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..
============================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================
In comment #4 of the previous post titled, Someone please tell me what this means, reader Elizabeth Harris disagreed with the notion, stated by Warren Mosler and others, that the gold standard limited the amount of money the federal government could create.
What follows is my answer:
…………………………………………………………………………….
Elizabeth, you have identified a fundamental Truth about a sovereign government and money: A sovereign government has the power to do anything it wishes with its money, but creates rules and laws that temporarily can limit that power.
The U.S. federal government always has been Monetarily Sovereign, even during gold standard days, but has chosen to act as though it didn’t have that sovereignty.
Even now, after the gold standard ended, the government still chooses to act as though it is not MS, by enforcing a “debt limit,” issuing T-securities and engaging in complex intra-governmental loans between imaginary “trust funds.”
All laws are temporary, and the government can change or disobey any laws, at will. And that leaves us with the fact that all sovereign governments are MS.
By that logic, even the euro nations are Monetarily Sovereign, because they elected to join the EU and have the power to leave, if they so choose. Sovereignty is the power to choose.
But that logic leaves us with no way to differentiate between Monetarily Sovereign nations.
So, for convenience, we say that today’s U.S. government became MS in 1971, while in reality, it exhibited only a greater degree of MS after 1971.
Depending on ones’s perspective, Mosler and Wray were wrong — and right — for referring to limits on money creation. With current law, the government still is limited, though less limited than it was with the gold standard.
In essence, the government has created a game — call it “Monopoly” — for which it originally created the rules, and ever since, has changed those rules at will.
According to past rules, it could run short of Monopoly money, so then it changed the rules. According to current rules, it still could be unable to pay its debts (though less so), and at the appropriate time, it will (we hope) change the rules further.
Since it is both a player and the rules maker, it cannot lose at its own game.
And through all the 235+ years of its existence, the U.S. government (its leaders, actually) has pretended an inability to change the very rules it created.
At some level of awareness, we the people understand this, but we submerge that understanding so as to widen the Gap below us. (The “Gap” is the difference in income, wealth and power between those who have more and those who have less.
It sometimes mathematically is expressed as the “GINI ratio.”)
Mentally, we say:
“I know it’s a lie, but I go along with it, because it suits me.
“Deep within me, I know there isn’t a magical being, who looks like me, who made everything five thousand years ago, and who controls every atom of the universe. But I go along with the story, because for various reasons, it makes me feel good.
“And deep within me, I know bigotry is evil, but I go along with our government deporting undocumented families and police shooting unarmed blacks, and I know Mexicans aren’t rapists and the poor aren’t lazy, because bigotry comfortably separates me from those below me.
“And deep within me, I know the government can change the rules, and never run short of its own sovereign currency, but I like the unnecesary limitations, because they push the poor down and away from me.”
So where does that leave us? How do we provide the Truth, when the populace prefers the Lie? How do we narrow the Gap, when the populace likes the Gap?
I suspect the answer lies in the nature of the Gap, for there is not one Gap but many, at all levels from the upper .001% all the way down to the bottom, where people have nothing.
Each of us exists at a level, which is above some levels and below others. This is described in the post, “The Gap, the whole Gap and nothing but the Gap . . .”
The people at any given level generally wish to distance themselves from levels below (widen the Gap), while coming closer to levels above (narrow the Gap).
The problem in providing the Truth, is that the higher levels have more power than the lower levels, so the push to widen the Gap is greater than the desire to narrow it. And widening the Gap is facilitated by the Lie about government money shortages.
It would seem then, that in order for the Truth to be accepted, the upper income/wealth/levels — especially the upper 1% — somehow must come to believe there is a greater benefit to narrowing the Gap than to widening it.
Perhaps that can be accomplished by demonstrating how the Gap can be narrowed without threatening the upper 1%, the people who hold the real power in America. That is, can the poor be brought up closer to the middle classes, while the rich maintain their distance from the middle?
The middle might not accept it at first, but their minds and hearts are ruled by the rich, and eventually the middle will believe what the rich tell them, as always.
Why would the rich want this? Because increasing the incomes of the poor provides the rich with more consumers of goods and services provided by rich-owned businesses.
There are several ways this might be done, and perhaps you can visualize some. But, for example, the first seven steps of the “Ten Steps to Prosperity” might compress the Gaps within the lower levels, while allowing the 1% to maintain or even increase the Gap between them and the rest:
1: Eliminating FICA would help the low-middle-to-middle classes, and help business owners, too, who wouldn’t have to pay for FICA.
2: Federally funded Medicare for all, would compress the Gaps within the 99%, while not bringing them “uncomfortably” close to the 1%.
3: A $5,000 (for example) bonus for every man, woman and child, would help the lowest and low-middle classes to be better consumers, while being viewed as “fair” to the highest classes.
4, 5, 6, 7: Free education for all, salary for attending school, eliminate corporate taxes and increase the standard deduction all would benefit the poor and middle classes, but also benefit, in different ways, the businesses the rich own.
Bottom line: The world is run by the rich. Nothing will happen unless the rich want it to happen. There is no use bemoaning the Gap; the rich want the Gap. And with ownership of politicians, the media and university economists, the rich create their version of the truth.
A strategy must be found to compress the Gaps between the poor and the upper middle classes, while allowing the 1% to maintain their Gap.
If the 1% are satisfied that their Gap is maintained, they will feel comfortable in telling the 99% that lifting the poor is good. And the 99% will follow.
What do you think?
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.
THE RECESSION CLOCK
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.
#MONETARYSOVEREIGNTY
#Monetary Sovereignty - Mitchell 
Under the gold standard, the government creates money buy buying gold. What does it do when there is no more gold to buy? Doesn’t that limit the money it can create?
And if it creates money under the gold standard as if it were fiat money, it maintains the gold (standard) price by selling gold. What does it do when it runs out of gold to sell? This has happened, and the answer is that it devalues the money, raising the price it will accept for its gold, before it is in danger of running out. This is also an exercise of monetary sovereignty, of course, but governments would rather not get a reputation for devaluing their currencies, so it shows how the creation of money is limited under the gold standard.
LikeLike
” . . . rather not get a reputation . . . ”
The U.S government did it repeatedly, as well as adopting a silver standard. Additionally, it had several different kinds of gold standards, some requiring bullion and some not.
The point is, the government has the sovereign power to do anything it wishes with its sovereign currency.
Whether it would “rather not” at any point in time, is immaterial.
LikeLike
“as well as adopting a silver standard…..”, which it abandoned in 1873 when the oligarchs realized that they needed more control of the money supply (coinage act) because of the burgeoning progressive movement.
LikeLike
. . . and replaced it with a gold standard.
So much for “oligarchal” realizations and the “burgeoning progressive movement “.
LikeLike
wasn’t ‘replaced with a gold standard’, because it was a gold/silver standard, the oligarchs just did away with silver. and the oligarchal realizations proved true, I don’t know what you are trying to suggest.
LikeLike
Q. “Under the gold standard, the government creates money by buying gold. What does it do when there is no more gold to buy? Doesn’t that limit the money it can create?”
A. No. An MS government does not create money by buying gold, since gold has no intrinsic monetary value. That is, an MS government does not use money to create money. Instead, MS governments create money out of thin air by fiat — i.e. by crediting accounts.
This creation-by-fiat occurs whether or not there is a “gold standard,” which itself is a pretense that politicians use as an excuse when they want to reduce spending, and ignore when they want to increase spending.
There were times when politicians abused the “gold standard” pretense. In their desire to cut federal spending (in order to widen the gap) politicians so attached their government’s fiscal policy to the volatile vicissitudes of a gold trading market that they caused fiscal instability, at which point the politicians quietly dropped or ignored the “gold standard” pretense.
When things calmed down, they resumed their “gold standard” antics.
Before 1971, politicians pretended that the U.S. government’s ability to create money was limited to the U.S. government’s holdings of gold. Since 1971, politicians have simply pretended that the U.S. government is flat “broke,” and that it has a “national debt crisis.” This Big Lie is maintained by “Gap dynamics” at all social levels.
Q. And if the government creates money under the gold standard as if it were fiat money, it maintains the gold (standard) price by selling gold. What does it do when it runs out of gold to sell?”
Nothing. The government simply continues to create money by fiat. There is no “gold standard price.” Instead, there are the current prices of gold on trading markets. Politicians pretended that U.S. fiscal policy was tied to this market price. How was it tied? Politicians never explained this, and they didn’t need to, just as politicians today see no need to explain how austerity and contraction cause prosperity and expansion. The public believes whatever politicians tell them. People believed in the “gold standard,” just as people today believe that bloodletting cures anemia.
The “gold standard” becomes clearer when we ignore technical mechanics, and we consider the politics behind it. MMT people fail to do this.
Q. The creation of money is limited under the gold standard.
A. With respect, no. For MS governments, the creation of money is only limited by political decisions – that is, by politicians who use various gimmicks such as the “gold standard.”
Politicians use and discard such gimmicks at will. During World War II, politicians pretended that the U.S. government needed revenue from the selling of “war bonds.” This lie was necessary in order to get money out of circulation. Everyone had jobs, and thus had cash, but consumer goods were limited by wartime rationing. This presented a danger of price inflation. In order to pull money out of the economy, the U.S. government imposed a federal withholding tax on paychecks, and also launched a “war bonds” campaign. Everywhere you looked there was the message of “buy war bonds.” In all magazines and newspapers, in posters inside all government buildings, on the outsides of buildings and vehicles, in the cinema “featurette” before the main feature film, in radio messages – EVERYWHERE.
The chosen gimmicks depend on timing and politics. In 2011 Obama lowered the FICA tax by 2%, for two years. Many politicians screamed that this would make Social Security “insolvent.” Their screams were just another gimmick.
LikeLike
Many thanks for your comments Rodger. I will answer your main question at the bottom of my own comments here.
But first, a few responses if I may…
1. “A sovereign government has the power to do anything it wishes with its money, but creates rules and laws that temporarily can limit that power.” ~ RMM
Yes. My main point was this…
We previously agreed that there are problems with the MMT “taxes drive money” claim. Perhaps federal taxes help to enhance the public’s full faith and credit in dollars. However the MMT people take this too far, and erroneously claim that federal taxes are the ONLY thing that maintains the demand for dollars.
Likewise, I say it’s possible that the “gold standard” was a means to impose political limitations on government spending, but the MMT people take this too far, and erroneously claim that the limitations were not political. (Or at least, they ignore the political aspects.)
The impetus for my “gold standard” comment was a YouTube viewer who said, “MMT is bunk. It says we need taxes, but we don’t need federal taxes.”
Next, I saw MMT people say the “gold standard” limited the amount of money the U.S. government could produce. The MMT people did not clarify that this limitation was purely political.
So I was turned off by MMT people’s carelessness. That is no way to offset the Big Lie.
My assertion (which you seem to agree with) was that U.S. government’s voluntarily-imposed self-limitations (the gold standard) were never really self-limitations. They were a political ploy. During World War II the U.S. government created all the dollars it needed despite the “gold standard.” In fact, the number of dollars in general circulation always far exceeded the market value of gold as measured in dollars.
Or consider the “debt limit” nonsense, in which right-wing Congressmen threaten to “shut down the government,” while the U.S. Treasury continues operating via so-called “extraordinary means” (i.e. operating as it always does). Meanwhile the Fed continues to pay interest on T-securities, despite the “debt limit” nonsense.
The “debt limit,” like the “gold standard,” is political theatre designed to make us grovel for dollars from an infinite source.
MMT people tend to ignore these political factors. That is no way to fight the Big Lie. For example, they claim that politicians are simply “misguided.”
It seems to me that the original purpose of the “gold standard” pretense was to encourage people to give their full faith and credit to the U.S. “greenback” dollar. Thus, initially the “gold standard” was not simply politics. It was socially necessary. Later, when everyone gave their full faith and credit to the dollar, the purpose of the gold standard became fully political. It supported the lie that “the U.S. Government can’t send money it doesn’t have.” This lie allows corrupt politicians to spend or not spend as they see fit.
The pretense had political implications for foreign policy too, since the Bretton Woods system was based on a “gold standard.” This allowed to the U.S. government to control the fiscal policy of other nations (destroyed by war) by falsely telling them, “You can’t spend money that does not exist.”
Today politicians no longer need the “gold standard” ruse in order to keep us groveling, since the Big Lie is firmly entrenched by “Gap dynamics,” and since we have things like the “debt limit” antics. In 1979 the Republicans let a Democrat-ruled Congress do away with the “debt limit” vote, since the Republicans wanted to massively increase spending for the U.S. military contractors (who paid kick-backs to Republicans). But in 1995, Congress was ruled by Republicans, who brought back their “debt-limit” antics as part of their “Contract With America.” The spending on military contractors continued to increase (as did the bribes and kick-backs) but now the U.S. government had “no money” for “entitlements.”
In the case of euro-zone nations, their self-imposed limitations are temporary but real, since euro-zone governments cannot create their own currency. But, as Rodger says, this decision too is political. Euro-zone nations could recover their MS if their politicians wished. Thus, euro-zone nations retain Sovereignty, since they still have the power to choose. And as Rodger says, the essence of sovereignty is the power to choose.
Incidentally the current raft of “free trade agreements” (TPP, TTIP, and TiSA) are attacks on national sovereignty, since they are attacks on the freedom of governments to choose.
2. “Through all the 235+ years of its existence, the U.S. government (its leaders, actually) has pretended an inability to change the very rules it created.” ~ RMM
Exactly. And the pretense is always for political reasons.
3. “At some level of awareness, we the people understand this, but we submerge that understanding so as to widen the Gap below us.” ~ RMM
Yes. The rich are not the only ones who impoverish us. Statistically speaking, middle class people collectively impoverish themselves in their attempt to impoverish those below. People do this in order to feel “superior” and more secure.
Therefore the engine of the Gap for the middle class and below is insecurity. For the rich, the engine is sheer greed.
By the way, we cannot fully understand the mechanical facts about money unless we also understand the political facts, which involves “Gap dynamics.” MMT people tend to ignore the political aspects, and “Gap dynamics.” Thus, MMT is flawed. MMT ignores Mitchell’s rule the “Everything in economics devolves to motive.”
4. “It would seem then, that in order for the Truth to be accepted, the upper income/wealth/levels — especially the upper 1% — somehow must come to believe there is a greater benefit to narrowing the Gap than to widening it.” ~ RMM
Historically the rich don’t wake up until inequality becomes so extreme that the current structure of society teeters on collapse, or it faces total defeat from an outside enemy or competitor. At that point the rich move to ameliorate the worst excesses of inequality — but by then it is too late. The masses revolt. Or the outsiders attack. Either way the Empire collapses, or changes its form.
Some national governments move to reduce inequality long before they reach this crisis level. These governments are vilified, sanctioned, blockaded, and attacked by outside nations, that are ruled by plutocracies.
Perhaps this is simply the nature of society, which itself is the product of human nature. If that is true, then we will continue to have these problems until overall human nature changes.
5. “The middle might not accept it at first, but their minds and hearts are ruled by the rich, and eventually the middle will believe what the rich tell them, as always.” ~RMM
Yes. Statistically speaking, the members of each class believe what they are told by the members of the classes above them. They pretend not to believe it, but in practice they do. When a right-winger claims that a poor person is worthless, the poor person subconsciously believes it, feeling desperate and hopeless. His hardships confirm his self-image.
Therefore the onus of moral responsibility increases in proportion to our height on the social ladder. The upper class and middle class both play the “Gap” game, but the upper class has a moral responsibility to guide and help the middle class, just as the middle class has a moral responsibility to help the lower class. In an ideal (but utopian) world, the richer we are, the more accountable we are, morally.
6. “Why would the rich want this? Because increasing the incomes of the poor provides the rich with more consumers of goods and services provided by rich-owned businesses.” ~ RMM
Hold on, Rodger. You are speaking as though modern society is still based on industrial capitalism, when in fact it is now based on financial capitalism. The rich don’t care if Main Street dies, as long as Wall Street thrives. As a result, Main Street (i.e. the real economy) dies a little more each day.
Eventually Main Street will no longer be able to physically support the casinos of Wall Street. At that point the USA will face the crisis of inequality that I described above. The rich will take measures to help Main Street (in order to keep Wall Street going), but by then it will be too late. The masses will build guillotines, or else the USA will break into smaller sates, or else the USA will be conquered by some outside enemy. Whatever happens, the current form of the USA will change.
One problem with humans is that the more they get, the more they want. This phenomenon increases the higher we go on the social ladder. Once we reach the upper class, the wider the gap below us, the more we desire to widen it even more. That is the general tendency, anyway. Hence the evolution from industrial capitalism to financial capitalism (i.e. from million-dollar profits based on goods and services to trillion-dollar profits based on gambling and bail-outs).
So, it is possible that the rich might wake up, but to me it seems unlikely. There are many historical precedents where the rich didn’t wake up until it was too late (e.g. ancient Rome, or the various Chinese dynasties). There are other cases in which the rich have been denied total power (e.g. Venezuela) but they keep trying to get it back. In still other cases the plutocracy was completely done away with, only to be replaced by Communist Party apparatchiks. In still other cases, the masses took power, but the nation was attacked and destroyed from outside.
Perhaps social stratification and “Gap dynamics” are inevitable. If that is true, then shall we give up and resign ourselves to the idea that we will always have the Big Lie and “Gap dynamics”?
No.
In order to truly understand the facts of Monetary Sovereignty, we must have sincere grief for human suffering, plus an intense desire to find solutions. Our grief (i.e. our love) must be stronger than our insecurity if we are to personally escape “Gap dynamics,” with its sneering rejection of the facts.
Since most people’s insecurity is stronger than their love, most people collectively form a sea of ignorance and hostility. We hone and refine our own understanding of MS by continually trying to reach those who are confused, but who are sincere in their grief for human suffering.
Here on Rodger’s blog, if a reader seems genuinely aggrieved by human suffering, then Rodger will patiently work with him or her. But if a reader is a sneering troll, then he is ignored. Nobody becomes teachable until his love becomes stronger than his insecurity.
CONCLUSION
Rodger’s original question was, “How do we provide the Truth, when the populace prefers the Lie?”
My answer: We must continually be available for the “lovers,” since they are the only ones who can be reached. Some of them exist at all social levels. One day we shall encounter a few in the upper class, who have power. They will be our megaphones.
Monetary Sovereignty is ultimately a moral issue. We are dreaming of a happier world. All positive advances first start with a dream. The positive dreamers are usually crushed and discarded, but if they didn’t exist, then mankind would truly be doomed.
LikeLike
Elizabeth, you are correct that the financial industry has grown enormously, but you may be taking it a little too far (“The rich don’t care if Main Street dies, as long as Wall Street thrives.”)
The vast majority of 1%ers are industrialists, who do care whether Main Street dies.
Actually, aside from Warren Buffett, I can’t offhand think of many financial billionaires (I’m sure there are some, but they are in the distinct minority.)
Perhaps you are talking about people whose companies’ stocks are worth billions, or people who made billions in industry and now invest those billions in financial investments.
But I am quite sure Bill Gates et al care a great deal about industrial profits.
Despite rumors to the contrary, the U.S. remains the greatest industrial nation in the world. We are a long, long way from becoming Switzerland. And the values of the great majority of stocks are related to anticipated sales and profits of goods and services.
You may be right that we have to wait for love (i.e. liberalism) to rear its beautiful head, but currently, of the two dozen Presidential candidates, only one comes even close: Bernie Sanders.
The rest range from extreme to less extreme right-wingers, whose love is restricted to gods, guns and “get out of my country.”
If you’re hoping to find some lovers among the rich and powerful, you may be, as the song says, “Lookin’ for love in all the wrong places.”
LikeLike
1. “Elizabeth, you are correct that the financial industry has grown enormously, but you may be taking it a little too far.” ~ RMM
As a percentage of gross corporate investment, the financial sector has almost tripled in size since 1960. Nowadays corporate profits (among the big corporations) are less important than stock prices, which are manipulated in various ways, and are juiced by quantitative easing. Financial scams abound. There is interest rate manipulation (LIBOR). There is the mass push to privatize all public assets. This is not what I call productive capitalism.
There are a few Bill Gates around, but the highest paid people of all tend to be hedge fund managers. Moreover, speculation in commodities is one of the things that have increased the prices of consumer goods. (An executive for MillerCoors testified that manipulation of the aluminum market cost manufacturers over $3B.)
The problem is not so much the absolute size of the financial economy, as its size relative to the real economy. Finance is a parasite that has grown larger than the host. Finance is not a productive activity. Finance is a looting activity. Why engage in industrial production when you can gamble in the casinos, and get bailed out when your bets go bad, or when your speculative bubbles burst?
In 2009, it was not General Motors automotive manufacturing that was collapsing, but GMAC, their finance arm, which was leveraged on credit default swaps, collateralized debt obligations, and similar exotic financial derivatives. When Obama claimed that he “saved General Motors,” he saved the Wall Street arm of General Motors.
Most big corporations today have Wall Street arms. That’s where all the action is.
Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs says that the reason Goldman Sachs’ managers are paid more than anybody else is that they’re so productive (of paper profits). The National Income and Product Accounts (NIPA) say that everybody is productive in proportion to the amount of money they make/take. It doesn’t matter whether it’s extractive income or productive income. It doesn’t matter whether it’s by manufacturing things, or by stealing money from people. Any way of earning income is considered to be as productive as any other way. This is a parasite-friendly mentality that has given us things like trillion-dollar student loan debt, which manufactures nothing.
2. “Despite rumors to the contrary, the U.S. remains the greatest industrial nation in the world.” ~ RMM
That seems to me like a subjective opinion. How do you define “greatest industrial nation?” As I see it, the USA has sent most of its industrial manufacturing overseas, leaving behind a domestic economy that is a collection of toll booths.
3. “The values of the great majority of stocks are related to anticipated sales and profits of goods and services.”~ RMM
It seems to me that stock values are juiced by quantitative easing, and are subject to various manipulation scams.
On August 20, Michael Hudson published “Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Bondage Destroy the Global Economy.” Hudson comes to the same conclusions I did: that the financial industry dwarfs regular industry in dollar amounts, and it is killing us.
4. “If you’re hoping to find some lovers among the rich and powerful, you may be, as the song says, ‘Lookin’ for love in all the wrong places’.” ~ RMM
I propose that most billionaires are greedy bastards, but not all of them. Likewise, most people in the middle class are insecure, and seek to widen the gap below them, but not all of them. There are a few people around who are genuinely concerned about others, and how they can make a better world. Those are the kind of people we must target.
We don’t necessarily need to depend on rich “patrons” to get the message out. We just need to focus on people who truly care about human suffering, and who already have an audience.
An example (which I’ll choose totally at random) is Ms. Vandana Shiva: an Indian scholar, environmental activist and anti-globalization author who has published more than 20 books in English. She’s the kind of person I want to meet so I can explain the facts of MS to her. I am certain she would “eat it up” and pass it along to her international audiences.
LikeLike
Yes, do contact Ms. Shiva. Contact everyone with a voice.
I’m not sure the word of an environmental activist and anti-globalization author has much influence on American economics, but it certainly couldn’t hurt to contact everyone you can.
Importantly, she may talk to people who are more influential in those areas — for instance, a national leader.
If I were to pick one person on the planet to talk with, it might be Janet Yellen, because she already knows the truth. I’d like to ask her why she doesn’t tell it.
Alternatively, I’d like to talk with the President of the United States or Donald Trump.
Donald Trump???!!!
Yes, the Donald, because the media cover everything he says, and at some point in this campaign, he will search for a dramatic statement.
I don’t know whether any of them cares about human suffering, but they have much bigger megaphones than does Ms. Shiva.
But do contact her and all those whom you believe could spread the word.
By the way, for motivation, I trust appeals to personal greed more than appeals to compassion. That was the point of the post.
But maybe I’ve grown cold in my old age.
LikeLike
1. “I’m not sure the word of an environmental activist and anti-globalization author has much influence on American economics, but it certainly couldn’t hurt to contact everyone you can.” ~ RMM
I cited Ms. Shiva at random. Her guest lectures are popular. I would like to give her (and many people like her) some answers for anyone who claims that we “can’t afford” solutions. There are people like her in many different fields of study.
2. “If I were to pick one person on the planet to talk with, it might be Janet Yellen, because she already knows the truth. I’d like to ask her why she doesn’t tell it.” ~ RMM
She doesn’t tell the truth because she’s paid not to tell it. Most people don’t want to hear the truth anyway, since the truth might threaten to narrow the Gap beneath them.
3. “Alternatively, I’d like to talk with the President of the United States or Donald Trump, because the media cover everything he says, and at some point in this campaign, he will search for a dramatic statement.” ~ RMM
The President is paid to lie. As for Trump, would he would be willing to say something that threatened the Gap beneath the rich? I don’t know.
4. “By the way, for motivation, I trust appeals to personal greed more than appeals to compassion. That was the point of the post. But maybe I’ve grown cold in my old age.” ~ RMM
The Gap is what makes people feel rich, and greed is what makes them want to widen the Gap. I don’t see how appealing to rich people’s desire for an ever-widening Gap would make them amenable to a smaller Gap.
5. “Can the poor be brought up closer to the middle classes, while the rich maintain their distance from the middle? Why would the rich want this? Because increasing the incomes of the poor provides the rich with more consumers of goods and services provided by rich-owned businesses.” ~ RMM
There are three problems with this idea. First, more and more of the super-rich no longer need to sell goods and services. They no longer rely on the real economy, or on industrial capitalism. They now have the financial economy (i.e. the Wall Street casinos). Today the name of the game is arbitrage, market scams, and privatization.
Second, in order to narrow the Gap between the poor and the middle class, we would have to set aside the Big Lie to some extent. This would threaten the Gap between the rich and the rest. If there is enough money to help the poor, then why wouldn’t there be enough money for single payer health insurance, or expanded Social Security, or free college tuition?
Third, the rich depend on the Gap between the middle and lower class. For rich people, the middle class acts like prison inmates who are made trustees. The trustees focus their attention on widening the Gap beneath them, not on narrowing the Gap above them. The more people in the bottom class are made to suffer, the more people in the middle class feel “middle class” (i.e. not-poor). If we start dissolving the bottom class, then middle-class people might start to realize that they are on the bottom, under the rich. They might start to look up, not down.
Members of the middle class cope with abuse from above by abusing those below. If we start dissolving the bottom class, then the middle class would have no one to abuse. This might cause them to resist abuse from above.
We see this phenomenon when we consider how the Gap is a cornerstone of imperialism. When an Empire wants to keep millions of people in chains, it elevates a small number of slaves above the rest. The “trustee” slaves (e.g. puppet dictators) are allowed to keep their special luxuries and privileges as long as they control the rest of the slaves.
My main point is that it is useless to speak the truth to people who are paid to lie, or whose greed or insecurity is greater than their concern for others. These people are unreachable, since they are obsessed with maintaining the Gap beneath them. And the Big Lie is all about maintaining the Gap beneath us.
Instead, we would do better to speak the truth to people whose compassion is greater than their greed or their insecurity. Such people are already on the road of truth. The facts of Monetary Sovereignty are part of the road.
LikeLike
Perhaps something that focuses on the working poor, because that removes the “poor-won’t-work-if-we-give-them-money” excuse.
As a former advertising man, I think in terms of ads, so something like this:
“She wakes up every day hungry, and goes to bed every day hungry, Her daddy works hard, but still can’t afford enough food for her.
Yes, the federal government could help, and no, it wouldn’t cause inflation. Read how you can help without spending a dime.”
LikeLike
We need a 1776 redux to avoid feudalism which is clearly the goal of the 1%.
LikeLike
“Here’s a quote from Bill Bonner in his book Hormageddon; ” The idea that a government’s mission is to make things better, is false.”……
as evidenced by both party’s inability to stay out of wars.
” …naturally occurring struggle between the Outsiders and the Insiders….”
I doubt it occurs naturally. It is more likely learned by misinformation and misdirection. The assumption that all must be rendered scarce in accord with the two fundamental inadequacy authors, Darwin (survival of the fittest) and Thomas Malthus who — during the agrarian mid-1800s– correctly concluded there was not enough to go around due to population growth outpacing general production. He obviously didn’t see the coming industrial revolution.
So we cling to the truths that becomes false with time. We embrace the words of the politicians who, in turn, are embraced by the powerful and selfish who want yesteryear’s scarcity model perpetuated to remain a viable and controlling tool in 21st Century economics.
LikeLike
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/11/18/was-neil-cavutos-painful-interview-with-a-college-student-activist-fair-game/
What we have here is an interview on Fox between Neil Cavuto and a college student. The student is proposing free college education and the eradication of student debt. When Neil asks the student how will we pay for it, the student is unable to respond effectively. Had the student visited this blog, she would have been able to easily defend herself. When I get into these discussions, I always propose a question, if the US has a limited supply of dollars, what approximately is that limit — $10 trillion, $50 trillion, $100 trillion, etc. I have never gotten an answer.
LikeLike
What Cavuto was really saying is :
The problems of the economy cannot disappear. They’ll always be with us as there is no solution that I can envision. Checkmate!!
The student should have asked Cavuto what his solution would consist of.
He’s got his. He’s well paid by Fox to maintain an Econ 101, status quo, defense formation and no doubt totally ready to shoot down progressives looking for free money. I’d bet if students knew about MS, Cavuto would never have them on his show. He’d lose the debate.
LikeLike
IAN WINOGRAD SAYS: “When I get into these discussions, I always propose a question: if the US has a limited supply of dollars, then what approximately is that limit — $10 trillion, $50 trillion, $100 trillion, etc. I have never gotten an answer.”
Yes, and when people finally admit that there is no limit to dollars, they always fall back on “Plan B,” which is to claim that austerity is the only thing that protects us from hyperinflation. When you explain this error, they change the subject.
Therefore we all get more austerity and poverty. And more and more. As Rodger says, “The price of ignorance is slavery.”
My next door neighbor is paid minimum wage at her job. Five minutes ago she told me that her health insurance premiums just increased again, to $320 per month. Plus, she must pay on a mortgage, pay for food, gasoline, car insurance, and so on. (She would ride on buses, but none are available anywhere near her workplace.) She is a Mexican national, aged 55, and is just barely hanging on. She raised four children to adulthood on minimum wage (with no food stamps). (Her mortgage is in the name of her adult son, who is a U.S. citizen, but she makes all the payments.)
She is one of the working poor that Republican-types call “lazy.” She is who Republican-types think of when they demand the elimination of all safety nets, which Republican-types call “hammocks.”
As for Neil Cavuto of Fox News, he is an evil dwarf who poses as a “liberal” in order to get away with criticizing anyone who actually has a moral conscience. Shame on anyone for just WATCHING these parasites that contributing nothing to society except hate and suffering.
LikeLike