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, 2013Americans 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
#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY
#Monetary Sovereignty - Mitchell 
Who was it that said, “How’s That Hopey-Changey thing Working Out For Ya?”
He has the intelligence, but not the character to have been the FDR of his generation. I guess the almighty dollar has finally become our currency to trade with the devil, and we are clever by half in its procurement.
LikeLike
I agree and disagree with you.
First off, it’s not the lack of MMT that’s making the rich richer and the poor poorer. Please explain how the trend has been the same for about 40 years, it’s nothing new sir.
The issue MMTers and yourself are blind to, is that it is MMT policies that actually widen the gap. The poor become poor when there is market balance. Printing and giving people money does the following:
– the rich have access to credit, are in the know and borrow and invest before everyone else
– the money printed removes wealth/capital from needed parts of the economy
– the money printed is given to already rich people or poor people who become attached to the handout
– the money is spent on services created by the rich person on the first bullet
Essentially, it removes money from companies and people that have worked to acquire it, and gived it to the rich while making the poor poorer.
Sir one simple comment that you do not seem to grasp. Give a man a fish, help him for a day, teach a man how to fish, help him for live. Our economy runs on fishermen, not on givememen.
LikeLike
So taking money out of the economy would help the poor?
LikeLike
So devaluing the money would help the poor that cannot affort to save and has to spend every single penny earned?
Again, the rich have leverage to stay above inflation because they can tap much much much more credit, staying above inflation rates.
Poor people don’t have investment accounts. They feed themselves by the value of their labor. If they continuously get paid in worthless currency, how does that help them?
Again, team a man how to fish sir.
LikeLike
Inflation is a function of 4 variables:
1. The supply of money
2. The demand for money
3. The supply of goods and services
4. The demand for goods and services
Unfortunately, you consider only variable #1, forgetting about variables 2, 3 and 4. This is a common problem among people who don’t study economics, but believe they understand this science without study.
There has been no relationship between federal deficit spending and inflation since the U.S. became Monetarily Sovereign. See: https://mythfighter.com/2010/04/06/more-thoughts-on-inflation/
LikeLike
Printing money does NOT devalue it, as Rodger begins to explain above. Of course if you print it to hire people to blow up factories and stores, you will get inflation. You have to work hard to create inflation – you need truly idiotic and profligate spending, but human stupidity has been up to the task, alas.
You don’t realize that the economic ideas you’ve been taught amount to systematically preventing a man from fishing, preventing him from working to support himself.
LikeLike
I normally don’t go there, but jesus christ – how can anyone not think that printing doesnt devalue money. Does anyone know what supply and demand is? Prices are a function of supply and demand. It’s not me making this up people, do the calculation yourselves.
Higher demand + no change in supply = higher prices
Lower demand + no change in supply = lower prices
No change in demand + higher demand = higher prices
No change in demand + lower supply = lower prices
No change in demand + no change in supply = no change in prices
Increasing the amount of money in the system will increase the demand side of the equation, but the net increase in prices will result in a wash out. As i said above, the worker not getting the newly printed money will be stolen of his pirchasing power. I hope it’s easier to see from the equations above. Nothing is free, it’s theft that has been going on. Printing is theft, it’s no wonder counterfeiting is illegal. Hello, anyone there?
LikeLike
Calgurus,
You complicate matters by talking about factories blowing up and blah blah blah. Either you believe in demand and supply or you don’t. Dollars are valuable because of their limited quantinty….just like all else priced by supply and demand.
Demand and supply says dollars become worth less when supply is increased. Aside from the fact that you are devaluing the dollar, you are taxing your productive capacity and rewarding your unproductive capacity.
Now, tell me calgarus, how long can you kill your workers and reward your rich and lazy without running out of workers. Its no luck our economy is in shambles when our ‘educated’ can’t add or subtract.
LikeLike
This one is my favorite: “No change in demand + higher demand = higher prices.”
Yikes!
This one is equally dopey: “No change in demand + lower supply = lower prices”
Sorry, it’s higher prices, but who can teach a debt hawk anything?
Anyhow, what has not been explained by the debt hawks is how the massive money “printing” of the past 5 years has not caused the inflation they consistently predicted.
Also, what has not been explained by debt hawks is how there has been zero relationship between federal deficits and inflation since we became Monetarily Sovereign in 1971.
None of this will deter the debt hawks, who believe their personal intuition trumps actual historic fact. They are absolutely positive the world is flat, and they sneer at those who say it isn’t. They just know what they know, and that’s that.
No use arguing with them, because they pay no attention to any fact that disagrees with their personal ideas. But I post their foolish comments for the laughs they provide.
LikeLike
So Dr Mitchell, if there are 10 people and 10 chickens, you think doubling or trippling money supply will do us any good. Especially when the new money will go to the rich and government buddies.
I guess Bernanke is not the idiot i thought after all. Printing does not increase the supply of money, it increases the supply of chickens. I hope you like this one too Dr mitchell.
I’m no hawk at all and dont need to be, an ounce of common sense tells me counterfeiting is illegal because it’s theft, and so is printing.
LikeLike
UMmmm, nope, flash. Your analysis is confused, because your economic concepts are confused. MMT/ MS /FF/ Institutional /Keynesian economics is not confused. Genuine economics rectifies the names; clarifies the concepts that fake economics ceaselessly confuses.
– the rich have access to credit, are in the know and borrow and invest before everyone else So what?
– the money printed removes wealth/capital from needed parts of the economy Absolutely not. Your biggest mistake. This is a full employment assumption, badly expressed, ultimately based on the world’s worst theory – the commodity theory of money, that insanely equates the real (wealth/capital) and the financial (money), by making category errors.
There is no new “money removal” proposal in getting out of a depression to full employment. Something like this becomes true only in a full employment economy, which the USA hasn’t seen for nearly 70 years. Government money-printing right now would print real wealth.
– the money printed is given to already rich people or poor people who become attached to the handout MMT/MS does not propose giving money to rich people, for no reason, in hopes of trickle-down. That is what we do right now! The proposals are to spend on real, important, beneficial ideas, not stupid inflationary “handouts” – except to the sick, elderly, disabled who cannnot provide for themselves, or maybe a small universal payment – which a tremendously rich society can easily afford.
– the money is spent on services created by the rich person on the first bullet Right. But: SO WHAT? The rich person has then provided real services & goods to the formerly poor guy. Say he was homeless. He got a government job, or a job at a now-booming business that now doesn’t have to pay FICA, and whose customers now have more dollars. He then paid rent to the rich guy for an apartment. The rich guy got money. The poor guy got an apartment. The society got the fruits of his work for the government. It’s a win-win-win. A free lunch – because we run the economy unbelievably stupidly right now.
Essentially, it removes money from companies and people that have worked to acquire it, and gived it to the rich while making the poor poorer.
Nope, no money removed from anyone. The rich get financially richer. The poor get materially richer. The nation gets richer in many ways. A possible, likely small and temporary increase in the national debt, the money supply vs the size of the economy is a tiny, tiny, nearly meaningless price to pay.
Will Rogers understood this very well:
LikeLike
Full employment assution? Why dont you propose a dollar printing machine for each citizen…. heck propose it for the world, your world.
For i guarantee you, you will be eating paper in no time, paper may even run out. Its amazing how economic illeterate we’ve become. Either we are illerates or we are dillusional.
LikeLike
I.e. a more moderate path to destroying the middle class at the behest of the .1%.
Is anyone still wondering what motivates Obama to widen the gap between the super-rich and the middle class?
LikeLike
This article doesn’t use the word “bribery,” but it comes pretty close
I’ve been saying that Obama is Bribed by the .1% via campaign contributions and the promises of wealth later. I just wish other authors would not be shy about using the “B” word.
Obama is following the Bill Clinton path to riches.
And the public be damned.
LikeLike