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.
=====================================================================
We long have argued that the gap between the rich and the rest is too large, and growing. There are two ways to narrow that gap: Bring down the rich or lift the rest.
A human being of normal intelligence, would opt to lift the lower- and middle-income groups, so that every citizen could have a happier, more fulfilling life. But these are not normal times, as the world, brainwashed by the rich, has turned austerian.
We also have argued that the rich have fostered warfare between the middle- and lower-classes as a “divide and conquer” method for increasing power. Here is a successful example in Scotland:
HeraldScotland
Call for pensioners to ‘share the pain’ of cuts
Gerry Braiden, Senior reporter, Monday 22 April 2013Pensioners should share the pain of austerity cuts and pay more tax to promote fairness between the generations in the housing market, a think-tank has warned.
The Fabian Society claims high levels of home ownership among older people threatens fairness, as the wages of middle-income workers stagnate and they cannot afford to buy a home.
It argues pensioners’ taxes should increase, their benefits should be cut, and a tax on property wealth should be introduced.
The Fabian Society is a socialist group, which reminds me of the old line: Capitalists want everyone to be equally rich. Socialists want everyone to be equally poor.
The “logic” of the Fabian Scociety, and of all austerians is: If many people are poor, don’t help them. Instead make those in the middle class poor – “for fairness.”
How such idiocy can survive, demonstrates the power of envy over the power of reason.
It also demonstrates the cleverness of the .1%, for re-directing the envy, normally reserved for the rich, instead to be aimed at the elderly. Thus is the power of money to sway minds.
The report follows previous warnings that the range of universal benefits for pensioners in Scotland such as free care and bus travel may lead to conflict between the generations.
According to the Fabian Society, more than three-quarters (76%) of pensioners now own homes, compared with just over half (58%) 20 years ago, while in the past decade there has been a “dramatic fall” in home ownership among under-45s.
How awful! More elderly own homes, while home ownership of the younger has fallen. Is the cure to help young people afford homes? No, the cure is to make sure the elderly can’t afford their homes. And this will prevent “conflict between the generations.”
The Scottish upper .1% surely must be laughing.
In 1979, the year Margaret Thatcher came to power, middle-income working-age households enjoyed an income 93% above that of middle-income retired households. That figure is now 37%, the study showed.
The society said this had profound implications and there should be a presumption of equality as “old age is no longer a proxy for poverty”. It says the key policy should be to raise £7.2 billion by hiking taxes on pensioners so the 27% they pay as a portion of their gross income would rise to 33%.
Yes, indeed. Let us impoverish our elderly, as that somehow will help our younger people, who then will be saddled with the responsibility to house and feed their newly poor parents. That’s what we call “fairness” in Scotland
These Scottish folks must have received their ideas from President Obama and the U.S. Congress.
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 
If the peasants question austerity, the solution is to set the young people against older ones (or blacks against whites, or Muslims against Christians, or homosexuals against heterosexuals, etc, etc). Just tell one group that another group in their same economic class hates them. It’s easy, and it works every time.
By the way, the Fabian Society is no more socialist than the Socialist Party in France, or Social Democrats in Germany. Most European nations have a socialist party, and they all serve the rich. They are only socialist in name. They correspond to Democrats in the USA. In the UK they are called the Labour Party, and are radically pro-austerity. As Rodger has noted, today we have a choice between the ultra-extreme far right (which the media calls “far left extremists”) and the pathologically hyper-ULTRA-extreme far right (which the media calls “moderates”).
Also, Rodger’s comment points to what I call peasant thinking. Peasants are not happy unless they are miserable. Rather than bring everyone up to the level of the rich, they want to bring everyone down to the sewer, where the peasants voluntarily choose to live. This makes them easy to manipulate. It’s why the rich support “tax reform” groups in Washington that demand austerity in the form of tax increases.
And yes, the peasants do voluntarily live in the sewer. They prove it every time they smugly reject the facts of Monetary Sovereignty, and demand austerity (for someone else, not them).
My consolation is to watch them suffer from flight delays and cancellations, after sequestration caused the FAA to fire air traffic controllers, and shut down the control towers of 149 airports. This affects even celebrities like movie actor Harrison Ford, who went to Capitol Hill to meet with 170 members of the House General Aviation Caucus, begging them (in vain) to keep the control towers operating.
Many Republicans whine that the austerity has caused airports to be closed in their districts. Austerity is only supposed to hurt the middle and lower classes.
LikeLike
I am a recently retired air traffic controller. Before I left March 31st, many modernization projects shut down. These projects used massive overtime budgets to train the controllers and this training has expiration dates. It will all be redone.
I have heard that the FAA will use overtime to cover furloughs. In the end, sequestration will raise GDP because the government will spend 3 dollars for every dollar it saves
LikeLike
“In the end, sequestration will raise GDP because the government will spend 3 dollars for every dollar it saves.”
Wow. Let’s do the “No, no, no” dance.
If you could legally print money in your house, and you chose to print one dollar instead of two, would you then be “saving” a dollar? Would you need to tax back the dollars you printed? Would you need taxes at all?
No, no, and no.
If you created and spent money by using your computer to credit people’s bank accounts, would you need sequestration? If you decided to lower the amount of credits that you issue digitally, would you be stimulating the economy? If people paid you taxes by letting you digitally lower their bank accounts, would you be recylcing tax revenue back into the economy?
No, no, and no.
Here’s a song to help you understand “No”…
LikeLike
Fabian Society has dredged up their most compelling logic since the Highland Clearances.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highland_Clearances
This time it won’t be the USA that benefits when countries jettison their dynamic assets and hoard their static assets.
Where will the young & restless go? Germany & Finland … briefly?
Does China even allow immigration?
LikeLike
The Fabians were always establishment ‘socialists’.
Some discussion of taxing land rather than income is warranted though. Especially in the UK where the uber-rich own an enormous percentage of it. If I recall correctly the concentration is greatest in Scotland.
Henry George and the physiocrats had it right in that land rent should be the basis of the tax system.
LikeLike
Why have any taxes at all? The UK government, being Monetarily Sovereign, does not need or use tax revenue.
LikeLike
Revenue is a misleading term. Taxation is really just the cancellation of a portion of the money spent into existence by the government.
Money is tax driven though, in that in gains its legitimacy/monopoly status by virtue of it being the only medium of paying your debts (taxes) to the sovereign. You can argue whether or not government should have that power I suppose.
The other issue is of power. Those at the top of the social economic pyramid will always accumulate and hoard which a) removes money from circulation i.e. the paradox of thrift and b) gives the accumulators great social power. Like the oligarchy/plutocracy we have now.
As Rodger says, it’s all about the gap.
LikeLike
John G. says: “Revenue is a misleading term. Taxation is really just the cancellation of a portion of the money spent into existence by the government.”
>> Agreed.
John G. says: “Money is tax driven though, in that in gains its legitimacy/monopoly status by virtue of it being the only medium of paying your debts (taxes) to the sovereign. You can argue whether or not government should have that power I suppose.”
>> When I asked, “Why have any taxes at all?” I meant federal taxes, not state, county or municipal taxes. (Apologies for not being clear.) Government is necessary if we are to have a stable money system, but federal taxes are not necessary, since the US government has MS. Also, I don’t care for the term “tax driven.” MMT people love federal taxes. They claim that “taxes drive money.” I disagree. I say PEOPLE drive money.
in any case, I say that fiat legitimacy can be maintained by state, county or municipal taxes. Indeed, if we must have taxes, then I say federal taxes should be zero, while local taxes can be increased to pay for schools, etc. If local taxes are too low, then local governments must sell bonds, which leaves them wide open to Wall Street fraud, which leads to extreme debt, which leads to higher taxes after all.
Also, I don’t like Keynes’ term “paradox of thrift,” since it is not a paradox. If less money changes hands, then the economy weakens, causing unemployment and so on. Everyone becomes poorer. It’s simple, and it’s a fact. (Austrian school retards deny this fact.)
LikeLike
Revenue is a misleading term Actually, it isn’t. It is from French, a past tense re + venir. (venir, to come) . So it means the money is coming back to where it came from, the state. The same with tax RETURNS. Rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar’s. Folk etymology? Perhaps, perhaps not. But it is exactly correct.
LikeLike
The paradox that Keynes was referring to is that for an individual, saving is a virtue, but in macro terms it is a vice.
I agree in broad terms regarding state taxes. My point about taxing land isn’t inconsistent with that.
LikeLike