Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
●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 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.
●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.
●Everything in economics devolves to motive, and the motive is the gap.
First, let’s begin with what we know for sure:
1. Federal deficit spending grows the supply of dollars
2. A growing economy requires a growing supply of dollars (GDP = Federal Spending + Non-federal Spending + Net Exports)
3. The only financial limit to federal deficit spending is an inflation that cannot be prevented or cured with interest rate control.
4. We are not near to such an inflation, nor ever have had one.
Given those truths, there seemingly never would be an economist who calls for reduced federal deficit spending (i.e. austerity). Yet, the majority of professional economists promulgates the notion that federal debt and federal deficits are “unsustainable,” and should be reduced.
Why? We also know:
5. A large number of professional economists work for “think tanks,” supported by rich benefactors who have political axes to grind.
6. A large number of professional economists work for universities, supported by rich benefactors who have political axes to grind.
Are a large number of professional economists being influenced by rich benefactors, whose primary goal is to widen the Gap between the rich and the rest? (Because federal deficit spending tends to benefit the poor more than the rich, austerity widens the Gap. And it is the Gap that makes them rich.)
Surely, this sort of influence is common:
Bill Black: DOJ Says it Cannot Prosecute “Rocket Science” Frauds
The excuse that Deputy Attorney General James Cole offered for DoJ’s failure to prosecute financial fraud, that they were overmatched by “rocket science” isn’t just pathetic, it’s a flat out lie.
I know people personally who were experts in mortgage backed securities and collateralized debt obligations who offered not just their expertise, but specific legal theories to state attorneys general, as well as members of the famed Mortgage Fraud Task Force and were ignored.
Individuals with similar skills offered to train the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commissions) and were also turned down. The idea that prosecutors and regulators were up against complicated technology above their pay grade is a self-serving canard. They were repeatedly offered ways to get down the learning curve and rejected them.
Clearly, the SEC was influenced by the big money of the banks. Whether this influence took the form of bribes or whether it was understood as a threat to employment is irrelevant. Money talked; people listened.
The same, undoubtedly is true of many, if not all, the economists who spread the Big Lie, that the federal government can run short of dollars to pay its debts, and that the private sector must contribute more dollars to the federal sector.
Yet, there may be an additional factor at work. Here is how that factor plays out in one of the medical sciences: Cancer research.
The Dirty Little Secret of Cancer Research
For 50 years, scientists have ignored widespread cell contamination, compromising medical research. Why are they so slow to fix it?
By Jill Neimark
In the field of thyroid cancer, 58-year-old Kenneth Ain is a star. (He) has one of the largest single-physician thyroid cancer practices in the country and more than 70 peer-reviewed publications to his name. Until recently, Ain was renowned for a highly prized repository of 18 immortal cancer cell lines.
All that changed. Bryan Haugen, head of the endocrinology division at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, told Ain that several of his most popular cell lines were not actually thyroid cancer.
There was a disaster brewing — it just wasn’t yet official. Ain found that 17 of the 18 most frequently shared (cancer cell) lines were imposters.
But rampant contamination is not the shocker in this story.
Across different fields of cancer research, up to a third of all cell lines have been identified as imposters. Yet this fact is widely ignored, and the lines continue to be used under their false identities.
As recently as 2013, one of Ain’s contaminated lines was used in a paper on thyroid cancer published in the journal Oncogene.
“There are about 10,000 citations every year on false lines — new publications that refer to or rely on papers based on imposter (human cancer) cell lines,” says geneticist Christopher Korch.
Think about it. Cancer is a very specific disease. The drug that works on liver cancer may be useless for lung cancer. Yet researchers knowingly — KNOWINGLY — continue work based on false premises.
The problem of rampant laboratory contamination is out in the open for all to see, widely acknowledged by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Cancer Institute, major journals and innumerable bench scientists. Yet efforts of concerned scientists have failed to stanch the tide.
“I now give regular lectures about cell line contamination,” says Ain, “and every last person in the audience is shocked and horrified.
But most scientists are not willing to test and verify their lines. The NIH doesn’t require it. Very few journals require it. And I can tell you that many scientists are reluctant to disembowel their curriculum vitae, even after they find out a cell line is false.
And there it is: The other reason (in addition to direct financial influence, aka bribery) why scientists won’t admit the truth. No one wants to admit their whole life has been a fraud.
As it turns out, once a lie is repeated often enough, it soon becomes an acceptable lie — a quasi truth — that other researchers follow, even when they know it’s wrong.
(One honest scientist) offered corrections to the relevant journals, which have since published them. “My reputation was tarnished,” (he) says, “and all my research in this field has been shut down.”
Now consider the economist, whose conscience no longer will allow him to broadcast the Big Lie. Finally, he admits the truth.
He might be fired by his “think tank.” He might be fired by his university and blackballed by all other universities and think tanks. His job future is bleak.
All his writings are discredited. His lucrative textbook disappears from the shelves, and no one will accept a revision.
He is finished as a paid economist.
And that is why so many economists support the Big Lie that austerity is necessary and beneficial. They are bribed to support it and punished for not supporting it.
The willingness to lie exists in the “hard” sciences, where facts are easier to demonstrate. So, no wonder it exists in a “soft” science like economics (based in part, on human psychology), where even “facts” can be debatable.
And just as false cancer research costs lives, so does false economics cost lives.
Those who tell you the federal deficit should be reduced are G’ddamn liars, who have cost millions of people their lives, and who deserve the public’s scorn and punishment.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
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 and 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.
1. A growing economy requires a growing supply of dollars (GDP=Federal Spending + Non-federal Spending + Net Exports)
2. All deficit spending grows the supply of dollars
3. The limit to federal deficit spending is an inflation that cannot be cured with interest rate control.
4. The limit to non-federal deficit spending is the ability to borrow.
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.
6 thoughts on “–Why economics is not the only dishonest “science.” Cancer research, too.”
I think there is a typo in point 3
The only financial limit to federal deficit spending is an inflation that cannot be prevented or cured with interest rate control.
Shouldn’t that read:
The only financial limit to federal deficit spending is an inflation that can be prevented or cured with interest rate control.
If an inflation can be prevented and cured with interest rate control, then there is no reason to limit federal deficit spending.
Only if we ever arrive at an point when interest rate control can’t prevent/cure an inflation, would the next step be to reduce deficit spending, (by increasing taxes and/or by reducing spending.)
I’m a tad confused with item #4. Should not “inflation” substitute for the word “equation?” If not, then I’m thoroughly perplexed.
You are absolutely correct. Change made.
@RMM: This blog makes a good point. There are so many idiots (economists, politicians, bloggers, authors, etc.) wedded to believing economic misconceptions that they believe that they would lose their livelihood, income, reputation if they acknowledged the reality of MMT and MS. I do agree with you that there are people (especially people in positions of power and influence) that know the truth about how economics. But I do believe that most actually believe their false understanding of economics. It’s a very sad situation for mankind. Government could be used for immense good for society if these truths were acknowledged and acted upon.
I second that. Instead of trying (and failing) to stimulate and control the economy with austerity, it may well be possible to use RMM’s Ten Steps for the right results. Giving instead of taxing/taking. Reward instead of punishment.
Just as a nuclear reactor’s control rods are moved in and out for greater or lesser power production, the same can be done with RMM’s ten “control rod” steps. Fortified by social awareness and pegged to low or zero core inflation, we would have a means of measuring the capacity of any national economy, gradually arriving at the tipping point of demand exceeding supply and thus scaling back.
But it may turn out advanced economies have such no tipping point, providing every reason to spur the complete development of world industrialization without inflation nor poverty.
This of course would imply the end of the Gap; so look for continued push back from the ultra influential as they labor day and night to fight against humanity’s economic emancipation by means of their usual holding pattern–recession, depression, austerity, and war.
To them, we are mere children who must be punished for trying to be uppity.