Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Mitchell’s laws:
●Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
●The more federal budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes. .
●Liberals think the purpose of government is to protect the poor and powerless from the rich and powerful. Conservatives think the purpose of government is to protect the rich and powerful from the poor and powerless.
●The single most important problem in economics is the gap between rich and poor.
●Austerity is the government’s method for widening the gap between rich and poor.
●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.
●Everything in economics devolves to motive, and the motive is the Gap.
=========================================================================================================================================================================================================================
I just thought you should know. Lunch really can be free.
The U. S is Monetarily Sovereign, and in fact, always has been Monetarily Sovereign, though to a lesser degree.
This means, the U.S. government, including all federal agencies, never unintentionally can run short of dollars.
“In the beginning,” there was no dollar. Think of the U.S. government as the God of the dollar. The government originally produced from thin air, the laws that, in turn, created the very first dollar. Like God, the government continues to rule the laws that create dollars from thin air.
Because the dollar is the result of laws, and the U.S. government has 100% control over those laws, the federal government cannot unintentionally run short of dollars. Even if all federal taxes fell to $0, the government would not run short of dollars.
That is why, in a narrow sense, the U.S government always has been Monetarily Sovereign. But during the past 200+ years of our life, the government arbitrarily has passed laws that temporarily limited its functional sovereignty over the dollar.
Functional Monetary Sovereignty is not an absolute; it is a comparative. We can function as more or less sovereign.
The most notorious of such limiting laws tied the dollar to gold and silver. During the gold and silver periods, the U.S. functionally was not as Monetarily Sovereign as it is today, though being God of the dollar, it always retained the right to make itself more or less functionally sovereign over the dollar.
On August 15, 1971, the government (President Nixon), arbitrarily decided to eliminate the last vestiges of laws tying the dollar to gold, and since that day, the U.S. has been far more functionally sovereign over the dollar.
Yet, some restrictive laws remain, particularly the debt limit laws and certain borrowing and accounting laws, which reduce functional sovereignty. Still, the U.S. government, being the God of the dollar, can do anything it wishes with the dollar, merely by changing its own laws.
Compare this with the euro nations. Greece is not Monetarily Sovereign. It is not sovereign over the euro. It did not create the euro and cannot pass laws changing the euro. Greece is monetarily non-sovereign, because it has no sovereign currency. Greece is not God of its currency.
Similarly, Illinois, Boston, Microsoft, banks, you and I are not Monetarily Sovereign. None of us has a sovereign currency. Though we have been given the right to create and destroy dollars (by borrowing and lending), we do so at the mercy of the federal government, which arbitrarily can change the laws at any time it chooses. We are not Gods of the dollar.
Visualize the game of Monopoly in which I both am a player and the rules maker. I would be the God of the Monopoly dollar.
To pay for a Monopoly property, I arbitrarily might decide to take scraps of paper and write on them $1 or $10 or whatever I choose, and give these scraps to the property owner. I can do anything. I am Monetary Sovereign over the Monopoly dollar.
For any reasons I choose, I might decide to create a rule limiting myself to creating no more than $10 on any turn. I’m still Monetarily Sovereign, but functionally less so.
However, if I find myself running short of Monopoly dollars, I simply could change my own rules, and give myself the right to create more dollars. I can do anything. I am Monetarily Sovereign. I am the God of the Monopoly dollar.
Had the U.S. government decided not to create dollar bills, but rather decreed dollars would be represented by turnips, today we all would use turnips. The government would remain Monetarily Sovereign – the God of the dollar – but dollar creation would be limited by the turnip supply.
Always through its history, the federal government has pretended it is not the God of the dollar. Why? Economists wrongly have told the government that exercising its rights as God of the dollar, would lead to instability and inflation.
But, being the God of the dollar, the government not only has the power to create and destroy dollars, it has the power to set the value of dollars, i.e. to end or create inflation at will.
Many Monetarily Sovereign governments have exercised their God-like power over the value of their sovereign currency, simply and arbitrarily by changing its exchange value. Years ago, the UK did it; Mexico did it; many Monetarily Sovereign countries have done it.
Greece, France, Italy, Spain and other euro nations can’t do it. They are not Monetarily Sovereign. They are not Gods of the euro.
Believing the economists, that without restrictions, the dollar would be unstable and subject to inflation, the U.S. government always has restricted its God-like powers. These restrictions have made people – even people in the government – wrongly believe the government was less God-like – less Monetarily Sovereign – than it really is.
We see evidences of this, everywhere. The federal government unnecessarily levies taxes to obtain the dollars it can create at will, even though it neither needs, nor uses, those taxes.
The government even has created a complex, convoluted accounting system to track those taxes – a system which gives the false impression that somehow those taxes actually support government spending.
The twin facts that the Monetarily Sovereign government – the God of the dollar — can create dollars at will, and also being the law-maker, can change the accounting system at will – these twin facts seem lost to the public consciousness.
Today, most of the government pretends, and most of the public believes, that the federal government is monetarily non-sovereign, that it needs to tax and needs to borrow dollars, that it needs to “live within its means,” and that it is “broke” and that, for all the wrong reasons, needs to starve our economy for dollars.
Slowly and agonizingly, we try to recover from a recession caused by, exacerbated by and continued by a shortage of money. America has the people; we have the technology; we have the brains and physical resources – we have everything we need to create a vibrant, wealthy economy – we have everything but sufficient dollars.
Our Monetarily Sovereign government, the God of our dollar, levies unnecessary taxes, restricts spending, impoverishes the middle and lower classes, and brainwashes the public into believing these restrictions are prudent.
With the passage of a few laws and the press of a computer key, our government instantly could make American citizens the wealthiest people the world ever has known, now and forever.
It might seem too easy; it might seem to be too good to be true; it might seem like the proverbial free lunch.
But in this case, easy really is easy, and too good to be true really is true, and lunch really can be free.
I just thought you should know.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty
===================================================================================
Ten Steps to Prosperity:
1. Eliminate FICA (Click here)
2. Federally funded Medicare — parts A, B & D plus long term nursing care — for everyone (Click here)
3. Provide an Economic Bonus to every man, woman and child in America, and/or every state a per capita Economic Bonus. (Click here) Or institute a reverse income tax.
4. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone. Click here
5. Salary for attending school (Click here)
6. Eliminate corporate taxes (Click here)
7. Increase the standard income tax deduction annually
8. Tax the very rich (.1%) more, with higher, progressive tax rates on all forms of income. (Click here)
9. Federal ownership of all banks (Click here)
10. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99% (Click here)
—–
10 Steps to Economic Misery: (Click here:)
1. Maintain or increase the FICA tax..
2. Spread the myth Social Security, Medicare and the U.S. government are insolvent.
3. Cut federal employment in the military, post office, other federal agencies.
4. Broaden the income tax base so more lower income people will pay.
5. Cut financial assistance to the states.
6. Spread the myth federal taxes pay for federal spending.
7. Allow banks to trade for their own accounts; save them when their investments go sour.
8. Never prosecute any banker for criminal activity.
9. Nominate arch conservatives to the Supreme Court.
10. Reduce the federal deficit and debt
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:
1. Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings
2. Gross Domestic Product = Federal Spending + Private Investment and Consumption – Net Imports
THE RECESSION CLOCK
Vertical gray bars mark recessions.
As the federal deficit growth lines drop, we approach recession, which will be cured only when the growth lines rise. Increasing federal deficit growth (aka “stimulus”) is necessary for long-term economic growth.
#MONETARYSOVEREIGNTY
#Monetary Sovereignty - Mitchell 
Dollars are not lunch. You can’t eat them, they will not sustain you.
In order for you to have lunch, somebody must have worked. Maybe it wasn’t you, if you got your dollars for free, and traded them for lunch, but somebody worked to create that lunch. You can drop dollars from helicopters, but if nobody works any more than they do today there will be no more lunches than there are today. The dollars may be free, but the lunches are not. That is the difference between monetary wealth and real wealth. Ordinary people understand this. They know there is no free lunch. When MMT (and now MS) say there is free lunch, people think they’re crackpots, not serious economists.
LikeLike
re: golferjohn
You like so many other refuse to consider that the bankers have been having a “free lunch” as you say without ill effect to the economy, while we “crackpots” as you call us, are saying why don’t we citizen benefit from the EXACT SAME free lunch that the bankers are getting!
For example, every week the Federal Reserve publishes the money stock numbers to show how much new money or “free lunch” as you say that they have created.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h6/current/
So my question to you is why can’t the EXACT SAME new money that was created without ill effect to the economy, instead be spent into circulation to benefit we citizens?
If you were a banker I could understand why you would be againt such a change, but if you are not a banker would not this be a “no brainer”?
LikeLike
Who says I’m against that change? The issue is how you bring it about. Not by saying something that everyone knows is not true.
LikeLike
Did you or did you not say:
“Ordinary people understand this. They know there is no free lunch.”?
My point was that the Federal Reserve money stock statistics prove that there is “a free lunch” and that the bankers who are part on the 1% are the ones who benefit from that “free lunch” and not we citizens.
That is what we MS and MMT proponents keep saying, yet people like yourself keep refusing to listen, and keep FALSELY insisting that we want to simply want to “drop dollars” as a solution.
Rodger points out time and time again that the rich want to widen the gap between the poor, and one of the solutions that we propose is that the new money that must be created to lubricate the economy be brought into circulation by government spending on we citizens for stuff like infrastructure, education, and heathcare, instead of being brought into circulation soley by being given away to the bankers.
So are you for or against this “no brainer” proposal or not?
Duh – If you are for this proposal, then you are part of the MS and MMT people that you say ordinary people call crackpots!
LikeLike
Yes, I did say it. The bankers may get lunch by trading dollars for it, but somebody worked to make the lunch. And that somebody now has the dollars from the banker, and can use them to buy a different lunch.
Injecting dollars into the economy, as Rodger suggests and I agree with, will cause the recipients of those dollars to spend some of them, which will cause the lunch-makers to hire more people and make more lunches. But the lunches are not free. They are created by people’s work.
LikeLike
“Dropping dollars” — a broad-based tax cut — is a real solution. We did it in 2Q 2008, and it fended off the recession for a quarter, and then we stopped. Warren Mosler was surprised when his colleague predicted a recession. He knew they had just prevented one, and thought they would continue their successful policy, but they inexplicably did not.
Rodger would eliminate all federal taxes, and raise interest rates if necessary to control the economy and prevent inflation. That would be quite the money drop, indeed.
LikeLike
Golferjohn, you’re right that dollars aren’t lunches. As Rodger was correct to point out, they aren’t even turnips. But I think you’re misrepresenting MMT, which has, as far as I can tell, been careful to distinguish between nonconvertible currency and real economic assets.
LikeLike
MMT does distinguish between real and financial assets, but occasionally MMTers do say that the lunch can be free, when they mean that the money could be free.
LikeLike
Agreed. If nobody works, there will be no lunches.
But why do people work? Why do you work?
LikeLike
Change the word “free” to fair and you have a home run article!
“I just thought you should know. Lunch really can be fair.”
Regarding this;
“Slowly and agonizingly, we try to recover from a recession caused by, exacerbated by and continued by a shortage of money. America has the people; we have the technology; we have the brains and physical resources – we have everything we need to create a vibrant, wealthy economy – we have everything but sufficient dollars.”
We lack honest and FAIR government. Sufficient dollars would flow from a fair Government. Fairism is the required strategy.
http://www.boxthefox.com/deceptionology/12fairism.html
Deception is the strongest political force on the planet.
LikeLike
It’s always good to be more fair and honest, but what we really need right now is for the people to become educated, so that they can choose leaders who understand modern money. The leopards in charge today are not going to change their spots.
LikeLike
Faulty logic Mr. Golfer. The leopards in charge today, I prefer to call them Xtrevilists, are in control of education also. We first need honest and FAIR government.
Deception is the strongest political force on the planet.
LikeLike
I don’t work for money anymore, but when I did it was to be able to provide for myself and my family. To make lunches. I still make a few lunches, but we consume them all as we go.
Yes, we live in a monetary economy, and the shortage of money is what is causing the high unemployment and low growth, and the accompanying misery. More money would put more people to work, creating lunches for themselves and their families.
LikeLike
Right. As I said in the post, America has everything it needs — the people, the brains, the desire, the natural resources — everything but money.
Given sufficient money, the people, brains, desire and natural resources will be put to use to create a wealthy society.
LikeLike
True, the wealth can be had with better management of the money, but the wealth is not free.
LikeLike
He works to obtain dollars which can be used to exchange for services. Companies are hoarding trillions of dollars, however, it doesn’t seem to bother Mr. golfer that there aren’t enough dollars to go around — until he can no longer be given dollars in exchange for his labor.
LikeLike
Am I using a different language that you people don’t understand? Or do you just spew out the first hateful thing you can think of, without regard for the truth?
LikeLike
Mr. Golfer is one of a few who continually comment on the NEP and MNE websites typically providing the exact same false narrative arguments over and over and over again just for the sake of arguing among themselves. Most of it is pointless and just self absorbed ego stroking. Here today I think Golfer is just being sarcastic. Actually, clowns like DannyBoy are WAY more entertaining. Face it Rodger, Golfer is just messing with you. It’s how he gets his kicks.
LikeLike
I have to agree with Golpherjohn…
The dollars may be free and in a fiat system like ours usually those who get the money first benefit the most (unfortunately it is mostly the bankers who get the money first) however there is a cost to everything and it is misleading to say it is a free lunch!!
Dollars are necessary in our society in order to trade, in order to eat or have shelter. However I do not know anyone who works for dollars per se they work for what those dollars represent, what they can get for those dollars. I certainly do not work for dollars, I work for what those dollars can buy it just happens that I get paid in dollars and by law I am forced to have to use those dollars in order to trade for the things that I am actually working for. Maybe it is semantics to some point but if that is the case then saying that it is a free lunch is also semantics.
As a side note..I am not sure what is meant by
“From nothing, it created the laws that created the dollar. Thus, like God, the government created the dollar from nothing.”
Rodger, are you talking about how dollars are created now or when the government was first founded??
If you are talking about now ok..but if you talking about when the government was first founded then I can see you saying this to make a point about how money is created now but that is not actually true.
You are correct that since we became a nation we always had sovereignty over our money However our economic system evolved and is part of a history that goes back to early man.
When we were founded our dollar was not created out of nothing…in fact the US dollar was based off the Spanish milled dollar both in how it was set up (ie..half dollars, quarters, nickles, dimes etc) and the value of the dollar… which was tied to the value Spanish milled dollar. From there our economic system continued for better or worse into what it is today….
Again if you referring to how money is created today then you are correct and I misunderstood what you meant…
LikeLike
1/ Rodger says if you don’t understand Sovereign dollar you don’t understand economics. I say no one understands economics that’s why it ain’t a science just an art form or at best pseudo-something.
2/ Money is just a transport vehicle for the historic system called “Barter” and fiat or not it merely transports coffins easier from forester to timber miller to carpenter to baker to to flour miller, to farmer in each field of production likewise. Carpenter makes that lunch sure and buys bread with that lunch but how many coffins can one baker send for more flour?And who pays all the transport costs the Banker retains?
3/ As for economists creating easy money Krugman has the way, win a Nobel $1mn and write B/S for NYT by waving the Nobel as a PhD or becoming a Peace Lariat waving brown President with a spare $1mn to boot as you wage war claiming Peace initiative.
LikeLike
Mark, -awesome, a homerun, this is your best conceptualization of monetary sovereignty. So succinctly and linearly written that even someone suffering from barely a sixth grade reading comprehension can understand the basic tenants. ,As the great physicist Richard Feynman once alluded to regarding his unique insight, sometimes if you step back from something and look at it from another perspective , turning the box around and inside out, than note if the same explanation still offers substantive conclusions about what your viewing from the different angle, than maybe your on to something. Monetary sovereignty isn’t a prescriptive assumption , but a descriptive one, and it seems to hold up no matter what angle one views the monetary system from.
As far as a free lunch, well people have to just plain get over the idea that some unfortunate sap might get the preverbial something for nothing . Science and technology has vastly exceeded culture , which unfortunately has a lot of catching up to do. Heck, abandoning slavery was a great step forward ,but we’re still living with the same socio-economic cultural assumptions our fore-fathers had during the revolutionary war. Compare that to the immense body of Scientific knowledge accrued. What ever work means today, outside of repetitive medial labor, it shouldn’t be the drudge it still is for so many. Most of this unnecessary servitude is encouraged to create markets and economies, while corralling and manipulating the masses into time consuming purposeful pursuits, hopefully preventing civil unrest. Seems to me something has to change regarding this growth oriented , debt driven, and now global positioned , monetary system underwriting our inefficient , unsustainable, and massively exploitative economy.
Rewards and incentives are important, but the excessive hyper capitalism we are experiencing currently is widening the wealth gap and creating an entrenched aristocratic class very cozy with government. . Being wealthy has never been better than it is today reflecting upon the past three centuries for those lucky few whom great fortune was bestowed . Fifteen hundred some odd billionaires ,followed by barely over a hundred thousand multi millionaires, in a global population approaching seven billion , harshly critiques our lottery system , and should clearly point out the unfairness and unsoundness of global capitalism that has radiated out of America with a vengeance since the end of WW11.
The ideas or concept behind monetary sovereignty available to a representative republic, beholden to the democratic ideals of the people , by the people , and for the people, , is the only chance our planet has to assure habitat preservation crucial for endangered species and the supporting bio diversity that accompanies them , as well as preventing further environmental degradation from human avarice and greed . Socialism, communism, or any ism, isn’t going to do it either. It’s the monetary system that has to change. Money has to stop being the thing that is scarce, and the things that are truly scarce , like elephants, whales, rhinos‘, healthy coral reefs, rain forests, and the like, need to be viewed as being worth more than the money. Only when people understand how easy it is to create money, understand it isn’t finite , and cease seeing debt as a moral issue , will we get past the dysfunctional habits of excessive profiteering. The state has evolved into a very important element of society, and fortunately it doesn’t have to be oppressive and miserly. Money greases the wheels of social discourse , and if our collective interests are adequately lubricated through supporting education, medical care, live able wages provided at retirement, adequate defense, sustainable clean energy, and all other important public supports deemed necessary for a good life, a robust healthy economy is upheld and provided without causing excessive inflationary pressures. Humans don’t have to die in order to hope they experience some sort of utopia, its all available today ,courtesy of science and technology. Wealth is free, its all around, we just have to change our perceptions. After all , if we don’t progress from our limited cultural assumptions about hard work and all that baloney, what was the point of all this technological advancement if it wasn’t for making life easier and more enjoyable, reducing stress and anxiety . Today ,everyone is non stop, busy chasing their tails from one boom and bust to another, too distracted or ambivalent to realize they’re offering their children a worst world than they found.
LikeLike
Tom, Golfer: Are there free lunches or not?
Of course, in one sense there are not.
But in another, there most certainly are.
The question is, which is the most important sense to edumucate people?
What is the larger, worse delusion, that there are no free lunches, or that there are free lunches?
I think it is crystal clear that the far worse delusion in today’s USA, today’s planet Earth is that “there are no free lunches.” Putting the unemployed to work is a free lunch! Or better said as: forcibly preventing people from working, from working to better their lives and everyone else’s is STARK RAVING MAD. Moving from organizing, directing economies insanely (post 1970s USA, say) to sanely ( hopefully the post mid-2010s USA, an improved version of the 1933-1970s “Keynesian” / New Deal USA) is a titanic free lunch, provided only by redirecting / not systematically destroying already existing resources.
What modern monetary economies systematically do is SMASH the lunch they have already made. The fruit of the labors of the ready, willing and able who are prevented from working. One sees full employment EVERYWHERE in nature – EXCEPT in modern monetary = extremely stupid economies. To practically all intents and purposes, not-smashing, not-destroying is the same as creating.
People who say “There are no free lunches” implicitly contradict themselves. For why would they say this if they didn’t think that people foolishly think there are? And that this pearl of wisdom, TANSTAAFL, was then, uhh, a “free lunch”?
In the real world, not-doing-things-stupidly always deserves to be called “a free lunch”. WIth the infinitude of human stupidity – do you really deny it? – there are always free lunches to be found!
LikeLike
Free lunches are everywhere. We have a free heartbeat, free digestion, free air intake, free enzyme and hormone production, free temperature regulation, sunlight, gravity. Monetary sovereignty is simply the financial realization of what nature already has established.
LikeLike
Not nearly enough for the public to understand the need for deficits. Fiat money is an immensely powerful reality. Therefore it easily corrupts the holder of it. A government can spend on stupid and unproductive things (tbtf bank bailouts, bloated military budgets, fantasy empire building, and all manner of crony capitalism). The US government has been suborned and hijacked by Wall St. corporate interests; it is a global phenomenon and amounts almost to a global criminalization of gov’t. Economics is dependent on politics, which is dependent on philosophy, on weltanschauung, which is co-dependent on moral sanity, adequate principles and values, and on a certain unanimity or homogenous community of alert and empowered citizenry. Our citizenry is brainwashed and totally fragmented; you can’t get two Americans to agree on anything. This is touted as “intellectual freedom.”
LikeLike
” . . . government can spend on stupid and unproductive things . . . bloated military budgets . . .”
This refers to what I have called the “first use” myth (https://mythfighter.com/2010/09/11/the-recovery-debate-ignorance-or-politics-or-both/), the implied belief that money stops after its first use.
But the money spent for “bloated military budgets,” goes to companies that produce for the military, and to the employees of those companies, who spend the money on goods and services, stimulating the economy.
Money spent domestically has obvious economic benefits, but even dollars spend overseas create wealthier customers, thereby increasing net exports, which adds to the money supply.
Bottom line: It is difficult for the federal government to create and spend dollars that ultimately do not benefit the economy, though some may argue the “first use” seemed wasteful.
Perhaps, creating a virus that destroys humanity would be a counter-example.
LikeLike
Money certainly doesn’t stop after it’s first use, but the human capital wasted in building, for example, a bridge to nowhere will never be recovered. There truly is an opportunity cost which is real. Not to mention that there exists in (most) human hearts a need for “work that is real.” Google “To Be Of Use” by the poet Marge Piercy…
LikeLike
If that human capital would otherwise be idle, then the bridge to nowhere is no more wasteful than doing nothing, in terms of human capital.
But since there would be material resources used up for the bridge, that could have been saved for future beneficial uses, it would be better to simply give away the money, or not tax it.
LikeLike
Re: “It is difficult for the federal government to create and spend dollars that ultimately do not benefit the economy, though some may argue the “first use” seemed wasteful.”
Benefiting the economy is not necessarily–to say the least–a benefit to the citizenry. In that case our “first use” national security state and imperial military and increaingly militarily outfitted domestic police forces constitute great benefits pure and simple.
There is no human economics without reference to first principles and values.
LikeLike
Your are correct. Some federal spending hurts some citizens.
On balance, however federal spending benefits citizens by adding dollars to the economy. Even those “militarily outfitted domestic police” spend money to support their families.
They buy groceries, clothes, schooling, medicines, cars, vacations, etc., and that money goes to other families who do the same, and on and on and on.
That was the whole point of the blog post.
I’ll give you the privilege of deciding which parts of federal spending you personally consider to have more negatives than positives, taking into consideration the money trail through the economy.
LikeLike
Rodger, military bloat is “stupid” in the sense that merely “stimulating” the economy is not an absolute good, but is damaging in all kind of ways–isn’t it obvious?. What gov’t spends on matters in ways that transcend the importance of the merely economical. Economics cannot really be divorced rom its total context–cultural, moral, political, and even philosophical.
LikeLike
Spending for the military always is economically stimulative. But the result depends on what you consider “bloat.”
LikeLike
Well, I think you did an end run around the point. The point is cultural effects of our very bloated international militarism and our increasingly militarized domestic police force. We are a spiritually and morally dying country, precisely in large part owing to our shallow and aggressive economic view of human nature.
LikeLike
It wasn’t an “end run,” if you mean I didn’t approve of, or debate, your comment.
I agree that “economics cannot really be divorced from its total context–cultural, moral, political, and even philosophical.”
It’s just that I know of no one who can quantify, decry or defend “the cultural effects,” “bloated,” “spiritually and morally dying,” or “shallow and aggressive economic view.”
Please point me to direct cause and effect evidence to show that on balance, the U.S. military is a negative for the world.
Do you have anything other than, in essence, “I don’t like the way the world is, and it’s all the fault of the U.S. military”?
If not, then it’s just coffee shop complaining.
LikeLike
“I don’t like the way the world is, and it’s all the fault of the U.S. military”…ust coffee shop complaining.
You can’t quatify what can’t be quantified, Rodger. That’s what values and discernment are for. We are not computers.
Ay, ay, ay!
LikeLike
If there is no data, it’s just your intuition. Please explain why your intuition is better than data..
LikeLike
I am not from the USA and look on with amusement – so you think you can print money to get out of trouble. The only reason you get away with it is because we use your currency to trade. That might end and it might be sudden if the confidence trick stops working or if someone gets a bigger technological lead sufficient to neutralise your armed forces.
LikeLike
I just love it how people believe wealth is a good thing! And just Americans being wealthy at that!
Has anyone ever considered that the desire for wealth through private ownership is the very cause of the ills of this world? While we berate the rich and the government puppets who feed of their scraps, we all desire to be just like them…lol…shame on you.
The government are perfect law-keepers, and so while no one bothers to study law, and yet study economics, they miss half the picture…you cant desire the same thing as the rich and then not play by their rules. Property ‘ownership’ is a by-product of ‘rich’ mentality based on fear of insecurity.
Ask yourself why anyone lends anything to begin with? Why do they feel the need to own more than they need and then lend it to the very people who they have extracted it from through their superior competitive and sales skills.
There is no such thing as earning a living through hard work and I’m sick of people peddling this stupid exchange economics theory of life. I can dig 100 holes in the ground, which is in itself hard work, but unless I can convince some knucklehead that he has a need for these 100 holes and that he should pay me money for them, then it becomes obvious earning money has nothing to do with hard work and everything to do with convincing others they need to buy your product! Earning a living is all about competition and skills as a salesman, not as an honest hard worker.
Further, every person who claims to be religious, and then proceeds to ‘sell’ his labours or product to his fellow man is breaching his religion – and that goes for all religions. How can you on one hand declare to follow your faith and serve your fellow man and then on the other hand proceed to sell to him that which you have openly declared is his already?
All I see are people wanting more for less and complain because those who do have more than them are inflicting rules upon them preventing them from reaching the same heights! Stop desiring to be like the insecure of this world! Don’t compete with the competitors and you wont have to play by their rules. Start asking questions outside of economics – such as, how can I live without having to compete? If you aren’t willing to ask this question, you’ll always be competing…and so good luck to you
LikeLike
Where or how does government get the authority to be Monetarily Sovereign? In the United States of America, the government is suppose to get its authority from the will of the people. So if the people gave government the authority to create money, then they must possess that power in order to pass it on to government. People do not give up their power, their rights, when they pass them along to government, they always retain the right to rescind the powers they give government.
I think that when someone works a resource into a product, then it is their work which transformed the resource into a product, and that the value of that product should be tied into how much work went into creating it, that is, how many calories were consumed making the product and bringing it to market. That it is this work that creates value, and therefore money.
LikeLike
The founders wrote the laws that created a sovereign nation with the power to create a sovereign currency. Money creation is enabled by laws.
The value of a product depends on Supply and Demand, not on work. A painting by Picasso may not require any more work than a painting by Logan Quinn, but its value would be much greater.
LikeLike
The power to issue money is in the Constitution, Article I Section 8. That power belongs to the Congress. The People have agreed to the Constitution.
Value is subjective. Not everyone will agree on the value of something. That is why we trade with each other.
Work creates wealth, the physical things that we have. The wealth is concrete. One house. One car. The value of things is always subject to change or to a different opinion.
LikeLike