as balancing the budget.

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


6 thoughts on “–Congratulations Yahoo Finance on publishing the dopiest poll of the year.

  1. Amazing, isn’t it? Once you get the public to accept the “need to balance the budget” (which would destroy the US economy), you get them to bicker over the best way to destroy themselves, whether by raising taxes, or cutting spending, or both. The patient is in shock from blood loss. Shall we apply leeches to the patient’s throat, or groin, or just open his jugular vein? Let’s have a poll about it! Democracy in action!

    Rodger writes: “If it weren’t for the fact that my own children and grandchildren will be injured, I might take a perverse delight in seeing the 99% cause their own suffering — especially when these are the folks who get angry at me when I tell them that reducing the dollar supply hurts the economy.”

    Yes, if I were living in another country, I would laugh at the American public, just like American politicians and the “1%” do. As the saying goes, comedy is tragedy viewed from an interval of time and / or distance.


  2. I think it’s completely understandable for the vast majority of us to liken the federal budget to our own, it seems intuitive. It’s not like you need to understand where money comes from to use it, or even make a lot of it. But it’s unforgivable for the so called experts to make the same mistake.

    MMT, Chartalism, whatever you call it, is the first theory that I’ve found that adequately expalins where all that money comes from in the first place. It’s a real ‘seeing the wizard behind the curtain’ type moment when you first get it. Then you just feel perpetually frustrated by the idiot arguments about the govt going broke, etc.

    Mark, Americans could happily laugh straight back at us, as more or less every other country is making the same mistakes.


  3. Apologies. My comment was scrambled by a compuyer glitch. Let me try again.

    There are several theories about the origin of money. There is the fractional reserve theory, circuitist theory, credit theory, and Chartalism (a.k.a. MMT).

    How can there be more than one explanation? We have banks, money, and a government. These are facts. The money must come from some definite place or process.

    The answer lies in semantics. Words are twisted. A glass can be half empty or half full. For example, when I make a deposit at a bank, the deposit is both an asset / credit and a liability /debt. It is an asset because it is money the bank may use. It is a debt because I am only lending it to the bank. Depending on how we look at it (it is a credit; no it is a debt) we can create an entire “philosophy” about how money operates. And we will be flat wrong. Many people think that all money in the US economy is ultimately lent by the Fed, even though $16.1 trillion is T-bills sold are loans >TOIS< reality. Until the public grasps this, most Americans will remained enslaved by bankers and politicians.


    1. Don’t know what you mean by “fractional reserve theory”. But the others – circuitism, credit theory, chartalism/MMT – they’re all different names for the same theory, the same explanation, which boils down to understanding that credits & debts, financial assets and liabilities are different words for the same thing, viewed in different ways. And then just doing the accounting right, consistently.

      Just understand what on earth you are talking about – get the semantics right – and you will understand that you always understood it, that everyone always understood it. It’s not unintuitive, but hyperintuitive, very close to the heart of the way people think about anything.

      That’s why there can be so many absurd, terrible, stupid theories in economics (worldly philosophy) as in philosophy in general. Nobody actually uses them actually believes them or can believe them. In reality, in real life action, people just use the MMT / creditary theory without knowing it & ignore the wacky theory they only think they hold.


  4. Ah, the best way to end world starvation is for everyone to eat less, then there’ll be more food for everyone! Austerity rocks! 😉
    Or, we could just realize that some “eaters” get far more than their share, have special access to the means of production, and then take steps to redistribute the excess that is really there. The obese would benefit too.
    As relates to Monetary Sovereignty, only a small elite controls the means of producing money. The rest of us are just renting it. That’s the problem.


  5. Hamish wroites: “Mark, Americans could happily laugh straight back at us, as more or less every other country is making the same mistakes.”

    True! As Rodger has noted (“Et Tu Netanyahu?”) even Israel is imposing austerity on its people. Even Iran is doing it. It’s the “in” thing for the 1%, worldwide.


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