Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Mitchell’s laws:
●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.
==================================================================================================================================================================
The Merger: How science created religion
There are times when each of us discusses things we don’t understand. This is one of those times.
Mathematics represents reality, and no one really knows why.
The physical sciences, physics, chemistry, astronomy, biology et al are based on mathematical formulas. Or perhaps “based on” is wrong. “Mirrored by” may be better. The laws of science are mathematical laws.
Science is prediction. Science is the search for cause and effect. If “A” happens, “B” happens, and we have created mathematical formulas for that.
Contrast that with religion. God moves in mysterious ways. We search for the formulas; we wish there were formulas; we believe there must be formulas. We act as though there are formulas. But we find none.
The good are rewarded. Or not. The bad are punished. Or not. Our prayers are answered. Or not. These are our formulas, but they are not reliably predictive. They seem random.
The social sciences, psychology, sociology et al are not as well founded in mathematics, though they try to be. The problem, in part, is complexity. A formula consists of terms and weights.
Two terms, properly weighted, always have the same result. For instance E = mc2, and mc2 always = E.
But what if instead of 2 terms there were trillions of terms, and the weight of each one affected the weights of all the others? And, what if these effects changed depending on myriad unknown outside factors, including both current and historical factors?
And, that is a description the human brain.
And its not just mind-numbing complexity, but rather a more fundamental problem: Free will.
Does free will exist? Are we more than the sum of our atoms and molecules and sensory inputs? Is there something beyond chemistry and quantum mechanics that gives us control, beyond mere cause and effect?
If free will exists, what does that say about the formulas of physics? How are the two compatible, if by our free will we, not mathematics, have the ability to change the course of atoms?
Economics tries to follow mathematics. But how many terms and how many weights will predict the S&P 500, just one year from today, let alone ten years? We’ve not yet discovered that formula. Economics is a social science. Unpredictable.
So strong is our need to apply mathematics to science – so strong is our desire to predict cause and effect and , thus to exert control — we simplify where we should not.
We say, “All things being equal,” which they never are. Investment chartists speak of “resistance levels” and “buy signals.” It is nonsense. There are no such levels or signals. They are prayers. They are religion.
When fact disputes our math, we change the math or we change the facts. We’ll do anything to join fact with mathematics. Anything to predict.
And this all came to mind, when I read a question and answer in the April edition of Discover Magazine:
Question: “How does (Max Tegmark’s discussion) account for radioactive decay or other random events. Are these things not truly random, or is there some mathematical equation for true randomness that we have yet to discover?
Colin Bott, Ann Arbor, MIAnswer:According to the Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics, randomness is an illusion.
There are effectively two universes, one where the atom decays and one where it doesn’t. There’s a copy of you in both univereses, and to both of you it feels random when you observe the atom and thereby find out which universe you’re in.
And so we have a statement from quantum mechanics, perhaps the most sophisticated science man ever has created.
No one truly understands quantum mechanics. It is too distant from our experience. So we invent mathematics to tell us what experience cannot. We believe mathematics mirrors reality.
As humans, we seek control, which requires our knowing cause and effect. In our desperation to find the mathematics of cause and effect, we may turn to the “Everett interpretation”of quantum mechanics.
Consider this: Every trillionth of a trillionth of a second, each one of the estimated 10 to the 78th power atoms (that’s 1 followed by 78 “0s”) in the observable universe does something. It moves; it splits; it gains or loses one or more electrons or neutrons. It changes in various ways.
According to the Everett interpretation, when just one of those atoms changes in just one way, an alternative universe exists: One universe where the atom changed in that certain way, and one universe where it did not.
If two atoms changed, there would be four universes: AA, AB, BA and BB. Now consider the number of universes necessary to accommodate every atom in our universe changing every trillionth of a trillionth of a second, and multiply that times every atom in every succeeding universe changing every trillionth of a trillionth of a second.
Today, you may be reading this article in your office. In another universe you are on the beach. In another, you are in a plane. Another, you are old. Another, you have three eyes. Another, you are a twin. Another, you are a cat in a garden. Endless, infinite variation.
Further, there is not just one version of you being a cat in a garden, but an infinite number of you being a cat in a garden. The Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics implies infinities of infinities.
Anything that possibly can happen has happened, and will happen, an infinite number of times. All that can be, was and is and will be.
And that means, Genesis happened. Adam, the Garden of Eden, Eve, the apple, the serpent. They all happened. An infinite number of times.
In fact, according to the Everett interpretation (and other, similar postulates) the entire bible happened – old and new Testaments, every version – they not only happened, but happened an infinite number of times.
As did the stories of the Koran, the Tipitaka, and indeed, the sacred texts of every religion, they all happened, not once, but infinitely.
Is the “Everett interpretation” reality? Impossible to say. It is one of many ideas, neither proved nor disproved, about a science we don’t understand.
All we can say is, it does rely on mathematics, and mathematics is thought to be the basis or mirror of all reality – depending on which mathematics, of course.
But if science and mathematics do prove that everything that can be, is, was and will be, then science and mathematics will have proved all the stories of all the religions. They all are true, somewhere.
Somewhere the good are rewarded. Somewhere the bad are punished. Somewhere our prayers are answered. Always.
Science will have proved religion. And that is the ultimate merger.
(In some universes, even resistance levels and buy signals actually might work.)
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 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.
#MONETARYSOVEREIGNTY
#Monetary Sovereignty - Mitchell 
“(In some universes, even resistance levels and buy signals actually might work.)” RMM
Than why even try doing something? doing nothing should work – right? I argue that doing nothing actually has an advantage over doing something – as doing something not only results in one person doing it – but an entire nation.
Because of this do something mentality – we ended up with a real estate market bubble, banks were bailed out in 2008, there is currently a huge stock market bubble with no basis on the real economy. Are these things “better” for society?
Humans have implemented various controls that have improved our lives, mainly laws that prevent killings, etc… because these focus on human interaction. However, when we get into attempting to control things outside of that scope, like the economy which not only relies on money – but on mood, demographics, etc.
This includes trying to boost the economy via policies. I argue that this cannot be done consistently. Nonetheless, we fool ourselves by moving resources from one pocket to another and start believing that we have control to change our destiny. Not one single country has been able to stop poverty – not one. And no-one will ever be able to – those attempting to will not only fail, they will make it worst. Pulling forward demand (QE/etc..) is another example of a temporary measure that cannot last forever.
We have become so selfish and cynical as a society that some of us are even concerned about the planet – seriously? We die off after 100 measly years and you are concerned about an earth that has been around for 4,500,000,000 years? Are you freaking kidding me – not to burst your bubble, but you are a blip on the timeline?
LikeLike
Mr. Do Nothing:
You never give to charity, because that would be doing something,
And no nation ever should try to help the poor. Just let ’em starve, because it’s their own fault.
And of course, you yourself never bought a stock or a piece of real estate.
And to hell with the planet. Why try to keep it clean and for goodness sake, don’t try to save any species from extinction.
Thank heavens you aren’t “selfish and cynical.” Just imagine if you were.
But, as always, thanks for the comic relief.
LikeLike
Rodger,
I have always volunteered in some way or another and currently deliver food to the needy. Me deciding to volunteer is my own individual choice and I do it because I chose to. Many others decide it is not worth their time and don’t do it. Again, it’s their choice – not mines. Since liberals want equality – what’s more equal than that – I want to do it so I do it – someone else doesn’t and they don’t have to. Equal choice.
In terms of selfish and cynical – liberals are probably at the top of the list. If they think it’s something “good” the equal choice means the liberal choice – everyone does it whether they like it or not. And you somehow this equates to equal choice?
In terms of caring for the planet – I am not saying we should go out there and dump things everywhere and/or not clean it – what I am saying is that the earth is not going away because you decide to dump a bottle of water on the side of the road. I’m all for cleaning – continue to do it and have done it in the past.
LikeLike
I’m so pleased you decided to change your mind.
LikeLike
Off topic, but here is something of interest:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102132053
“Moody’s reported on Wednesday that the U.S. government’s current fiscal position remains healthy but if there aren’t policy changes, there will be long-term risks from social spending that could affect the nation’s credit standing.
Spending, especially for Medicare and Social Security programs, will cause a rise in future deficits and debt levels toward the end of the decade, Moody’s said. An aging population will contribute to rising cost and demand for health-care services.
The report called for additional revenue, which could be realized from a higher-than-expected U.S. economic growth rate or policy changes such as an increase in Medicare premiums and co-payments.”
So Moody’s is going to lower the credit rating of a monetary sovereign nation, fearing that the US won’t be able to pay its bills. This is the same company that gave A+ ratings to mortgages given to people with no jobs, no incomes and no assets.
LikeLike
During and after the Great Recession, the credit agencies gave higher ratings to the monetarily non-sovereign euro nations and to many corporations, than they gave to the U.S. government.
These agencies are owned by the rich and their clients are the rich. The rich hate government spending, because most government spending benefits the middle- and lower-income groups.
And, of course they hate progressive income taxes (but love regressive FICA and sales taxes), because the rich pay “too much.”
In short, the credit agencies are paid to widen the Gap between the rich and the rest. And the management of Moody’s either is ignorant of basic economics, or they are criminals doing the bidding of the rich — and I doubt they are ignorant.
LikeLike
Is it possible the rating companies are looking at the dilutive effect on future dollar value? Much like the effect rampant issuers of company stock have on shareholder value.
LikeLike
No, inflation has nothing to do with the government’s ability to pay its debts, all of which are denominated in dollars.
The federal government can pay any debt of any size, any time.
LikeLike
I am not religious (in the sense that I was taught religion during my upbringing) but have studied all the major religions, and it became very obvious to me that once you get down to the principles instead of the literal form, they all share the same principles. It is also obvious that there has been a lot of misinformation regarding them since their inceptions.
I do not know any religious person who understands the principles behind their religion, let alone one who actually lives by them. The “religion” I was exposed to by my upbringing (i.e. school, tv, media, people etc) is 180 degrees opposite to that which I have come to understand when I studied them all myself and stopped being told by others what it means, or what God means.
The issue is defining what religious or God means, and therefore it may be difficult for me to get the jist of your article until I understand how you define religion. The law defines religion as believing in something beyond the senses. That is all. Very simple. If I can’t sense something through my 5 senses but have a ‘belief’ that something bigger than me is there, that is a religious belief, as far as the law is concerned.
I am not religious as a Christian, Muslim, Hindu is today and how they are taught their respective religions, but I am religious in the sense of how the law defines it. I believe there is something beyond my senses based simply on the fact that I can’t simply know everything. It’s impossible.
It’s also interesting that all major religions and philosophies surfaced at times when ‘money’ use was at its peaks, and always ‘after’ credit was the main tool of exchange, and always ‘before’ monetary systems broke down and eventually became barter.
It’s also interesting that every religion and philosophy teaches us not to hold accounts against another internally (i.e. don’t get mad, jealous, etc), and yet we all seem to think it is perfectly legitimate to hold accounts against one another through are many many legal relationships, and no one ever stops to think of the cost.
I might help a man or woman change their flat tyre out of love or because my religion tells me, and yet later that day find out we are both applying for the same job, or looking to buy the same house, and at that point they become my enemy! How strange
LikeLike