Bribed politicians? Of course. Bribed media? Sure. But bribed university economists??

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.


Readers of this blog have read these three truths:

1. The super rich care more about the income/wealth gap between them and the rest of us, than they do about their absolute income. It is the gap that makes them rich. Without the gap, no one would be rich, and the greater the gap, the richer they are.

2. To widen the gap, the rich bribe the politicians (via campaign contributions and promises of lucrative employment later), the media (via media ownership) and the university economists (via contributions to the university and direct payment to professors for economic research).

3. Deficit reduction, aka “austerity,” has a far greater negative impact on the middle- and lower-income American than it does on the rich. The vast majority of federal spending benefits the “99%,” so spending cuts widen the gap. Repeated efforts to “broaden the tax base” (i.e. make the poor pay more) and increased FICA, also widen the gap, which is why the rich bribe the politicians, the media and the university economists to brainwash Americans into believing the deficit and debt are too large (The Big Lie).

We expect politicians to be bribed. They have made it legal, and the Supreme Court has actively encouraged bribery (via the Citizens United decision) and is expected to reinforce its encouragement of bribery (via McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission).

We know the media are owned by the rich, and media writers, more now than ever, respond to their bosses’ desires. (Hello, FOX News) To keep their jobs and receive promotions, they tell Americans the same Big Lie.

But what of the university economists? Surely the world of academia, the world of honest economic research, has far more integrity than do politicians and the media. Right?

Tampa Bay Times
Billionaire’s role in hiring decisions at Florida State University raises questions.
Kris Hundley, Kris Hundley, Times Staff Writer

A conservative billionaire who opposes government meddling in business has bought a rare commodity: the right to interfere in faculty hiring at a publicly funded university.

A foundation bankrolled by Libertarian businessman Charles G. Koch has pledged $1.5 million for positions in Florida State University’s economics department. In return, his representatives get to screen and sign off on any hires for a new program promoting “political economy and free enterprise.”

For a lousy $1.5 million, chump change to a guy like Koch, Florida State University sold its soul.

An advisory committee appointed by Koch decides which candidates should be considered. The foundation can also withdraw its funding if it’s not happy with the faculty’s choice or if the hires don’t meet “objectives” set by Koch during annual evaluations.

During the first round of hiring in 2009, Koch rejected nearly 60 percent of the faculty’s suggestions but ultimately agreed on two candidates.

Apparently, the faculty at FSU is so stupid, 60% of their hiring recommendations were not qualified, and had to be rejected by that noted academic, Charles G. Koch.

David W. Rasmussen, dean of the College of Social Sciences, defended the deal, saying hiring the two new assistant professors allows him to offer eight additional courses a year. “I’m sure some faculty will say this is not exactly consistent with their view of academic freedom, but it seems to me it would have been irresponsible not to do it.”

Not “exactly” academic freedom? Not “exactly”? That’s like saying Bernie Madoff was not “exactly” honest. Dean Rasmussen seems to feel that money is more important than academic honesty. How did this guy make Dean?

The foundation partnering with FSU is one of several non-profits funded by Charles Koch and his brother David. The aim: To advance their belief, through think tanks, political organizations and academia, that government taxes and regulations impinge on prosperity.

Bruce Benson, chairman of FSU’s economics department, said “The Kochs find, as I do, that a lot of regulation is actually detrimental and they’re convinced markets work relatively well when left alone.”

Yes, of course regulations are detrimental to crooks, charletans and especially to the rich crooks who caused the Great Recession. Regulations that protect the 99% are especially inconvenient, aren’t they Chairman Benson?

What a wonderful economics department he runs. What a sad disgrace.

Charles Koch cofounded the Cato Institute. David started the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, which has worked closely with the tea party movement. George Mason University has received more than $30 million from Koch over the past 20 years. At George Mason, Koch’s foundation has underwritten the Mercatus Center

In addition to FSU, Koch has made similar arrangements at Clemson University in South Carolina and West Virginia University.

The above tells you all you need to know about Cato, Americans for Prosperity, Mercatus Center and the tea party. And I truly pity the parents of students at FSU, Clemson University, George Mason University and West Virginia University, who spend good money to have propaganda pumped into their children’s malleable brains.

With the Big Lie coming from all sides — from the bribed politicians, the bribed media and even the bribed university economists — who can blame the people for believing total nonsense?

And how is this for irony?

Said Rasmussen, “I have no objections to people who want to help us fund excellence at our university. I’m happy to do it.”

Academic integrity? Who needs it? There’s money to be made.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

Nine 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. 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 federal deficit growth lines drop, we approach recession, which will be cured only when the lines rise.


10 thoughts on “Bribed politicians? Of course. Bribed media? Sure. But bribed university economists??

  1. Rodger, as a retired college professor, you’ve hit a nerve and gave me a shot of adrenaline. Nothing infuriates me more than economic “tampering” with education. Raising the banner is important, but what else can be done? How can this be resisted? What can be done? Petitions directed to FSU? More publicity about the issues? Give me a solution, or let’s focus on what action to take.


  2. I’m sure even Benson himself knows he’s a dick, judging from this excerpt from his own academic tripe:



    Bruce L. Benson
    DeVoe Moore Distinguished Research Professor
    Department of Economics
    Florida State University

    ‘… moral behavior depends at least partly on the institutional setting of the relevant behavioral interaction. That is, individuals “rationalize” their own “selfish” behavior, given the “circumstances of time and place,” so in their own minds they are “telling the truth”, not subject to “blame”, “meritorious”, and perhaps even morally superior (“the chosen people”)…The fact is that when sufficient bargaining power is accumulated to make rent seeking an option,individuals will tend to simultaneously pursue both economic and political means of wealth enhancement, but individuals probably rationalize their actions in both political and economic arenas as moral. Thus, they are
    adopting different moral norms for different types of interactions. If not, they are choosing to selectively violate the moral norms of cooperation because they are simultaneously pursuing wealth through economic and political means, and the psychological costs of such “immoral” behavior would appear to be very high. ‘

    Click to access MORAL.pdf

    Benson is no longer Department Chair of Economics @ FSU, but remains on the faculty.

    He’s also hoping to publish this masterwork of apparent libertarian nonsense real soon:

    “.Property Wrongs: The Law and Economics of Eminent Domain and Regulatory Takings,” Bruce L. Benson, editor


  3. “…Charles G. Koch has pledged $1.5 million for positions in Florida State University’s economics department. In return, his representatives get to screen and sign off on any hires..”

    What’s interesting is FSU wouldn’t have to sell their souls in a monetary sovereign world. The government could simply put up the x millions and let the econ dept. do their own hiring no strings attached and no more Koch bros. running the show!

    But the good part is the econ dept. would have to acknowledge MS’ existence and restructure the way economics is taught, which they should be very happy to do. Everybody wins, even the Koch bros. who no longer have to waste their time and bribe money. They can save it and go on an extended vacation to the Bahamas or Siberia… and stay there.


  4. [1] Thanks Rodger. This is a perfect example of how the rich determine who gets to be a university professor, only selecting toadies who will work to widen the gap between the rich and the rest.

    What irks me is MMT types. They look at such hand-picked professors (e.g. Reinhart and Rogoff of Harvard) and say that the toadies are simply “misguided,” or simply “made an error.”

    The beauty of this scam is that the hand-picked professors program their students to love their slavery, or even commit suicide. They program their students to value greed and fraud, and to champion austerity, while the victims are loaded with extreme student loan debt.


    [2] The Tampa Bay Times article calls Charles G. Koch a “libertarian businessman.”

    As I see it, libertarians fall into two camps: the rich and the morons. Both camps use the buzzword “liberty” for their own ends.

    For the rich, libertarianism means freedom from all regulation, and from any requirement to consider the not-rich. It means freedom to become a tyrant, and to use government to crush the masses. It means freedom to create a brutal police state with the rich above it, and everyone else beneath it. It means freedom to create monopolies that suck life from the peasants. It means the “free market,” i.e. freedom to rig and manipulate all markets so that they widen the wealth gap. It means lower taxes on the rich, and higher taxes for the peasants. Again, so the wealth gap widens.

    The rich are “good” because they value “freedom” (for themselves at the expense of the not-rich). By favoring “liberty” (for themselves alone) the rich are “patriotic Americans.”

    Then there is the second camp, the average people who call themselves “libertarians” because they oppose the police state. (Although they favor the police state if it attacks something they don’t like.) They oppose over-regulation, coercive conformity, and “big government.”

    What’s wrong with that? Why do I call these people morons? Reason: their rhetoric works directly against their own liberty. When Wall Street criminals demand less regulation, the average libertarian says, “Yes! Less government regulation!”

    In this way he stampedes into slaughterhouses owned by the rich.

    The Tampa Bay Times says Mr. Koch “opposes government meddling in business.” Libertarians like such phrases, not realizing that deregulation can be disastrous if taken too far.

    The average libertarian obsessively looks for examples of “government run wild.” For instance, a recent news story claims that the Swedish government required smoke detectors to be installed in a hotel that was entirely made of ice (i.e. made of water). I don’t know if the story is true, but it’s the kind of rumor that makes average libertarians renew their demands for less regulation. How far should we eliminate regulation? The libertarian never says exactly. He is intentionally vague, so that his claims cannot be dissected and debunked.

    The fact is, if there is too much government regulation, we are stifled, but if there is too little, there can be no society.

    The way I see it, capitalism means rule by a plutocracy, and socialism means rule by a bureaucracy. The former means coercion by the rich, while the latter means coercion by politicians and regulations.

    Therefore I think the best arrangement is a balance of the two. As Rodger has noted in the past, this means that some enterprises are best left private, and some are best kept public. For example, the manufacture and retail sale of consumer goods is best left private, while prisons, banks, armies, and police forces are best left public. Or at least, banks should never be exclusively private. For every privately owned bank, there should be a publicly owned (non-profit) bank, and vice-versa. This would give consumers a choice, which is what “liberty” is all about. Freedom of choice for everyone, plus penalties for choosing to indulge in moral and legal crimes.

    Again, this is what libertarians claim to want, but their rhetoric ends up giving such freedom only to the rich, and without any penalties. By refusing to seek balances, they go to extremes, dismissing any alternative to extreme capitalism as extreme communism.

    Also, note that when average libertarians use the rhetoric of the rich, they become part of the “in” crowd. Only a freak or a terrorist would question “freedom” and “liberty.” Right?

    [3] Steve (above) refers to “libertarian nonsense” (as I do). However it seems to me that the quote from Bruce L. Benson is not advocating moral relativity, but is instead describing the powerful effect of group-think on values, technology, knowledge, and ethics.

    I shall access that link and read the entire document.


  5. Rodger,
    I enjoy your blog.

    You contend that our government has been bribed. I think it’s more likely they simply don’t grasp the concepts of monetary sovereignty. Most of our politicians are former lawyers, and have no background in economics beyond maybe a class or two as an undergrad,

    Monetary sovereignty is not intuitive at all; people are much more likely to latch onto how they run their households and think that’s how Washington should run.

    I doubt that Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, our two biggest deficit cutting Presidents of late, have been bought. I just think they don’t get it.

    Plus, they are politicians; they are more interested in what will sell in the next election cycle than they are what works. The American people know they have to pay their bills at home; they just apply that to Washington, and the politicians pander to that.


    1. DavidS,

      You may be right.

      However, there are more than 500 members of Congress plus the President and all of his advisers, plus the Counsel of Economic Advisers — and not one of these people understands how federal finances work??

      Hard to believe.

      I suspect it is far more likely that many of those people do understand, but know what’s expected.

      Bill Clinton is a perfect example of a politician who has been taken care of by the rich, and so, has become rich himself.


    2. Are you kidding me? Pull your damned head out of the sand. Your comments rate among the most moronic I’ve witnessed within the comments section of this blog. Thank god for climate change, nuclear waste and those who believe infinite growth and wasteful western culture can continue unimpeded on a finite planet.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s