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,
and the motive is the gap.

I ran across an article that indicates investors are not of the human species, or any other living species. The article appropriately is titled:

A climate fix would ruin investors.

Burning fossil fuels creates CO2 and other pollutants. Science tells us these pollutants add to global warming and to illnesses, both of which will negatively effect human life.

But, as the headline indicates, fixing these problems would “ruin investors.” Therefore, not fixing these problems would benefit investors, so investors must not be of the human species. Q.E.D.

The article goes on to say:

Opinion: humanity is making risky climate bets and ExxonMobil may be proved right

ExxonMobil says it does not envisage a low-carbon scenario of the kind many climate researchers advocate. The company believes the costs this would entail, and “the damaging impact to accessible, reliable and affordable energy resulting from the policy changes . . . are beyond those that societies, especially the world’s poorest and most vulnerable, would be willing to bear”.

The article speculates about how much fossil fuel exists and how much will be burned, and what this means to investors. It’s a relatively dispassionate discussion about the speed at which humans will commit suicide, and how this will affect investment. You should read it.

The energy companies seem to have given up on their previous propaganda, that pollution is not suicidal, but rather now focus on how much it will cost not to commit suicide. They are betting that most nations’ leaders and their citizens will opt for species self-destruction, rather than suffering short-term economic cost.

The article warns investors that betting on the reduction in exploration for, and burning of, fossil fuels, may result in monetary losses. If you are an investor, and you predict that we people will stop killing ourselves, you may lose money.

As H.L. Mencken said, “No one in this world, so far as I know — and I have searched the records for years, and employed agents to help me — has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people.

The explanation ExxonMobil gives for its optimism about demand for fossil fuels is the rising world demand for energy and the inertia in the global energy system.

Translation: We at ExxonMobil know it’s killing the human species (along with many other species), but we also know you’re addicted to fossil fuels — sort of like heroin and cigarettes — so you’ll just keep on shooting and puffing. And we’ll keep on supplying.

Governments have committed themselves to a view of the risks of climate change. That view implies a rapid revolution in the energy mix and correspondingly rapid reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases.

But major energy producers do not believe governments will do what they promise. They envisage a very different and quite unrevolutionary energy future in which the reserves they now possess and those they plan to develop will all be burnt.

Translation: Governments won’t do as they promise very simply because we, in the energy business, pay them not to do as they promise.

Coal mining companies, for instance, have made sure the West Virginia population believes that reductions in coal use would create an economic disaster, costing workers’ their jobs and their ability to survive.

Never mind that coal burning will kill these workers, their children and grandchildren, along with everyone else in the world. They simply cannot envision a world without coal, because the coal producers speak so loudly against alternatives.

Obama’s New Emission Rules: Will They Survive Challenges?

The Obama Administration’s recent announcement that it plans to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from existing coal-fired power plants evoked cries of protest and warnings of economic doom from the political right, and praise from the center and the left.

Two things could completely derail the rules. First, if a Republican president is elected in 2016, he or she could halt their implementation. Second, the courts could strike them down.

Now, the real legal and political battles begin. The EPA will issue its final guidelines by June 2015. The states will have until June 2016 to file their plans to meet the guidelines, with possible two-year extensions.

President Obama will leave office in January 2017, so most of this process is likely to play out under his successor. If that’s a Democrat, the process will probably continue. But a Republican president who adheres to the current party position may well stop the program.

Translation: Republicans, their children and grandchildren, are not part of the human species — or any living species — so will not be affected by fossil-burning pollution.

Sadly, those who are not Republicans may be forced to participate in a suicide pact. But why worry? It probably won’t affect us adults too much. As for our grandchildren — well, we’ll be gone by then, so really, who cares?

I almost hate to mention it, but there are alternatives: The U.S. government (for instance) could:

–Spend billions on sequestering the pollution caused by burning fossil fuels, and
–Spend more billions on developing alternatives to fossil fuels — wind, solar, nuclear, completely new ideas, and
–Spend even more on billions on protecting the people whose jobs disappear along with fossil fuels, and
–Being Monetarily Sovereign, the federal government could do it without collecting one additional dollar in taxes.

Further, these additional billions would stimulate the entire economy, making us and our children and grandchildren healthier, both physically and financially.

Why is this so hard to imagine? Investors? Republicans? Humans?


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. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99% (Click here)
9. Federal ownership of all banks (Click here)

10. Tax the very rich (.1%) more, with much higher, progressive tax rates on all forms of income. (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

Vertical gray bars mark recessions.

As the federal deficit growth lines drop, we approach recession, which will be cured only when the lines rise. Federal deficit growth is absolutely, positively necessary for economic growth. Period.