Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Mitchell’s laws:
●Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
●The more federal budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes. .
●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.
●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.
●Everything in economics devolves to motive, and the motive is the Gap.
==================================================================================================================================================================
O.K., we already knew the ironically termed “religious” right hates gays, browns, blacks, yellows, reds, Jews, Muslims, pregnant women, aliens, the unemployed, the poor and any form of gun control.
But, do they now hate Catholics, too?
The Koch Brothers Launch A Surrogate War Against Pope Francis
By: Rmusemore from Rmuse, Friday, January, 2nd, 2015One of the greatest things to happen over the past year is the remarkable revelation that there is finally, at long last, a major Christian leader, and member of the clergy, who espouses, embraces, and promotes the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Even for an avowed secular humanist, this is a stunning, and welcomed, development if for no other reason than one of the world’s leading religions appears to be adopting Christ’s regard for the world’s poor and downtrodden.
Of course, the Catholic Pope has garnered nothing but serious opposition and pushback from America’s evangelical and Catholic Republican movement, and now the Koch brothers and their dirty energy cabal have joined what is developing into a dirty oil-evangelical war against Pope Francis.
The Pope already drew the wrath of both evangelical and Catholic Republicans in Congress for criticizing the greed and income inequality championed by the GOP, but now he has the undivided attention of the Koch brothers, Exxon, and their dirty energy cohorts.
The cause célèbre for the Koch-funded evangelical movement is the Pope’s recent announcement that it is beyond high time for the world, and “all Catholics” to join the fight to reduce the existential threat to human beings from anthropogenic climate change.
A Koch-funded evangelical Christian group made up of pastors and Christian leaders, the Cornwall Alliance, that considers the devastating effects and great cataclysms we witness from the effects of anthropogenic (manmade) climate change the will of almighty god and biblical.
(They say) if man destroys the environment and threatens human existence, it is god’s will and they will fight to see climate change’s full effects to fruition; for god, the bible, and the mountains of cash from the Koch brothers dirty energy cabal.
Cornwall Alliance spokesman, Calvin Beisner, warned the Pope that he had better “back off” talking about combatting climate change, and “to believe in climate change is really an insult to god and will lead to tyranny.”
Leave it to American-style bastardized Christianity to know what their god considers and insult; unless their “god” is the Koch brothers’ dirty energy industry money.
It is highly likely (the Pope’s) war on global climate change will garner widespread support from the estimated 1.2 billion Catholic devotees around the world. Still, with only millions of American “onward Christian soldiers” in the evangelical movement opposing the Pope, and unlimited Koch and oil industry money, one can only assume that the Koch war on the Pope will not end quickly; at least not in America.
Life is filled with ironies. Christianity, a religion based on Christ’s love for humankind, is most ardently espouced by people whose primary emotion is hatred of humankind — specifically “all them who ain’t us.”
And this hatred leads them to deny that a threat to long-term human survival even exists. Never mind the overwhelming scientific evidence that human-created atmospheric CO2 is warming the earth, and doing so will destroy life as we know it. The “religious” right knows God’s and the Koch’s intent.
The article’s author claims that for the “Kochers,” the destruction of humankind is not a threat, but a goal.
Evangelicals could not care one iota less if Earth becomes uninhabitable because something about an absurd idea of being “raptured” away for a ring-side seat as those sinners “left behind” receive god’s almighty wrath in the war of Armageddon.
And these haters comprise the base of the Republican party that won the most recent American state and local elections.
How shall we interpret that?
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. (Refer to this.)
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 
“And this hatred leads them to deny that a threat to long-term human survival even exists. Never mind the overwhelming scientific evidence that human-created atmospheric CO2 is warming the earth, and doing so will destroy life as we know it.”
Are you being serious Rodger?
The planet has not warmed for over 15 years. Dispute wicked CO2 (without it we could not exist on this planet) increasing markedly during that spell.
Can I suggest you avoid the world is going to end nuttiness that, after climategate and all the other gates, plus a lack of recent warming, the public have thankfully lost interest in.
Clean energy yes. Looking after the planet. Yes. But this “and doing so will destroy life as we know it.” and “hatred leads”. Come on. Even serious scientist who buy into the ‘CO2 is somehow warming the planet from a freezing cold atmosphere’ (cold somehow would need to magically warm a hotter planet) do not agree with this.
But its your website. Post what you like. But I would like to refer people to a good website on monetary sovereignty that is not filled with warmist alarmist nonsense.
LikeLike
“Even serious scientist who buy into the ‘CO2 is somehow warming the planet from a freezing cold atmosphere’ (cold somehow would need to magically warm a hotter planet) do not agree with this.”
If you’re talking about the vast majority of “serious scientists,” you’ll find that they do, in fact, believe that man-made CO2 is causing global warming.
I understand that science often errs, and “serious scientists” often get things wrong, but currently “serious scientists” have voted you wrong. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and the amount of CO2 is growing. The miracle would be for a greenhouse gas not to cause warming.
As for the miracle of “somehow warming the planet from a freezing cold atmosphere,” that is exactly what the sun does, from 93 million freezing cold miles away.
My house is heated by a simple compressor that somehow turns cold air into hot air, aka a “heat pump.” Not much of a miracle.
Be sure to remember this dialog, in 5-10 years, when you’ll feel rather silly about your expert scientific knowledge disagreeing with the “serious scientists.”.
================================================================================
LikeLike
“As for the miracle of “somehow warming the planet from a freezing cold atmosphere,” that is exactly what the sun does, from 93 million freezing cold miles away.”
No it doesn’t. The sun is very very hot. Radiation leaving the sun is leaving from a source that is much hotter than the earth. So this radiation warms be the earth. The atmosphere above the earth is much colder than the earth. (read about the 2nd law of thermodynamics. ‘Heat cannot of itself pass from a colder to a hotter body’. Yet somehow so called back-radiation from a freezing cold atmosphere contravenes this law).
We generally believe the fibs we are told by so called authority figures. You haven’t fallen for the austerity / Govt debt is bad nonsense. But you have for the alarmist AGW science. Why put scientists on a pedestal but not the majority of economists. AGW is mostly bulls++t (there is at best a very small truth to it but not much). Just like Govt’s will run out of money. Open you eyes and see the world as it really is.
LikeLike
“The atmosphere above the earth is much colder than the earth. (read about the 2nd law of thermodynamics. ‘Heat cannot of itself pass from a colder to a hotter body’. Yet somehow so called back-radiation from a freezing cold atmosphere contravenes this law).”
Not sure what science you are quoting.
1. Are you saying the earth cannot get warmer, because of that “cold atmosphere” aloft?
2. Are you saying CO2 is not increasing?
3. Are you saying that humans are not increasing CO2?
4. Are you saying CO2 is not a greenhouse gas?
5. Are you saying that increases in a greenhouse gas will not warm the earth?
Which of the above is your hypothesis?
LikeLike
1 No. Not at all. (It has been warmer in the past and also much colder) I’m saying radiation from a cold object can not heat a warmer one based on the 2nd law…
2 CO2 is increasing. But it has been much higher in the distant past. CO2 levels were very low at one point. And are still low.
3 Humans are increasing CO2. But how much of the recent increase is natural and how much is caused by mankind is not clear cut (regardless of what the alarmists claim).
4 CO2 is a (very) minor greenhouse gas. H2O is the main one
5 It might do. But only if a cold object (the atmosphere) can somehow heat a warmer object (earth). Which is contrary to the 2nd law. But increases in CO2 might have at best a very small impact on warming. The sun warms the planet. Not CO2 (CO2 is not a mini energy source). CO2 at best slows the rate of nightly cooling.
But this subject bores me a bit now. Its like arguing about religion. The believers believe. And name call the non believers. And back their science up with distortions and pseudo science.
But why drag this topic onto your site. There are plenty of sites that go round and round and round endlessly debating this subject. And even the experts don’t agree (the science is settled. Far from it)
LikeLike
Sorry you’re bored, but global warming is, in part, an economics issue. As this is an economics site, I’ll keep “dragging” it.
When someone argues against the mainstream of science, it’s up to them to provide evidence to prove the science wrong.
The pseudo-science is misapplying the 2nd law of thermodynamics. (Do you really believe the scientists are unaware of entropy?)
When I ask, “Are you saying that increases in a greenhouse gas will not warm the earth?” your answer [“It might do. But only if a cold object (the atmosphere) can somehow heat a warmer object (earth)”] makes no sense. Greenhouse windows are cooler than the air in the greenhouse. That is how CO2 works.
And it is contradicted by your next comments, which acknowledge a “very small” warming effect. So is the “very small” warming effect you acknowledge a “very small” violation of entropy?
Your boredom notwithstanding, this is a hugely important economics topic, which is being subverted by right wing business interests, who want to burn cheap fossil fuels, and humankind be damned.
They have selfish financial reasons to brainwash the public about global warming.
LikeLike
Mitchell’s law #7:
“Everything in economics devolves to motive, and the motive is the Gap.”
Koch, evangelicals vs. the Pope: Wedge issue.
This blog IS entirely about economics. Diversions abound of course (pro/con AWG), it does not matter.The REALITY of the prime issue -THE GAP, never changes.
LikeLike
” coming centuries”.
“Uncertainty lingers about where all of the heat is, exactly.”
This tells you all you need to know. It use to be all the snow will melt in 10 or 20 years. Now these so called scientist play it safe. Are are mystified why the increased CO2 is not cooking the planet. Another thing you could do is read the climategate emails. And ask yourself. Is this science?
LikeLike
Among scientists, there seems no question that the earth is warming, the only questions being how fast and what the results will be.
Why do you think increases in CO2 are not warming the planet?
LikeLike
RJ,http://climate.nasa.gov/, but then again the conspiracy that won’t let the details of “climategate” be revealed are against you, Good Luck in your venture.
LikeLike
Oh, you mean facts actually matter? But denial is so much more fun.
When someone starts quoting the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics to disprove global warming, you know he’s buzzword faking.
LikeLike
….and don’t forget the regulations, E.P.A. edicts and alternative energy that has been in effect for 40 years, that would postpone the dire predictions of scientists 40 years ago.
LikeLike
This kind of manipulation of the people has occurred many times, as in this case the deniers become a smaller tribe, then more radical and extreme, reactionary in their denial, because they can not escape the reality. My experience as a Catholic is if a denier, as in abortion, is presented with science as perceived as real today, they will have the moral staff to hold up above proven and accepted science.
LikeLike
“Greenhouse windows are cooler than the air in the greenhouse. That is how CO2 works.”
Rodger. This isn’t how CO2 supposedly works. It suppose to work by returning some radiation leaving our planet (after being initially heated by the sun) and this somehow further warms the planet. By a process called back radiation.
But it seems that you have not studied this subject. And just trust climate scientists as many do economists.
But this will be my last post on this subject. Debate is pointless. The true believers will just keep on believing. And now just call scientists etc who challenge the science names like deniers who are in the pay of big oil.
LikeLike
By way of your education, the greenhouse glass analogy is exactly how CO2 works. That’s why they call it a “greenhouse gas.”
Your belief is that because the stratosphere is cooler than the earth, global warming cannot be happening. Think about the silliness of that.
LikeLike
The key concept is the “difference in frequency” of light coming IN (higher frequency visible) and light reflectively going OUT as infrared, lower frequency, invisible and therefore ABSORBABLE by CO2.
Solar radiation at the frequencies of visible light largely passes through the atmosphere to warm the planet’s surface, which then emits this energy at “the lower frequencies” of infrared thermal radiation.
Infrared radiation IS absorbed by greenhouse gases, which in turn re-radiate much of the energy BACK to the surface.
Roger, a greenhouse works by reducing airflow, holding the warm air inside the structure so that heat is not lost by convection. This is different from radiation heat.
LikeLike
Greenhouse glass allows visible rays in, but doesn’t allow infrared out. Same with CO2.
LikeLike
A suggestion for all the global warming deniers, who will refuse to read this article, read this article:
Unfortunately, the Republicans, as usual on the wrong side of science, morality and history, want to gut the Environmental Protection agency.
Global warming deniers prefer that you look only at the past few years.
LikeLike
Arctic ice core samples prove CO2 is increasing historically.
LikeLike
Please do not trouble the right wing with scientific fact. Learning from FOX news is so much more educational.
LikeLike
At any rate, the second law of thermodynamics is moot and the stratosphere being cooler is even more moot. It’s all about frequency and absorption.
LikeLike
Quoting a law in physics is supposed to make one seem smart, even when that law is irrelevant to the subject and especially when one has no idea what one is talking about.
Obviously, the stratosphere is cooler than the ground. Always has been.
LikeLike
Following the Hottest Year on Record, Republicans Remain Clueless on Climate Change
LikeLike
“…Reasonable limits will require a transition away from coal toward cleaner fuels…”
One more technically feasible concept that needs to be promoted besides stopping fossil fuel burning is the broad interconnection of electrical distribution stations. The bigger the grid connection the better. In the long term, a world around grid would be possible and extremely positive for the environment. We could phase out fossil and fission sources and simultaneously phase in solar and already existing hydroelectric sources as well as new ones such as the Three Gorges Dam in China.
All the high demand / low demand, peak and valley power usage would evenly balance out with a broad interregional grid connected over many time zones and thousands of miles north to south. As more power is needed in one place more than another, the low demand region can crank it up and sell its power to the high demand region and vice versa when the tables are turned.
There’s now NO need to construct any more inefficient power stations locally. In a totally clean, widely connected grid, there’s no more CO2 or danger of atomic radiation. Hydro and solar power are in effect gravity and radiation working together in abundant supply. Price of a KWH would drop, but utilities would still do very well on sales volume and lower overhead from far less maintenance and regulations resulting from the overall safety and cleanliness of the system.
LikeLike