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.
●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 motive.


Is there anyone out there (aside from MMT) who doesn’t yet believe there is sufficient proof that President Obama, and his entire administration, have been bribed by the .1% to widen the gap? If so, read this:

Senator Sherrod Brown Drops a Bombshell in Mary Jo White’s Hearing
By Pam Martens: March 13, 2013

Americans learned for the first time on March 6 of this year that the highest law enforcement agent in our country, Attorney General Eric Holder, weighs economic interests when deciding whether to enforce our Nation’s laws against criminal wrongdoers like the too-big-to-fail banks.

What this really means is, if prosecuting a criminal would, in the Obama administration’s opinion, harm rich stockholders, the prosecutor will not follow the law. He (she) will wink at the criminals and let the whole thing slide.

This, of course, is exactly what has happened regarding the banksters that cost middle-class Americans dearly. The “little” people lost their homes, their jobs and their savings, while the banksters received big bonuses. Why?

Following the Obama/ Geithner/ Holder/ White doctrine, Bernie Madoff should not have been prosecuted. Instead, he should have been given federal money to pay off his wealthiest creditors, and some of that money would have been his to take as bonuses.

When it came time for Senator Brown to question Mary Jo White, the exchange went as follows:

Senator Brown: When you were U.S. Attorney, my understanding is you consulted Bob Rubin and Larry Summers when considering whether to bring charges against financial firms. Is that correct?

White: I actually consulted the Deputy Attorney General who had Mr. Summers call me back. I was asking a factual question.

Senator Brown: Did they reject the argument that institutions could not be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law?

White: I’d like to answer that yes or no but I can’t. Essentially, I was seeking information based on an argument that had been made by the lawyers for the institution that I ultimately indicted, as to whether an indictment of that institution would result in great damage to either the Japanese economy or the world economy. And the answer I got back is that I should proceed to make my own decision; which I took to mean that it would likely not have that impact.

Senator Brown: Policy seems to have changed. You a moment ago said, you talked about the SEC doesn’t consider, you used the term collateral consequences to Senator Menendez’ question.

And in 2008, the Fed’s General Counsel called the SEC to urge the Commission not to pursue fault penalties against bailed out firms that had committed fraud. As a result, institutional investors, pension funds that provide retirement security for working Americans for example, end up with less compensation in the settlement. The New York Times affirmed the costs were shifted from Wall Street banks to working Americans. Was the SEC right to lower these penalties back in ’08.

White: I think what the SEC does do – they don’t, as I understand it, they don’t take collateral consequences into their charging decisions. But they do consider consequences in their remedies.

So that, for example, a corporate fine that in effect would have grievous impact on innocent shareholders is taken into account in terms of remedies that they seek. I don’t know all the particulars of the example you’re giving me so I can’t respond any further than that.

Translation: “We don’t consider consequences, but we do consider consequences. Understand? We protect these ‘innocent shareholders’ because they are the wealthiest people in America. We really don’t give a damn about the poor and middle classes who were devastated by these criminals. Our job is to protect the Japanese economy, not to enforce the law.”

Now, please tell me why Obama, Geithner, Holder and White care about the Japanese economy? They don’t. They care about the rich investors, who care about the Japanese economy.

So, why do Obama, Geithner, Holder and White care about the rich investors? Because they are paid to care (also known as bribed to care). And it begins at the top: Barack Obama.

He has been bribed (via campaign contributions and promises of lucrative speaking tours and a big Obama library, later) to care. So, he instructs his underlings to care. They do as they are told, to keep their big jobs.

It’s bribery, pure and simple, and I continue to wait for MMT to come right out and use the “B” word. Three little syllables: Bri-Ber-Ree.

Don’t be shy, folks. Hey, it’s only a criminal offense verging on treason, by our highest officials. Nothing to worry about.

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