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.
•Any monetarily NON-sovereign government — be it city, county, state or nation — that runs an ongoing trade deficit, eventually will run out of money.
•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.

•The single most important problem in economics is the Gap between rich and poor.
•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.
•Everything in economics devolves to motive, and the motive is the Gap between the rich and the rest..


Think of the single worst thing a politician can suggest. What would it be?

Would it involve immigration? Abortion? Guns? Taxes? Spending? Education? Gay marriage?

What would you rank to be the ultimate wrong-headed, political foolishness?

How about something that has the potential to destroy all life as we know it? Might that make it into your “top ten”?

The latest consensus among astronomers is that a giant, moon-sized object is racing toward the earth. It’s orbit will intersect earth’s orbit in about 20 years.

At that time, it will pass close enough to raise tides, change winds, and cause other damaging effects.

Then, it will return in about 50 years, coming even closer, causing massive climate disruptions and huge ocean tides, swamping most coastal cities,

Finally in about 100 years, it again will return, this time hitting the earth, obliterating much of the life on this planet.

The proposed solution is for all nations immediately to produce thousands of rockets and send them to crash on the object, with each rocket producing a tiny orbital nudge, and together moving the object enough to reduce its effect on earth.

Some politicians say we should wait for other nations to begin, because our efforts alone won’t cure the problem.

Some don’t believe the astronomers, and say we should do nothing, because if God wants us to die, there is nothing we can do and anyway, the effort will reduce corporate profits and increase unemployment.

Some say we should begin immediately and do the best we can so as not to risk the future of humankind and all living things.

What is your opinion: Wait for other nations, do nothing or begin immediately?

Well, to my knowledge, that giant object has not been predicted, but the scientists do predict another form of world-wide catastrophe: Climate change.

Here is where the politicians stand on this potentially world-ending event:

This Chart Shows Where All the U.S. Presidential Candidates Stand on the World’s Biggest Issue
BY JAMES WEST, Newsweek, 10/30/15

monetary sovereignty

The First, the “Do-Nothing Denier” crowd—Donald Trump, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, all Republicans—reject or aggressively downplay the science of man-made climate change, and they don’t want to do anything about it.

They’ve called global warming a “hoax” (Trump) or “junk science” and “patently absurd” (Santorum), and have pushed dumb pseudoscience, such as Huckabee’s insistence that “a volcano in one blast will contribute more than 100 years of human activity.

Next comes Dr. Ben Carson, who not only denies the science of climatology, but also denies the science of evolution. One wonders what science courses he took in order to become a doctor — surely not biology.

(Carson said), “There is no overwhelming science that the things that are going on are man-caused and not naturally caused.” (That comment inspired California Gov. Jerry Brown to send Carson a thumb drive full of climate research.)

But Carson (also said), “I don’t care whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, a liberal or a conservative, if you have any thread of decency in you, you want to take care of the environment because you know you have to pass it onto the next generation.”

Apparently, in Carson’s view, global warming is not part of the environment we pass on to the next generation.

Then we come to repeated business fibber, Carly Fiorina:

“A single nation acting alone can make no difference at all,” she told CNBC, and therefore the United States needs to stop “destroying peoples’ livelihoods on the altar of ideology.

Under her “leadership,” we would wait to follow other nations. Far be it from her to submit to any sort of ideology, especially when today’s business profits, rather than the future of humanity, is her overriding concern.

Let’s move on to the “Humans Aren’t to Blame” crowd—those candidates, all Republicans, who admit that the climate is changing but question just how much it can be attributed to humans burning fossil fuels.

Take Florida Sen. Marco Rubio: “I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it.

Rubio, who justifies his $175,000 salary by almost never showing up for work, is not considered a reliable climate scientist.

Ted Cruz voted in the Senate to call climate change real, but he has also called it a “pseudoscientific theory,” (and said) “Satellite data demonstrate for the last 17 years there’s been zero warming, none whatsoever”—a statement that one climate expert criticized as “a load of claptrap…absolute bunk.”

Then we have the climate-change agnostics who know, but don’t know, but aren’t really sure:

Senator Rand Paul from Kentucky acknowledges that the world is warming because of carbon, but he has also said he is “not sure anybody exactly knows why” climate change is happening.

Jim Gilmore, the former governor of Virginia, who has called for acting on climate change, (but) “We do not know for sure how much is caused by man and how much is part of a natural cycle change. I do believe we must work toward reducing emissions.” More recently, however, Gilmore has called the goal of reducing carbon emissions “ephemeral” if China and India don’t act, too.

Gilmore is of the opinion that although the world might be ending, we aren’t going to do anything about it unless China and India do it first.

Then there are the “walk-both-sides-of-the fence” group, who demonstrate their strong leadership by trying to appease everyone, and by taking all possible positions.

Jeb Bush says humans contribute to the globe’s warming, but, “I think we have a responsibility to adapt to what the possibilities are without destroying our economy, without hollowing out our industrial core.” He previously claimed it was arrogant to assume the science was settled. And Bush’s energy policy proposes more drilling and less regulation.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie likes to brag about his state’s position as the country’s third-largest solar energy producer. But in 2011, Christie withdrew New Jersey from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a cap-and-trade program in the Northeast. A

Ohio governor John Kasich has historically voiced his support for climate science. But then, he said, “We don’t want to destroy people’s jobs, based on some theory that is not proven.”

It is difficult to determine what the above band of sycophants to the rich would consider “proof.” As is common among climate change deniers, no amount of evidence constitutes proof, if their wealthy backers don’t like it.

We come now to big talkers, who have not submitted a plan, probably because even mentioning a plan might alienate their rich and the religious right backers:

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham and former New York Gov.George Pataki, who have both urged action on climate change. Graham told CNN, “If I’m president of the United States, we’re going to address climate change, CO2 emissions in a business-friendly way.”

He added, “When 90 percent of the doctors tell you you’ve got a problem, do you listen to the one?”

Graham backed this up during the debate Wednesday by saying, “I have been to the Antarctic. I’ve talked to the climatologists of the world, and 90 percent of them are telling me the greenhouse gas effect is real, that we’re heating up the planet.”

Pataki was named co-chair of the Independent Task Force on Climate Change and has become an advocate for climate action.

He told the debate audience Wednesday that “one of the things that troubles me about the Republican Party is too often we question science that everyone accepts.

But Graham and Pataki are positioned lower on the matrix than the Democrats because neither of them has rolled out a clear and convincing plan explaining how they’d address climate change as president.

There are very few politicians who believe the science and are not afraid to advance a plan to save our children’s futures:

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal says he would repeal Obama’s climate regulations, but he has laid out smaller-scale projects such as forest management and the energy efficiency for airlines.

For the record, he has called for action to combat warming temperatures—but he questioned “how much” humans actually contribute to warming.

Still, he earns a place in the top-right section of the graph because of a detailed energy policy that includes wind and solar.

Which brings us to the three Democrats:

Experts have weighed in on the strengths and weaknesses of each of their proposals, but for the purposes of this chart, they are all in essentially the same place.

(Hillary) Clinton has put installing a half billion solar panels by 2020 at the heart of her clean-energy policy and wants to best Obama’s own plans by generating 33 percent of America’s electricity from renewable sources by 2027.

(Bernie) Sanders has said that “we have a moral responsibility to transform our energy system away from fossil fuel to energy efficiency and sustainable energy and leave this planet a habitable planet for our children and our grandchildren.” He’s also described climate change as the country’s greatest national security threat.

(Martin) O’Malley wants to phase out fossil fuels entirely by 2050. “As president, on day one, I would use my executive power to declare the transition to a clean energy future the number one priority of our Federal Government.”

And there you have it: The doubters, the non-believers, those leaders who will “wait-for-other nations,” those leaders who will wait for God to decide, those leaders who will wait for the rich to decide and finally, those leaders who actually will lead, and not risk our children’s futures, but rather create solutions to a potentially world-ending problem.

Take your choice. Which leader will best save your children and grandchildren?

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 Click here
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.

Monetary Sovereignty

Vertical gray bars mark recessions. Recessions come after the blue line drops below zero and when deficit growth declines.

As the federal deficit growth lines drop, we approach recessions, each of which has been cured only when the growth lines rose.

Increasing federal deficit growth (aka “stimulus”) is necessary for long-term economic growth.