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.
==================================================================================================================================================================
There are fools. There are damn fools. And then there are Libertarians.
What exactly is a Libertarian? According to Wikipedia, “Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association and the primacy of individual judgement.”
In short, a Libertarian is blissfully self-sufficient — for everyone else — but when a Libertarian can’t get help from the government, then she bawls like a baby.
There are several forms of Libertarianism, each of which evolved because the previous forms were shown to be untenable. It was, “O.K., I’m a Libertarian, but that’s not what I believe,” and then the new Libertarian belief is described.
Here is what life would be in a libertarian world: No Social Security. No Medicare. No Medicaid. No ACA. No food stamps or any other aids to the poor. Taken to its logical conclusion, a Libertarian world also would include no police, no fire fighters, no army and no government.
After all, we’re autonomous, aren’t we. We don’t need no dang government telling us individuals what to do.
Here’s a bit about Libertarian Megan McArdle, taken from Wikipedia:
During Megan’s junior year, she worked as a canvasser for the Public Interest Research Groups, the nonprofit founded by Ralph Nader. Her experience there hurried along her “transition from ultraliberal to libertarian.” The organization was, she later wrote, “the most deceptive, evil place I’ve ever worked.”
Note her self-described “transition from ultraliberal.” This is telling.
An “ultra” anything is what author Eric Hoffer described as a “True Believer.” He (she) is a person who takes extreme positions, and the subject really doesn’t matter.
Hoffer posited that a “True Believer” can more easily switch from and to extreme forms of Christianity, Communism, Fascism, National Socialism, Protestantism, Judaism and Islam, than can the average person.
The subject belief doesn’t matter; it’s the extreme that is vital to the True Believer.
Here is what McArdle says about any form of national health insurance:
“Monopolies are not innovative, whether they are public or private,” and “Once the government gets into the business of providing our health care, the government gets into the business of deciding whose life matters, and how much.”
This is 100% Libertarian bullshit.
Medicare has proven not to stifle innovation. If anything, Medicare greatly has encouraged innovation by paying for drugs and treatments that otherwise would be unaffordable. Consider too, those government-provided subsidies to drug companies to encourage drug development.
As for the other bit of bullshit — ” . . . gets into the business of deciding whose life matters . . .” — this could be said of all health insurance, public or private. Would ours be a better world without health insurance?
In Megan’s Libertarian world, wealth would decide whose life matters. If you have no insurance, and can’t afford drugs and treatment, your life wouldn’t matter.
Ezra Klein of the (right wing!) Washington Post said, “Megan’s argument against national health insurance boils down to a visceral hatred of the government.” That could be said, with much accuracy, about every libertarian, even those drawing a paycheck from the government.
Megan described herself as an “ultra,” i.e. a fanatic, and fanatics require a devil. For Hitler, it was the Jews. For Islamic fanatics the devil is any non-Muslim, or even a Muslim of a different tribe. For Russians, it was capitalists.
For libertarians, the devil is the government, which many of them characterize as “leviathan.” (According to Hoffer, the perfect devil is an alien with evil superpowers — i.e., the Libertarian version of our federal government.)
Hoffer says that fanatics worship the past and love the future, but despise the present. Consider fanatic originalist conservatives Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, and their perpetual worship of our nation’s seemingly “infallible” founders.
Libertarian Megan worships a past — and a future — without Medicare.
Today, Libertarian Megan published “Obamacare Will Not Kill the Supreme Court,” in which she posits that the Supreme Court would survive yet another awful decision.
She is correct. The Court will survive — in ignominy — but it will survive.
But she goes on to say, ” . . . it can certainly survive a narrow statutory case that overturns a still-unpopular program.”
In short, who cares about the millions of people who desperately need health care insurance, but can’t afford it? They should be self-reliant. Shouldn’t they?
Perfect libertarianism.
But wait. Remember at the start of this post, when I said, ” . . . when (a Libertarian) can’t get help from the government, then she bawls like a baby.
Well here comes Libertarian Megan with a brand new article, in which she is bawling about parents who don’t get their kids vaccinated, and how this might hurt her own kids:
Your Right to Skip Shots Ends Where My Kid Begins
I feel pretty strongly about vaccination: I’m for it. So how to convince anti-vaccine parents that vaccination is in the best interests of their child and society?
But what does work? Not telling people about the horrors of the diseases they are helping to spread. Nor does explaining the science calmly and patiently seem to do much good.
The autism-vaccine connection has been about as thoroughly discredited as possible — the paper retracted, the author thoroughly discredited. It still persists, even though logic suggests it never should have started: After all, if the measles vaccine gives you autism, then why wouldn’t actual measles?
So do complaints about thimerosal and mercury, even though thimerosal was removed from vaccines more than a decade ago, with no obvious impact on the rate of autism diagnoses.
So say to parents: You have a perfect right not to vaccinate your children, and we will not force you. But unless you have a vaccination certificate, a letter from a doctor explaining that your child falls into a small number of well-recognized medical exemptions, or a testament from your minister that vaccinating violates the tenets of a church of which you are an active member, failing to vaccinate your child also means failing to qualify for any public benefits for those children.
No tax deduction. No public school, college or municipal activities. No team sports that practice on public land. No federally subsidized student loans. No airplane rides for anyone under 18 unless the TSA gets an up-to-date vaccination certificate.
Whoa! Libertarian Megan, are you talking about government pressure? A squeeze on the self-sufficient by the leviathan?
Oh my, how things change when a Libertarian’s ox is gored.
Let’s get to the basics. Libertarians are the world’s great bullshit artists. They promote self-sufficiency for everyone else, but not for themselves. They don’t want the “leviathan” to help anyone — except when they do.
I’ll say it one more time, in case you don’t know where I stand: There are fools, damn fools and then, standing far to the lunatic fringes, there are Libertarians.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty
===================================================================================
The 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. Federally funded, 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)
Initiating The Ten Steps sequentially 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 
wow, you cut right through the BS. Nice quick summary of the failings of any ideology, very eye opening. Thanks!
LikeLike
It’s that sort of blindness that makes getting acceptance of MMT and your MS so difficult.
Facts are not important.
Libertarian, according to David Graeber, means prioritising politics over economics.
Still, like any theory that stands up, it has to go through stages to get accepted.
Eventually it will be self evident. But for now it’s ignored or ridiculed.
Unfortunately in the meantime, a lot of damage is done.
But beacons like you will eventually prevail.
LikeLike
Pure nonsense. Complete lies…
LikeLike
Oh and Rand Paul 2016…
LikeLike
Libertarian retards are classic example of having their cake and wanting to devour it too.
LikeLike
Holly crap, what a hypocrite you are!
Libertarians are realists, while liberals are in lalaland. Or is it the Libertarians that believe in the free lunch theory?
Rodger,
Libertarians don’t believe in government handouts, period. This doesn’t mean that if you are Libertarian and in need, that you will turn down government benefits. Libertarians are NOT Martians and, unfortunately, live in a Liberal world. The way I see is, if your money is taken from you via taxes (It doesn’t matter what you think they do with the money) your entire life, it would be not only idiotic, you would be a fool and a disservice to your own self and family not to take the benefit when and if you do need it.
Libertarians do NOT believe in not needing governments and laws. This is a pure lie perpetuated by those knowing full well it’s a lie on the unsuspecting public. Libertarians DO believe that smaller governments tend to be more efficient than over-bloated ones. Over-bloated governments tend to find “things” to do which not only do not add any value, they harm society. Take the NSA for instance. All of a sudden, “we can’t live without it” and the world will end if it’s shut down..sure…
Libertarians DO believe in laws and following them, especially, as they relate to the constitution. Unlike the Democrats and Republican that only refer to the constitution when it supports their arguments. When it doesn’t, they go around the constitution with technicalities and lies which are usually justified by the “it’s for your own good” garbage. Take the Patriot Act and the NSA as an example.
We don’t believe in the free lunch theory, we think that every single benefit you receive is in fact provided by someone else in society. Whether it’s food, housing, medical care, you name it – someone is paying for it. Quite honestly, I don’t think anyone believes in the free lunch theory – they just fail to acknowledge it because it supports their justification for wanting some sort of benefit – it’s a scam.
When I read your post one thing is clear. You can’t find one damn thing wrong with Libertarians like Rand Paul and the tone of the post, the name calling is pretty telling. You sir, are afraid that someone like Rand Paul or Scott Walker takes the presidency, implement REAL conservative policies and take this country out of the cesspool it’s currently in.
LikeLike
@Monto
There are currently 320 million Americans. You think you will be able to effectively govern those with your fantasy of a small government in a country that still has a claim to being both a military and economic superpower?
Rand Paul ain’t gonna cut it. His naivete’ will come to the fore if he actually believe he could.
If you still want your small government fantasy, I suggest you gather all of Ayn Rand’s devotees, settle in one of those chic Caribbean islands, and there establish your small gov’t of 500 libertarian lost souls.
LikeLike
Roger thanks for citing Hoffer. I read his all of his books many decades ago. He had his imperfections (who doesn’t?) but his insights into human nature have always stuck to me.
LikeLike
How convenient. You don’t believe in government handouts, but you eagerly accept them. And you name call, “hypocrite”?
(Is calling me a hypocrite while complaining about name calling, a double hypocrite?)
The notion that small governments are superior to large governments is so ridiculous on the face, that one cannot imagine how a sentient being could believe it. Are you saying that state governments are more honest and effective than the federal government? County governments more honest and effective than state governments?
The prisons are filled with local government crooks.
Anyway, if you had even the slightest understanding of money and Monetary Sovereignty, you would realize that in fact, federal spending is a “free lunch.” and that nobody pays for federal spending.
While state and local taxes pay for state and local spending, federal taxes do not pay for federal spending. Sadly, you don’t understand the difference between state and local finances vs. federal finances.
But I do agree with your last sentence. I am very much afraid that there are sufficient people, ignorant about financing, who will vote for the ever changing Rand Paul or the scandal-ridden Scott Walker,
LikeLike
You have to be kidding me!
So you would pay (force-ably) into something and then refuse to receive benefits in the name of ideology – and you call that hypocrite? I call that being forced to pay what the liberals want me to pay whether I like it or not. I call that theft!!!
You got the understanding of small government all wrong. The fact that a state government is smaller than a federal government doesn’t make it “small”. In fact, I would bet the opposite, that many state and local governments, although smaller in numbers, are relatively larger than the federal government.
I am not going to get into the free lunch thing because it’s clear to me that you conveniently block the truth if it counters your argument. You will never, ever, ever find an answer for the following question: if the government really gives away “free” food – than why do people have to work their butts off and spend their money to produce it? No, not the dollars Rodger, the food – where does that come from?
You are afraid that Rand and Scott will be successful (and they will if they win!!!) and put to shame the Liberal ideology. Scandal? the union thieves? Please….
LikeLike
Oooh! Your question is so-o-o-o-o difficult! I’ll bet Libertarians really struggle to answer it.
Hint: The government gives people dollars, which they use to grow and to buy food. Gosh, that was way too complicated.
Now answer me one: ,b>What is the difference between a Monetarily Sovereign government and a monetarily non-sovereign government?
And by all means, don’t get into the “free lunch thing” if you don’t know the answer.
LikeLike
Oooohhh….
And you keep ignoring the question to your convenience. The dollars is not what creates the food – is it? Someone has to work and someone has to invest money to get it to the shelves. So working, investing is “free” to you?
In your unicorn pooping candy world!!!!!!!!!
LikeLike
What is the difference between a Monetarily Sovereign government and a monetarily non-sovereign government?
The difference is that in one case the sovereign nation has complete control over it’s own destruction (US) while a non sovereign gives that control to someone else (Germany).
The US (a sovereign) can either chose to grow the economy, getting out of the way or businesses and people, and leaving market forces that provide incentive to be productive. Or, it can live in a liberal lalaland where 6th grade math is ignored because someone thinks of a great idea to end world hunger – so long as it’s not with their own money. People’s money yes, their own money – no. We’ve clearly chosen the communist way.
Germany (a non sovereign) benefited during the growth face of the Euro, but now, it’s hostage to Greece (a liberal cesspool). There are no good outcomes for Germany at this point. If Greece leaves, it will never, ever paid what Germany lent to it. If it stays, Greece will never, ever, ever pay either. So basically, Germans are screwed whether they believe it or not.
Greece will collapse whether it’s a sovereign or not. Just like Venezuela, Cuba and every single communist nation that has ever existed. I mean, if I was responsible for a small nation like Greece and my economic system was in shambles, with no-one paying taxes – the last thing I would think about would be how to take a little more from the Germans. Will Tsypras tell the Greek people the truth – that there is no such thing as a free lunch – as they approach total collapse. No, he won’t because he is a lying politician and worst, because he is a sick communist (like every single communist out there). He still “believes” (not really, but he says he does – like you do too) unicorns poop candy.
LikeLike
Pitiful.
LikeLike
One thing – Greece would have collapsed long ago if not for the Euro. It would have defaulted in 2011 – and didn’t because it was part of the Euro. The notion that the Euro is “bad” for Greece is laughable. I hope we do get to see Greece leave the Euro so we can count the days before people start chopping the government’s heads.
LikeLike
Yes, surrendering the single most valuable asset any government can have — its Monetary Sovereignty — is a wonderful idea.
Why have complete control over your own sovereign currency supply when you can hand control to a foreign entity and beg them for money?
Your Libertarian understanding of economics is impressive.
LikeLike