–“Framing” has brainwashed America, but Krugman will save us.

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.

“Framing” has brainwashed America, but Krugman will save us.

Framing Conservative Arguments
by bfrederk, Daily Kos

The conservative movement is tremendously successful at generating language to define positions and ‘frame’ arguments. “Frame” is in scare quotes because framing refers to presenting one’s positions in a way that it is most likely to garner support. It is more effective political rhetoric, but it is often intellectually dishonest. When you cannot win with your actual argument, you ‘frame’ it in a certain way so that you can win.

Here is how the politicians and the media (almost all of which are owned or paid by the upper 1% income group) frame the debate about the federal budget

January 21, 2013 9:22 pm
America’s debt dilemma: A looming crisis
By Robin Harding

As the Obama administration begins its second term this week, the Financial Times explores the real fiscal choice for the US: not the short-term frenzy of cliffs, debt ceilings, deficits and sequesters, but how – or whether – to pay for an older population. The answer will decide the very nature of the US economy in the 21st century.

Down one path, the retirement contract is untouched, but tax levels have to rise by 30 per cent or more; the US would look like a mature European economy.

Down the other, taxes stay low, but barring a revolution in healthcare costs, provision for at least some retirees – current or future, rich or poor – must be slashed.

And there it is. The argument has been framed: The public is told to choose from two possibilities: Increase taxes or slash healthcare. The third possibility, increase the deficit, is not even considered, let alone debated.

But wait!! (as the TV ads say) Here comes Paul Krugman to the rescue (O.K., belatedly, but he’s getting there, sort of):

Weekend Reader: Paul Krugman’s End This Depression Now!
January 26th, 2013 Allison Brito

Allow me to offer a better option—Paul Krugman’s End This Depression Now! Originally published electronically and in hardcover last spring, it’s been brought to our attention again with its forthcoming release in paperback on January 28.

As a leading economist, New York Times columnist, distinguished Princeton professor, and 2008 Nobel laureate, Krugman’s solution to the nation’s expanding deficit is stunningly simple: Spend more, at least for now.

That’s right — while politicians are warning of excessive government spending, Krugman says that federal spending is what got us out of the Great Depression, and can quickly return us to prosperity today.

“Now is the time for the government to spend more, not less, until the private sector is ready to carry the economy forward again—yet job-destroying austerity policies have instead become the rule,” he says. Krugman’s enduring Keynesian outlook and his hopeful, progressive approach to growth are an essential contribution to a national discourse dominated by deficit “hawks.”

Yes, I’m jealous. Krugman received a Nobel for almost, but not quite (at long last) saying what my book and 900+ blog posts have been saying for 15 years (To understand economics, you must understand Monetary Sovereignty. Most economists and politicians don’t.), and the MMT folks have been saying even longer than that.

What he gets right is: The government needs to spend more, not less. And austerity, aka deficit reduction, is job destroying, economy destroying and life destroying.

Sadly, what he gets wrong is: “ . . . until the private sector is ready to carry the economy forward again . . . “ thus demonstrating he really doesn’t get it. This suggestion indicates a desire to return to austerity, once we emerge from the recession. Yikes!

Message to Professor Krugman: The federal government should deficit spend, and after that, deficit spend, and then deficit spend – until we are at a point of full employment of such scarce resources as people and energy – that is, until we face an inflation we can’t cure by raising interest rates (as we always have done).

Barring that kind of inflation, which is so far off, I hope your grandchildren live long enough to see it, the government needs to continue growing the economy with deficit spending.

Anyway, this is a good first step for Professor Krugman, whom I’m sure will tell us he “always believed that,” and in a few years, when he decides that deficit spending should continue he will tell us he “always believed that, too.”

Welcome to the party, Professor. Better late than never.

And I’m still jealous.

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


9 thoughts on “–“Framing” has brainwashed America, but Krugman will save us.

  1. Krugman’s “deficit dove” nonsense is annoying, but it’s better than nothing. All the oter clowns in the corporate media claim that we have a choice between austerity, or austerity, or austerity (i.e. between higher taxes, or reduced social programs, or both).

    That Financial Times article supports austerity with lies.

    Example: “The government pays for retirement benefits out of taxes.”

    Example: Without austerity, the U.S. government faces a “looming debt crisis.” (I guess the US Treasury will throw away its computer keyboards.)

    Example: The government must cut spending to match tax revenue, in order to have a balanced budget. (We must have an austerity death spiral, as demanded by the 1% and their puppet politicians.)

    Example: We have a choice between austerity (radical cuts in social programs) or austerity (radical increases in taxes).

    That was in the first third of the article. I was too disgusted to read any more of it.


  2. By the way, we are already on the austerity death train, and it’s accelerating.

    In FY 2012 the U.S. government deficit was $1.327 trillion. That was 8.8% of the US GDP of $15 trillion.

    For FY 2013 it will be $426 billion less (or $901 billion). That’s 6% of GDP.

    And that’s without any of the new austerity measures that politicians want.

    The worse the depression becomes, the more politicians and media jackasses will demand increased austerity, just like in Europe.


  3. When they were young, and our children were having a boisterous night and did not want to go to bed, we got their attention and then said: You can choose your blue or your red pajamas, which will it be? In other words, it WILL be bed, now here’s your only choice. We boisterous (well, not very, yet) 99% are being offered a similarly framed bargain: it WILL be austerity, now you can choose your blue (Dem) or red (Rep) party.


  4. If you are poor, you’re worried about getting money, but if you have a lot of money and are greedy, you’re worried about it becoming worth less.

    Members of Congress and the president have a lot of money. So they’ve decided to let millions and millions of people be poor rather than risk the chance that some of their money might be worth less.

    Let’s also not forget that it is the rich who ensure the FICA tax remains in existence. Were it to be abolished, people would expect a pay raise, which means the rich would have to give up some their money – which is as bad to them as inflation.


    1. I wonder when Krugman will realize the Federal Reserve does not have any tools that do the trick, as evidenced now by nearly a decade of using all those tools to the max. While MS and MMT have been saying all the while that low interest rates are deflationary, there is no sign of that understanding from Krugman.


  5. With all due respect to Frank Luntz and George Lakoff, I think J. K. Galbreath had it right: “Ideas are not defeated by other ideas, but by a mass of circumstance with which they cannot contend.”


  6. Again, regarding terminology, rather than say government “spends”, say it “funds” or “allocates”?

    A possible problem with educating people about MMT/MS is the terminology used, which can be misleading. (debt are actually “assets”).


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