●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.
●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.
●Everything in economics devolves to motivation.
The euro nations are in financial trouble, because they voluntarily surrendered their Monetary Sovereignty, and now are unable to create their sovereign currency (having no sovereign currency.)
Thus, they are short of euros which means their private sectors cannot grow their GDPs. All are in a death spiral — deficit cuts leading to recession, leading to more deficit cuts, leading to worse recession, sinking ever deeper into depression.
Their solution to a shortage of euros in the private sector is to reduce the number of euros in the private sector — the same solution advocated by U.S. politicians.
EU leaders seal long-term budget deal
EU leaders agreed a seven-year budget after a bargaining session in Brussels lasting more than 24 hours.
Herman Van Rompuy, European Council president and chair of the negotiations, tweeted: “Deal done! #euco has agreed on #MFF for the rest of the decade.”
No further details were available but it is thought that fiscal hawks, including the UK and Germany, have prevailed over those member states seeking more robust spending.
The EU motive is the same as the U.S. Congress’s motive: They are bribed by the upper 1% income group (via political contributions and promises of lucrative employment) to widen the income gap by destroying the middle- and lower classes. The wider the gap, the more power the 1% has over the 99%.
Europe is doomed. And unless the U.S. public begins to understand the 1%’s bribery, the U.S. middle- and lower-classes too, are doomed to servitude.
Now all that is needed to seal the fate of the American public is a federal surplus or even a reduction in the deficit.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
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 “–Has Europe now formalized its suicide pact?”
Most euro-zone nations have “euro-skeptic” political parties whose members object to the loss of sovereignty. The skeptics are politicians in government, but they are always a minority. Since they oppose austerity, the corporate media call them “fascists,” “Nazis,” “extremists,” “militants,” and even “terrorists” (e.g. the Golden Dawn in Greece, a group of populist politicians that have never committed any terrorist act).
My question is what do euro-skeptics mean when they object to the loss of sovereignty?
Do they understand that the essence of national sovereignty is Monetary Sovereignty? Without that, there is no real nation. There is only a pretend nation; a primitive and impoverished wasteland ruled by psychotic gangsters.
One could call austerity economics the rise of a new corporate feudalism complete with a Government (including the Justice system) bought and paid by the increasingly rich and powerful – complete with a militarized police force to protect them from anyone who gets in their way…This is the true meaning of the political warfare being waged over budgets on the great majority.
We have 2 sorts of pollution that can kill us, physical co2 pollution and austerity/unaffordability pollution. Both are solved by information. Stop co2 pollution by switching over gradually to clean energy sources. Stop austerity with an understanding of monetary sovereignty, or wait until the next crisis and tell the uninformed “I told you so.” But that may be too late.
We really need a gutsy high profile expert to get on board and tell it like it is on Face the Nation or Meet the Press. These tepid message boards and blogs only skirt the issue. Oh sure, we’re in the know and can argue any orthodox economist into submission. But are there any “Bernankes” out there willing to risk their jobs/reputation? Any GUTS?
CO2 is not a pollutant, it’s a plant food. Walk in any wonderful forest under the forest canopy. The CO2 count is 600 ppm. Walk into any working greenhouse in America. The CO2 count is around 1500 ppm. They pipe it in for the plants. Global agriculture increased by 33% since 1990 because of the increase in CO2. And as the CO2 increases, the need for water in the plants decreases. Mother Nature taking care of her own as the population grows.
If the CO2 ppm count went below 180, everything on this planet would die as a result. So don’t call it a pollutant. It’s not. The US Navy has determined that CO2 stats to get dangerous in a submarine at 8,000 ppm. “The maximum concentration recommended by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) for an 8-hour occupation is 5000 parts per million (ppm). The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) also uses 5000 ppm as their threshold for occupational safety. Levels of CO2 have been known to reach 3000 ppm in homes, schools, and offices.” (Oak Ridge Laboratory)
The directly emitted air pollutants are sulphur dioxide, the nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter. The EPA act that Nixon introduced started the controls that reduced them. Catalytic converters for cars, the scrubbers on the smokestacks, etc. We’ve reduced our pollution via those methods to almost nothing.
The indirect air pollutants, meaning they are not emitted directly, are ozone and aerosols, the latter being ultra-fine particulate matter. They are created by chemical reactions in the air.
CO2 is a gas, you can’t see it, you can’t block it. Oil companies can attempt to capture it for underground storage but that is an expensive process and uses up a lot of energy.
The issue currently is whether it contributes to global warming. CO2 keeps rising, but the global mean temperature average has flatlined for the past 15 years, according to the upcoming IPCC AR5 report leaked in December 2012. So we don’t know yet what the climate sensitivity is. Climate sensitivity is the term for the degree to which humans cause or contribute to global warming. If high, we fry. If low, we don’t. Whoever figures it out WITH DATA, NOT MODELS, will get the Nobel. In the meantime, don’t tie it to monetary sovereignty.
As a proportion of our atmosphere, CO2 is 0.03%. The majority of it comes from the decay of soil, trees, plants, and the oceans, like the ENSO process in the Pacific that sloshes up the cold water (where the CO2 is stored) from the deep between Peru and the Philippines.
I assume you are not a scientist who has determined all of the above facts, based on your personal research. Rather, you have selected data that satisfies your personal biases — that data coming from scientists, the vast majority of whom disagree with your conclusions.
Beware of selected data.
Well you’re right. Thanks for the science lesson. What can I say except I did not correctly identify CO2. It is an invisible agent, a basically harmless greenhouse gas that doesn’t pollute in the sense of ingesting poison. However, huge amounts of co2 (17% increase since preindustrial times) will prevent a portion of the sunlight (infrared radiation) we receive from escaping reflectively back to outer space, sending it back in trapping it and causing the oceans to warm, ice caps to melt, etc. At least that’s the theory and it does seem to make sense.
“….Whoever figures it out WITH DATA, NOT MODELS…”
By the time we get confirmation by means of data it may be too late to hand out a Nobel; so I hope you’re right that all those scrubbers are doing their job, otherwise the “greenhouse effect” will be irreversible for centuries. (by the way, are those satellite photos of shrinking ice caps and stranded polar bears considered data, or does it all just harmlessly come and go every 10,000 years?)
Not understanding monetary sovereignty IS mental pollution that can be reversed a lot quicker than the co2 problem. And MS/MMT is very much tied to industrial pollutants and potential global warming, because MS/MMT are affordability models. We can afford to do anything that needs to be done, and stopping industrial waste is a priority, even if it means subsidizing it. After all if we can throw multi billions of free money at farmers to do nothing with land, and at the Pentagon to kill and prepare to kill, and to bail out utterly selfish bankers, well I’d say we can afford to pay Exxon to clean up their act. They are NOT in it for love of, and service to, humanity out of the goodness of their heart so we can have light and heat on cold dark nights. What’s truly ironic is they breathe the same air and live on the same sinking ship we do. There are no life boats and there is no second chance. And they’ve got kids they claim to love!!
I am profoundly impressed with two things: (1) your ability to explain the monetary system simply, and (2) your moral core.
Could you direct me to any of your writings that explain why the federal government “borrows.” In discussions with friends, I can never answer this question. “Then why does the government borrow money from the Fed?” “Why do they use that term if that’s not what they are doing?”
Thank you for your help, Janie
Sent from my iPad
Bottom line, it’s semantics, complicated by experience with personal finances, which are different from federal finances.
For most of the years before 1971, the federal government was limited by its gold supply, in its ability to create dollars. So, it had to borrow, and the method was to sell Treasury Securities. That was called “borrowing,” because the government needed and used the dollars and the gold it received.
Today, the terms “borrow” and “debt” have remained attached to T-securities, although their function has changed.
Now, the federal government is required (by its own laws) to issue T-securities in the same amount as it deficit. This is an obsolete legal requirement, that has no monetary function.
With a slight change in the law T-securities could be eliminated. In that case, we could have deficits, but no debt. That is one way federal finances differ from personal finances (and from state and local finances)..
If you personally have a deficit (i.e. spend more than you earn), you have a debt, as does your state, county and city. The same is not true of the federal government.
In federal finances, it is possible to have deficits without debt, and debt without deficits. That idea puzzles most people.
Your friends think federal finances are like their own, kitchen-table finances. You may not be able to convince them otherwise.