–Someone please tell me what this means

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..


Someone, please tell me what this means.

An article by Reason.com quoted this exchange:

Q: […] Dr. Carson, you were against putting troops on the ground in Iraq and against a large military force in Afghanistan.

Do you support the president’s decision to now put 50 special ops forces in Syria and leave 10,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan?

CARSON: Well, putting the special ops people in there is better than not having them there, because they that’s why they’re called special ops, they’re actually able to guide some of the other things that we’re doing there.

And what we have to recognize is that Putin is trying to really spread his influence throughout the Middle East. This is going to be his base. And we have to oppose him there in an effective way.

We also must recognize that it’s a very complex place. You know, the Chinese are there, as well as the Russians, and you have all kinds of factions there. What we’ve been doing so far is very ineffective, but we can’t give up ground right there.

But we have to look at this on a much more global scale. We’re talking about global jihadists. And their desire is to destroy us and to destroy our way of life.

So we have to be saying, how do we make them look like losers? Because that’s the way that they’re able to gather a lot of influence. And I think in order to make them look like losers, we have to destroy their caliphate.

And you look for the easiest place to do that? It would be in Iraq.

And if ­­outside of Anbar in Iraq there’s a big energy field, take that from them. Take all of that land from them. We could do that, I believe, fairly easily, I’ve learned from talking to several generals, and then you move on from there.

But you have to continue to face them, because our goal is not to contain them, but to destroy them before they destroy us.

What exactly is Ben Carson saying?

Is he saying that putting 50 special ops into Syria is the way to oppose Putin “in an effective way”?

Is he saying the Chinese have troops in Syria? (Hint: They don’t.)

Exactly what “ground” is it that “we can’t give up”?

Is he talking about invading Iraq again, to obtain oil fields? To destroy ISIS?

And would it be done “fairly easily”? (Do you think he really asked “several generals” about this?)

He doesn’t want “to contain them, but to destroy them.” But if he destroys them and doesn’t contain them, what does this “look like losers” mean?

First he tells lies about his personal history. Then this very religious man confuses Islam with the bible. Now he offers a grade-school, non-answer to a very important question about international politics and warfare.

And I mention this because Carson is the leading Republican candidate. This is the man who more Republicans think is qualified to be President of the United States than any other person.

Ultimately, a nation gets the leader it deserves.

Does America really deserve Dr. Ben Carson as President?

But then again, which candidate does America deserve?

And what is Ben Carson talking about?

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.


12 thoughts on “–Someone please tell me what this means

  1. Carson and the other Republican candidates are circus geeks that P.T. Barnum uses to draw crowds so that P.T. Barnum (i.e. the corporate media outlets) can sell advertising. The more absurd Carson becomes, the more he amuses the crowd. It’s like a vaudeville show with commercials.

    P.T. Barnum further enhances Carson’s “geek factor” by claiming (with no proof) that Carson is the “leader” among Republican geek-candidates.

    Rodger’s point (if I understand it correctly) is that some people in the circus audience actually take Carson seriously, which is terrifying. However I do not think their number is large enough to make Carson electable. Moreover Carson’s antics, while grimly amusing, will not put Americans to sleep while Wall Street continues to impoverish them. (Likewise, Trump’s cheering of the Russians in Syria does not please the military-industrial complex.)

    Every four years the USA has a Presidential election. In the third year of each cycle, P.T. Barnum launches another geek show, which Barnum uses to sell advertising. Wall Street’s chosen candidate (e.g. Obama, and now, I think, Hillary) is not given nearly as much coverage as are the geeks (McCain, Palin, Romney and Ryan, and now the Republican clowns). It’s all theatre. The more outrageous, the better.

    Christie’s lies and antics were not outrageous enough to amuse the crowds. Therefore Fox News did not let Christie join the fourth Republican presidential debate last Tuesday (Nov 10th). Fox’s excuse was that Christie’s “poll numbers” were not high enough. Yes, those mysterious fake, non-existent “polls” that liven up the geek show in every election cycle.

    The only “polls” that are real are the decisions of the National Convention, followed by the final (rigged) decision of the electronic voting machines.

    So enjoy Carson while you can. The geek show will run for another year until the election. And if Carson is not chosen at the Republican convention in Cleveland, he will only last another eight months from today.

    Still…eight more months of Carson? Ugh!!!! Tetrahedron720 (above) has the right attitude. 🙂 We must try and see the humor in all this, or we will end up jumping out a window.



    Many MMT people think the pre-1971 gold standard imposed a limit on the amount of money the U.S. government could produce.

    MMT advocate Bill Mitchell believes this. In the video below, Bill Mitchell agrees with his guest who says at the 04:45 mark: “The gold standard limited the stock of money we had.”

    Warren Mosler believes this too. In the video below at the 32:00 mark Mosler says, “During the gold standard days if the government spent and didn’t tax, it could run out of gold and money.”

    I disagree. I say that the “gold standard” was always a mere pretense that served several purposes until the pretense was no longer needed. Milton Friedman agreed with me on this. So does Randy Wray (although Wray also claims that gold limited the amount of money the U.S. government could create. This is one of Wray’s many contradictions that he fails to resolve in his book “Modern Monetary Theory,” which I have here in front of me.)

    Why do I say the gold standard was a pretense or illusion?

    First, the trading price of gold at any point in time (then and today) was subject to the gold trading market. How can a Monetarily Sovereign government base its fiscal policy on a volatile trading market? It can’t. For this reason, nations adopted and discarded the “gold standard” at will. When their central governments needed to create more money, they suspended the “gold standard” pretense.

    Second, even when coins had precious metal in them, the coins were simply units of account printed on metal, rather than paper. Coins usually circulated at fiat values far above their market value as metal. Their nominal fiat value was determined by the Sovereign, irrespective of any “gold standard.” (Hence the term “nominalism.”)

    Initially the “gold standard” illusion was necessary to make people give their “full faith and credit” to Treasury-issued currency. Most people have always tended to think (erroneously) that a fiat currency is not viable unless it is “backed” by some precious metal. (In reality, all currencies are backed by people’s “full faith and credit.”)

    Consider the case of “gold certificates.” In 1862, Samuel B. Chase (President Lincoln’s Treasury Secretary) commissioned the issuance of “greenback dollars” (i.e. Treasury notes) for the U.S. Civil War. This was the U.S. government’s first modern paper currency. Chase designed their graphic imagery himself, putting his own image on them, plus the words “In God we trust,” so that religious trappings would enhance people’s “full faith and credit.”

    Many people ridiculed Chase’s “greenbacks,” especially people in the Confederacy, saying that “greenbacks” were worthless because they were created out of “thin air.” (In reality all money is created out of thin air.) Despite this, the “greenbacks” became accepted, since everyone was caught up in a frenzy of wartime activity, and they needed a medium of exchange. However, by the end of the Civil War, there was so much counterfeiting of “greenbacks” that the U.S. Secret Service was formed (in 1865) to police the counterfeiters.

    But even that was not enough. After the war, the U.S. Secret Service was not able to convince everyone to give his “full faith and credit” to “greenbacks. Therefore in in 1878 the U.S. Treasury started issuing “silver certificates” (in addition to greenbacks) that were supposedly “backed” by silver bullion. In 1882 the U.S. Treasury started issuing “gold certificates” that were supposedly convertible to gold coins, although the aggregate face value of “gold certificates” was much higher than the available number of gold coins. Some “gold certificates” were “allocated,” meaning they supposedly corresponded to a numbered gold bar hidden in the darkness of a bank vault somewhere. This too was an illusion, but it was necessary to convince people to give their faith to the “gold certificates.”

    By the early 1900s, however, the U.S. “greenback” dollar was accepted by all Americans. In 1933 the U.S. Treasury stopped issuing “gold certificates” (and in 1964 stopped issuing silver certificates). Since all Americans gave their full faith and credit to the U.S. dollar, the purpose of the gold gimmick changed. Politicians started using it to falsely claim that “We can’t spend money we don’t have.” Voila: the Big Lie was born, and it persisted through World War II, despite the U.S. government creating vast numbers of dollars for the war. The Big Lie persists today, despite there being no “gold standard,” which was always a gimmick.

    All fiat currencies are backed only by people’s “full faith and credit” — i.e. people’s willingness to use the currencies and regard them as valid. Sometimes the maintenance of this credibility requires illusions such as a “gold standard.” Sometimes the maintenance requires force, as when authorities shut down counterfeiters, or shut down people who issue unauthorized currencies. Usually the maintenance requires a combination of illusion and force.

    The “gold standard” gimmick persisted until it began to complicate President Nixon’s funding of the War on Vietnam. Nixon’s opponents in Congress started using the “gold standard” to say there was “no money” for the war. Therefore Nixon took the USA off the “gold standard” in 1971.

    Since that time, the gimmick has not been necessary, since the public has been fully conditioned to believe the Big Lie (“The U.S. government can’t spend money it doesn’t have”).



    Is Stephanie Kelton is being silly or tactful? You decide.

    In the video below at the 02:40 mark, Ms. Kelton says…

    “The U.S. government hasn’t realized that it’s no longer on a gold standard. We run our policy as if we are in a gold standard world, not recognizing that…we have a new fiscal space that opened up. The government still thinks it’s on a gold standard.”

    The truth is that austerity is calculated, intentional, and deliberate. Politicians use it to widen the gap between the rich and the rest. There is no lack of “realization.”

    I can appreciate if Ms. Kelton is being tactful (“You can’t get away with saying the full truth in public”), but it is difficult to convince people to agree with MMT if you fail to identify the human motive for gratuitous austerity.

    Elsewhere in the video (at 11:20) Ms. Kelton says that, “A strong economy brings down the (national) debt.”

    Actually no. The “national debt” depends on the number of T-securities the U.S. Treasury decides to sell, irrespective of government spending. Yes, the Treasury is supposed to sell T-securities whose nominal value equals the federal deficit, but does that really happen? I doubt it. The Treasury sells T-securities on the “Open Market,” which is managed by the Fed, which is semi-autonomous.

    Perhaps Ms. Kelton meant to say the national deficit, not the debt.

    And of course she repeats the nonsense that “taxes drive money.” Perhaps this too is necessary for political reasons, but when you claim that “taxes drive money,” and you also claim that the U.S. government does not need tax revenue, you confuse people, which drives them back to the Big Lie.

    Yes I know that the first assertion relates to demand for dollars, while the second relates to the supply of dollars, which is different matter. Still, it confuses people.

    (Concerning demand, many nations have no federal or local income taxes or capital gains taxes, and yet those nations have demand for their sovereign currencies, since they have “legal tender” laws, and since humans are creatures of habit. When people become accustomed to using a currency, they habitually give their “full faith and credit” to the currency. Therefore federal taxes are not necessary to “drive money.”)


  4. As to answering the original question, Carson should hang on to his scalpel and do something he is qualified to do. He belongs in the hospital not the White house.


  5. Carson acknowledges no Chinese troops in Syria

    The statement followed Carson’s comments at a South Carolina campaign stop that he had information, better than that available to the White House, showing China’s involvement in Syria. “I’m surprised my sources are better than theirs,” he said.

    Further evidence that Carson can say any stupidly wrong thing, and his followers will continue to love him — something like Trump.

    So goes the American electorate.


    1. “Carson can say any stupidly wrong thing, and his followers will continue to love him — something like Trump.” ~ RMM

      It seems they love Carson precisely because he is wacky (and a liar) and because he boasts of having committed physical violence. The more Carson shows himself to be a lying moron, the more he “stands for something.” It’s as though people see him as a middle finger gesturing toward whatever it is that each person despises.

      On the other hand, maybe nobody really likes him, but the corporate media are just claiming that people like him.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s