Mitchell’s laws:
●The more federal 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.
●Cutting the deficit is the government’s method for taking dollars from the middle class and giving them to the rich.
●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.

●The penalty for ignorance is slavery.

Scientific American magazine publishes articles that bridge the distance between deep science and popular science. It seldom publishes articles about economics, apparently feeling economics is not a real science (as opposed to, for instance, sociology and psychology [Yikes!] about which it has published many articles.

That should give you some idea of SA’s priorities and biases.

The January, 2013 issue included an article by Jacob Tanenbaum, titled: Creation, Evolution and Indisputable Facts. The article correctly excoriates creationism and other religious pretenders to science:

As a science teacher, I am always curious about people’s attitudes toward what I teach. Since more than 40 percent of U.S. adults believe literally what is written the Book of Genesis — that Earth and the universe were created in six days about 6,000 years ago — and since I was in the neighborhood recently, I decided to visit the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Ky, run by the Answers in Genesis Ministry.

That shocks him? Creationists are mere amateurs in the dopey beliefs competition. He should visit economics, where surely 99% of U.S. adults believe the federal deficit should be reduced.

In the main lobby, a large display depicts life just after creation. (I)t features a small boy playing while two dinosaurs graze nearby. According to the exhibits, the stars are younger than Earth (they were created on Day 4), and Noah saved all the animal species that we see today from the flood. Earth had its one and only ice age, lasting a few hundred years.)

The hilarious nonsense continued — we’ve seen and heard it all before — but one bit of phrasing struck me:

Creationists begin with answers and work to prove that those answers are right. This is antithetical to the scientific process.

Exactly. We all know it, which is why I continue to be amazed at Scientific American for what its own editors say. In the very same issue as the condemnation of the unscientific method, there appears an article written by the editors themselves.

It includes this frightening thought:

The president and Congress must reach at least three additional objectives for the U.S. to rehabilitate its alarmingly dysfunctional health care system:
1) figure out a way to lower medical costs, which threaten to bankrupt the country, if they continue spiraling upward
2) improve the health outcomes of its patients; and
3) make health care affordable for businesses and individuals

Of the three, #2 is reasonable though essentially a tautology, #3 is misdirective and #1 simply is wrong, wrong, wrong — and unscientific.

#3 seems to assume that businesses and individuals must or should “afford,” i.e. pay for, health care. No alternative like Medicare for Everyone even is suggested. But, perhaps they meant to include that in affordability, so I may be too harsh.

#1 is outrageous, however. It is flat out impossible for medical costs to bankrupt America. First, nothing can bankrupt a nation having the unlimited ability to pay its bills. We are Monetarily Sovereign.

And second, the vast majority of federal health care spending goes to doctors, nurses, hospitals, medical equipment suppliers and pharmaceutical companies in America, thus stimulating, not bankrupting, the country’s economy.

The point is that SA’s editors do exactly what their other article decries: They begin with a belief (impending bankruptcy of America caused by too much federal spending), and work backwards to demonstrate this answer is correct, applicable and logical — with nary a datum to back it up.

I hope to be alive on the day when Scientific American at long last, will publish an article by someone who understands Monetary Sovereignty.

Really SA editors, you will not go to hell for that.

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