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.
===================================================================================
It occurs to me that I may not have not taken seriously enough, the attitudes of the right-wing, so if you consider yourself to be a conservative, please tell me why.
Please complete this sentence: I lean toward the conservative agenda because:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
[List as many reasons as you wish, in the “Reply” section, below.]
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)
The Ten Steps will add dollars to the economy, stimulate the economy, and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and the rest.
——————————————————————————————————————————————
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
@RMM: Look! Thank God this rating agency affirmed the US federal government triple-A credit rating:
http://www.foxbusiness.com/economy-policy/2014/09/19/fitch-affirms-triple-rating-for-us/
God help us if the federal government were to default, go broke and run out of dollars!
They removed the government in March from their negative watch list – that was close! I sleep better at night knowing that these financial geniuses are monitoring 24/7 the full faith and credit of the US government.
LikeLike
Right. An organization with zero credibility evaluates the credit of the organization having the best credit in the world.
And they are paid to do it! Madoff was a piker.
LikeLike
Do they have a choice?
Of did you already forget what happened to S&P for even trying to do their job.
When a corporation is in the financial business and their job is to push junk, it’s pretty hard to tell the truth at any point. Truth is the rating of the US and just about every other nation in the world should be equal to junk.
I bet that by the time these rating agencies start downgrading – we will be deep in the crapper.
LikeLike
who do you think is more likely to pay you back?
IBM
Chicago
Bill Gates
Or the institution that invented and has the monopoly on creating the thing that you will be paid back with aka the Govt?
LikeLike
Sure Auburn, counterfeiting is a good thing for all of us. The government can always pay me by creating more money that will devalue all of our money.
And I’m sure the government will never use that money to buy a lot more arms than they already have to eliminate anyone daring to question their ways.
One day you will regret that line of thinking.
LikeLike
“The government can always pay me by creating more money that will devalue all of our money”.
You still believe the formula is: Supply = Value ?? Yikes.
For endisnear, this will be a waste of my effort, but for those who actually value facts, please read: The economics of chaos. What we know for sure. The value of money (inflation) formula
LikeLike
For those blog readers that may be a little dense, I was being facetious/sarcastic.
LikeLike
From someone who preferred to be anonymous:
LikeLike
Another website built by the private sector 130 million.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/oracle-oregon-obamacare-exchange-lawsuit
Such a deal.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t phrase it that way. First, I’m not sure which “conservative” agenda anyone might have in mind. Second, neither conservatives nor progressives are today advancing an economic policy that I could support, and I assume you’re talking economic policy agenda? Finally, the agenda I lean toward more than any conservative one would be the Libertarian one, although not the anarchist wing of Libertarians.
But I think my philosophical beliefs are more in tune with those of the conservative movement, broadly defined, than the current Progressive movement. (When first articulated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the US, the label for such beliefs was “Liberal”. The definition of “Liberal” has changed 180 degrees since then.)
1. People have free will. Therefore, they are responsible for the choices they make, and the results of those choices.
2. Whatever rights you claim for yourself, you must respect in others.
3. Society, through government, defines various “civil” rights that apply equally to all its members.
4. Society has the right, and government the responsibility, to curtail actions that deny civil or inalienable human rights to its members.
Specifically economic, and specifically as it applies to the current US version of a free economy,
5. Government, as sponsor of the currency and the economic system, has the responsibility to alleviate any negative unintended consequences of that system.
That’s the critical part that neither side recognizes, but when presented in the proper context I think it would appeal to Libertarians and Conservatives.
LikeLike
Progressivism/liberalism is about all of those things, 1-5. We just put more emphasis on #5, while it seems that conservatives totally ignore it (generally). I’m surprised you listed it, in fact, but your impression of the meaning of ‘liberal’ being opposite from these points is dead wrong.
LikeLike
So, are you calling me a Liberal? Them’s fightin’ words.
I may have had these examples in mind subconsciously when I wrote that, but here are a few hot debates, either recent or perennial, in which Liberals and Conservatives unanimously took opposite sides of my 5 principles.
1. Hobby Lobby. The issue that the Court didn’t get to is when a couple decide to have sex without conceiving a child, who is responsible for implementing one of the 18 pharmaceutical strategies (not to mention 3 or 4 cost-free ones) for that purpose. Conservatives put the responsibility on the couple, Liberals put it on her employer (why not his also?) and/or the government.
2. Abortion clinic protests. Liberals claim the right to protest anywhere and everywhere, but would deny that right to those who disagree with them.
3. College admissions in (I think it was) Michigan. The State set up a system of “points” to try to ensure that the limited class seats in State universities were allotted on a fair basis to those who applied. There were something like 10-20 points for various categories of academic achievement, like grades or SAT scores, points for student council and glee club and all manner of other things; and something like 100 points for students from poor neighborhoods with substandard public schools, and a similar large number of points for being black. So black kids from rich neighborhoods with top-notch school systems were getting extra points based on race alone. Liberals supported the system, Conservatives sued for the elimination of racial preferences. (The Conservative solution would be to give the poor kids access to good schools, rather than access to a college for which they were unprepared, at the expense of a more academically worthy applicant.)
3.2 Immigration. Liberals want to allow those who have broken the law by coming to the US illegally an advantage over those who have followed the law and have been waiting, and would have to continue waiting, in their home countries for legal immigration. Conservatives would allow amnesty (forgiveness for past violations, but not future ones) but would also require the cheaters to go to the end of the line.
4. I just heard a short news item on the radio, yesterday I think. A man murdered his grandchildren and their mother. He had just been released from prison, where he had served a 10-year sentence for murdering his son. Murder used to be a uniformly capital offense, with a sentence of either death or life without parole. It is Liberal activists who have lowered sentences across the board, despite Conservative opposition.
Re empathy, one rationale for shorter sentences is empathy for the unfortunate prisoners and the conditions under which they live. Conservatives believe this empathy is misplaced, and they have empathy for the future victims of the miscreants, but not for the criminals.
The popular topic today is domestic violence. The gut reaction of Conservatives is something along the lines of “an eye for an eye”, even though they know it is politically impossible. Liberals send the perpetrators to anger management class, and let them loose to do it again and again.
Likewise for the off-and-on hot topic of rape in the military. When I was young, Texas had the death penalty for rape. Liberals have changed that sort of thing.
5 is strictly an MMT thing, based on the fact that unemployment is caused directly by government policy. As Mosler says, unemployment is the evidence that taxes are too high for the size government we have. There is nothing Liberal or Conservative about that, it is strictly economics. Liberals and Conservatives alike decry the size of the deficit, which is too small but they think it is too large. The only difference is in their preferences for ways to shrink it.
And not that it was their intention or their rhetoric, but when the President is Republican, regardless of which party controls the Congress, we seem to have more appropriate budget deficits than when the President is a Democrat. Reagan and W increased deficits when they needed to be increased, and Clinton and Obama decreased deficits when they needed to be increased. Based on that, it would seem that even on #5 it is Conservatives who would uphold my principles, and Liberals who would oppose them. But I think that aspect is misleading, and neither, as a group, has the slightest understanding of the economics.
LikeLike
Oh, and I forgot to mention 9/11. Conservatives believe, as I do, that the 19 skyjackers and their Al Qaeda leaders are responsible for their acts. It was an exercise of their free will. Some Liberals maintain that the US Government is responsible, that somehow these 19 could not have avoided doing what they did that day, US policy forced it on them.
And guns. Conservatives believe that when someone shoots someone because he doesn’t like her, or to take something that she has and he wants, it is the person, not the gun, who is responsible for pulling the trigger. Liberals say that if there were no guns, there would be no shootings, as if the gun and not the criminal was responsible for the crime. (And never mind that that genie is out of the bottle: the outlaws who would use guns to deprive others of their rights are still going to have them, even if the law-abiding would not.)
LikeLike
“Liberals say that if there were no guns, there would be no shootings, “
Uh, hate to break it to you, but yes, if there were no guns there would be no shootings.
Or is this, like the denial of evolution, a conservative denial of scientific fact?
LikeLike
Golferjohn, you say: #2. Liberals claim the right to protest everywhere but would deny that right to abortion protesters. As a citizen, I claim the right to petition the Government (protest) any time. Abortion clinics are private property, different rules apply.
Also, I don’t think your comment that liberals and conservatives “universally” took sides on these questions would stand up under scrutiny.
LikeLike
I like the way you think and I’m in the same camp.
Not sure we are in the same line of thinking, but I am also part of a small tiny group that does not align with either liberal or conservatives. Growing up as a liberal and coming from a liberal family, I am currently in the opposite camp. I did a 180 degree turn after we hit the 2008 recession – exactly due to the actions that our “representative” government took. Instead of conservative, I would prefer to be called libertarian – not to be confused with the tea party (which is the same BS as the GOP).
I agree with your points above, 1 through 5. In my opinion, however, it is impossible to find the actual source of economic imbalances – and this was done by design.
The majority of people do not understand money at all. The majority has no clue as to what impact monetary policy has on their day to day survival and future. And quite honestly, with all the debt people are carrying around – they don’t have time to figure it out either.
The system is the way it is because as a population, we asked for it. We ask for services from the government – a lot of services. Starting in 1913 with the implementation of the Federal Reserve, the government found the way to do it. Politicians can make their constituents happy by spending on programs that benefit them and they remain in power.
Our president is a liberal and so is our senate. Those calling themselves conservatives are basically RHINOS, only in name.
I see comments stating that Obama is not a liberal – those do not understand politics. When you are in a role like that, you will do what is best for your party. Immigration reform? Have you not seen the polls? People do not want immigration reform – if any democrat attempts it – they will get voted out in the mid term elections. Period… It’s not about what they want or don’t want and whether they are liberal or not. They want to stay in power first and then do what their constituents want. It’s common sense.
The GOP and Tea Party are one and the same.and these folks are not “conservatives”. They are only call themselves conservatives – and their followers are not conservatives either. Sure, a lot of them want welfare cut to zero, but spending on pork belly to go up.
Here is the deal – neither conservatives nor liberals want the spending to stop. It is evident in the movie we keep seeing about the “government shutdown”. They go into a “fight”, the republicans huff and puff, Boehner cries a few times, and then they disappear. I can tell you what the outcome of the next government shutdown will be – they will again extend the limit.
So there you have it, our issues are issues because we want something from our constituents for “free”. Our government obliges and increases spending which by common sense and 2nd grade math devalues existing money (Rodger, you actually proof this on your previous post), which makes the middle class poorer. The poor receive the benefit taken from the middle class and the rich get more clients (the poor).
It’s all our own damn fault.
LikeLike
Just one thing I wanted to mention. If you are happy with the arrangement, than don’t go around complaining about how bad the situation is.
You want to help the poor? Well, the government is doing it for you. Quit bitc**ng and get to work.
LikeLike
“I see comments stating that Obama is not a liberal – those do not understand politics.” After six years of Obama, income inequality continues to widen. The S&P 500 has grown from 700 to 2,000 under Obama. So this implies that if Obama were conservative, the S&P 500 would be about 3,000, and 1% of the people would have virtually all of the income.
LikeLike
Maybe not that extreme, but getting there. See: http://www.cnbc.com/id/101025377
LikeLike
What a bunch of hypocritical junk
1) progressives value personal responsibility, however free will is not some fundamental truth. Nature is just as powerful as nurture. Which is why empathy (not a conservative value) is so important.
2, 3, 4) conservatives are all about discriminating against people. Its laughable that someone could think these are conservative philosophies.
LikeLike
If it’s nature, then it’s not free will, and empathy is appropriate. I don’t know what nurture has to do with it, except to instill a belief in either free will or destiny. Even so, each individual has the option of rejecting the nurture and taking the other path, and it happens often, which sort of reinforces the free will side of it. Predetermination is characteristic of Eastern philosophy, which says that even though you think you are choosing, fate forced you to choose that way. Quantum mechanics says nothing is predetermined, it is all the result of choices.
And even nature can often be overcome. Addiction is not well-understood, but is thought to be biological in origin rather than behavioral. Still, there are many who, through the force of their will, can overcome their addictions. AA has had as much success as anyone in helping addicts, using only the determination of the addict to change his behavior.
And even when nature, or other forces beyond our control, cannot be overcome, we are still responsible for our reactions to our own situation. We can be poor, but we still have the choice to try harder to improve our situation, or to just take what we want from those who are weaker than us.
2,3,4 I think you must have misunderstood. See my examples above, but I said those were my philosophy, not Conservative philosophy. I don’t think either Liberals or Conservatives share them as core values, but many Libertarians do, and on those core points (but not very many other details of the Libertarian agenda) the Conservatives would take my side more often than Liberals would.
LikeLike
Conservatives are philosophically against:
empathy
equality
progress
science
freedom for individuals (they are only for “freedom” of corporations to screw you because of the mythical free market)
whats not to love?
LikeLike
Empathy – you have to have empathy for me by paying, of course I don’t care if the government destroys you to show empathy for me. So empathy for you, all empathy for me…
Equality – so long as I’m on the “having less” end, If you have less than me – well, I’ll just pretend that doesn’t exist. And believe me, there are a lot of people out there that have less than you. Much more than the few wealthy people you are so focused on.
Progress – If progress is having the government force my income out of me, than no – I’m not for progress either.
Science – you mean to tell me all scientists are liberals?
Freedom for individuals – Humpty dumpty? it is what I say it is. Freedom is having the government take from you and give to me. It is not having the freedom to pursue whatever you want. If you want to live under a bridge you should be free to do so, if you want to work hard and save – you should be able to do that too. Of course, that involves being responsible and working – and I’m sure that’s not freedom for you.
What’s not to love? These points are all hypocritical, that’s what..
LikeLike
Empathy: conservatives have empathy for the victims of crime, liberals for the perpetrators. See above.
Equality: conservatives want government to treat everyone equally, liberals demand special treatment for their political constituencies.
(Regarding distribution of income or wealth, Rodger has repeatedly demonstrated that of the 0.1%, both those who call themselves Conservative and those who call themselves Liberal, are equally corrupt and have no real political or philosophical interest except to maintain their own power.)
Progress / science: I wasn’t aware that Liberals were applauding the atomic bomb, nuclear power, and genetically modified foods. I thought they were against all those things. Liberals invoke science only when it suits their purpose (global warming). I don’t see any particular affinity for progress or science in either group. Both applaud “progress” only when it is movement in their preferred direction.
Freedom: They call it “Libertarian” because the core value is individual liberty. The opposite is Totalitarian, and the majority of both liberals and conservatives lean toward the totalitarian end of the freedom spectrum.
LikeLike
“Empathy: conservatives have empathy for the victims of crime, liberals for the perpetrators. See above.”
This is just garbage. I don’t take part in conventional wisdom politics. I rely on data and evidence. There have been many social psychology studies that demonstrate the differences in mentalities, and in every one of them, conservatives score lower on empathy: Just one of many examples.
“Equality: conservatives want government to treat everyone equally, liberals demand special treatment for their political constituencies.”
More garbage. Conservatives have been against equal rights every time.
Women’s suffrage
Civil rights for blacks
Gays
religious minorities
“Regarding distribution of income or wealth, Rodger has repeatedly demonstrated that of the 0.1%, both those who call themselves Conservative and those who call themselves Liberal, are equally corrupt and have no real political or philosophical interest except to maintain their own power.”
Yes, Democrats are corrupt just like Repubs. Every Dem voted for the constitutional amendment to overturn Citizen’s United. Every Con voted against it.
“Progress / science: I wasn’t aware that Liberals were applauding the atomic bomb, nuclear power, and genetically modified foods.”
Are you really trying to make the case that conservatives regard and accept science at the same levels as progressives? If you do, then you are behind all hope of being intellectually honest.
LikeLike
What is Conservatism and what is wrong with it.
by Philip E. Agre.
See:
http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/pagre/conservatism.html
LikeLike
Insights into what Liberals and Conservatives think of each other:
“If you’re 20 and not Liberal, there’s something wrong with your heart. If you’re 40 and not Conservative, there’s something wrong with your brain.”
“Conservatives think Liberals have bad ideas. Liberals think Conservatives are bad people.”
LikeLike
How about this generality:
LikeLike
Rodger, excellent evidence of the truth of the second quote above.
But I don’t buy it. I think some of the 0.1%, both Liberal and Conservative, think that they can corrupt the government for their purposes, and they too often succeed.
I think Conservatives believe the purpose of government is to protect the rights of ALL the citizens, rich and poor alike. In the words of the Declaration of Independence, “That to secure these rights [meaning the previously mentioned inalienable rights endowed by the Creator,] Governments are instituted among Men”. Or of the Constitution, “in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity”.
But you really have to ask them what they think. This is what I think, and what I think they think.
LikeLike
“I think Conservatives believe the purpose of government is to protect the rights of ALL the citizens, rich and poor alike.”
Except, perhaps, when it comes to the right to vote?
LikeLike
Except for all the historical evidence that definitively shows you are as wrong as can be.
women’s suffrage? No
Black suffrage? No
Equal rights for gays? No
Equal rights for religious minorities and\or secular people? No
You are you trying to fool here John? Besides for yourself of course.
LikeLike
Conservatives don’t believe in the rights of anyone other than themselves. I see no empathy nor do I see them believing in the rights of anyone other than themselves. They would just as soon see children, the elderly and the poor die as to give them any rights to education, health or like Rodger says the right to vote.
LikeLike
What conservatives believe. Good question, Rodger. First, I note that you didn’t capitalize the “c”. My idea of a big C conservative is different than what I think of as a little c conservative.
I think the essence of little c conservatism is a respect for institutions and traditions which have served humanity well over generations.
I think it is conservative to be skeptical of utopian solutions.
I think it is conservative to acknowledge that humans are fallible. Not excluding the conservative him or herself.
Clearly, these are good things, if not taken to extremes.
I don’t know very many conservatives.
LikeLike
To the above I’d add:
I think it’s conservative to understand that we never know all the facts about the present and can only guess at the future. This knowledge should make us humble.
These are good things if not taken to extremes because if taken to extreme they lead to calcification of social and political institutions and unreasonable fear of the unknown. If you aren’t ever making any mistakes in the above areas, you are probably too conservative.
LikeLike
Who is right about how social security is funded?:
See:
http://www.fedsmith.com/2014/09/21/does-social-security-impact-the-federal-deficit/
LikeLike
Hopelessly confused, pointless article. The facts are:
1. SS benefits are funded by federal spending, not by FICA (as demonstrated when FICA temporarily was reduced).
2. Federal deficits are beneficial and necessary for economic growth (as demonstrated by the “Recession Clock,” shown above)
LikeLike