Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

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 ultimately 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.


The August 2012 issue of Nature Magazine contained an article that partly bears on the subjects of fairness, competition and why we despise the poor. Here are a few excerpts:

Human responses to unfairness with primary rewards and their biological limits
Nicholas D. Wright, Karen Hodgson, Stephen M. Fleming, Mkael Symmonds, Marc Guitart-Masip & Raymond J. Dolan

In humans fairness has been studied extensively using games played for money. In the Ultimatum Game (UG) one player (the Proposer) is given an endowment (e.g. £10) and proposes a division (e.g. keep £6/offer £4) to a second player (the Responder), who then accepts (both get the proposed split) or rejects (both get nothing) the offer.

Conclusion: In the UG, humans typically reject low, “unfair” offers — even at a cost to themselves. Offers below 20% are rejected about half the time.

I believe the conclusion is flawed, because it generalizes without considering specific examples. Imagine the following examples:

1. You stand in line at a restaurant. Fifteen people are ahead of you and the maitre de has told you you’ll be seated in half an hour. A stranger butts into the line ahead of you. You’re angry. Perhaps an argument ensues. Possibly even a fight. Why?

2. You stand in that same line. A stranger butts into the line behind you. Are you angry? Probably not. Why not?

3. You stand in that same line. A dear friend comes up to you, and you gladly let him precede you, while the people behind you are irate. You aren’t angry at the friend, but may be angry at the people behind you, who are angry. Why?

4. You stand in that same line. A politician walks to the front and immediately is seated. Are you angry? Why?

The list can go on and on, with circumstances altering how you feel. Why the differences? Fairness? Perhaps, yet the butt-in was as unfair behind you as ahead of you.

Competition? Perhaps. The butt-in allowed someone to get ahead of you — to “beat” you. Yet, that “beating” cost you only two minutes — not enough to cause any strong sense of emotion you may feel. And you actually invited a butt-in by a friend.

So, what is going on here?

Recently, I had a long conversation with a dear friend. For many years, she has worked in human resources departments of major corporations. She feels that the many forms of federal financial support for the poor lead to sloth.

She said that based on her experience, a large (but unknown) percentage of the people who get fired actually want to be fired, so they can get poverty benefits without having to work.

In her view, a great many people are malingerers, who readily take unfair advantage of the system. She is angry at those people. She feels that if the social safety nets were removed, or at least reduced, more people would be willing to work — even at unpleasant jobs and for low wages.

My dear friend is a decent human being, who unfortunately has bought into the myth perpetrated by the rich, that in essence, the bad traits of poor people cause their misfortune.

Why does she feel that way, and how did the rich manage to brainwash the middle- and lower-income groups into hatred, which even includes self-hatred?

In above examples #1, #2 and #3, the key is stranger vs. friend and in front of you vs. behind you. We are social, tribal animals.

Evolution has programmed us to fight an outsider who beats us in any competition, but to support members of the tribe, and especially support those closest to us — family members, for instance.

Example #4 gives an example of a leader receiving preferential treatment. As a tribal animal, we are programmed to follow leaders, but we still may be angered, depending on how we feel about the leader’s importance, or about the leader as a person.

A Chicagoan may be far more angry at an alderman jumping the line than at the President of the United States receiving preferential treatment.

Putting everything together, this is my conclusion: The rich have bribed the politicians and the media, to dehumanize, and make us despise, the poor.

Consider the lead stories on last night’s 10 o’clock news: Crime and murder, especially in poorer neighborhoods. Night after night after night.

We have been brainwashed by incessant news stories of lawlessnes by poor people, to accept the notion that poor people inherently are evil. Even poor people feel that way about other poor people.

Idaho Statesman
Does Idaho welfare really keep adults from working?
By Audrey Dutton

The Cato Institute argued that six of Idaho’s welfare programs, including federal programs the state administers, are keeping Idahoans out of the workforce.

The libertarian think tank placed a value of more than $17,000 on welfare benefits for a single mother with two children. Cato put that on par with a job that pays about $11,000, supplemented by tax credits.

The organization — an opponent of taxpayer-funded welfare — said Idaho and federal lawmakers should cut benefits or better enforce work requirements.

The Cato Institute did not answer questions from the Statesman about whether its analysis considered welfare recipients’ ability to work.

We won’t discuss the merits of an $11,000 job (one step above slavery), nor will we respond to glib comments that a lousy job is better than no job at all. (It isn’t.)

The Cato Institute is paid by the rich to draw an ugly picture of impoverished people, a picture that through relentless repetition, has become “truth.”

Being evil, poor people are ascribed with all manner of bad traits. In addition to being criminals, they are thought to be immoral, lazy, cheating, lying, stupid (though crafty), filthy and satisfied to live in poverty, so long as work is not required.

Whatever bad happens to poor persons is thought to be a well-deserved result of their own actions or inactions. And worse, doing something beneficial for poor people is felt to perpetuate their nefarious actions.

So, when the right-wing incessantly talks about “small governement” (their euphemism for cutting food stamps, Aid to Dependent Children, free school meals, housing assistance and above all, free medical care, aka Obamacare and even retirement, i.e. Social Security), the middle- and lower-income groups nod dumbly in assent.

America has been brainwashed into despising the poor, and we are all-too-ready to cut any benefits to those worthless non-humans, especially since, as the Cato institute wrongly claims, these benefits are funded by us taxpayers.

And that is the other part of the story — the competition part. Not only do we need someone to live below us (so we can win the competition), but we resent a stranger surviving by using our assets.

The false belief that federal benefits are paid for by federal taxes, has been fostered by the rich, who own the media and who bribe the politicians. (Note to all: Federal taxes do not pay for federal spending.)

And why do the rich do this? You know the answer: To widen the gap between the rich and the rest. It is the fundamental, all-consuming motivation of the rich. It is why a billionaire might keep working.

In summary, we are being, and have been, brainwashed to despise the poor. This belief gives us permission to accept social benefits being cut. And then, it is but a small step toward believing our own benefits should be cut.

The rich have convinced us to be complicit in our own misfortune.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

Nine Steps to Prosperity:
1. Eliminate FICA (Click here)
2. Medicare — parts A, B & D plus long term nursing care — for everyone (Click here)
3. Send every American citizen an annual check for $5,000 or give every state $5,000 per capita (Click here)
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. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99% (Click here)
9. Federal ownership of all banks (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

Monetary Sovereignty Monetary Sovereignty

As the lines drop, we approach recession, which will be cured only when the lines rise.