Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
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.
=========================================================================================================================================================================================
ARE YOU A LOGICAL PERSON?
Do you believe people paid taxes with dollars before the first dollar was created?
Do you believe the government that originally created all dollars from nothing, now needs to ask you for dollars?
Do you doubt the vast majority of scientists about global warming, and instead believe politicians?
Do you believe Donald Trump can build a wall between Mexico and the United States, and make Mexico pay for it?
Do you accept passages from the bible more than the evidence-based findings of scientists?
Do you believe that allowing millions of strangers to carry loaded guns will make you safer?
Do you believe your debts are sustainable while the federal government’s debts are unsustainable?
Do you believe that the same person who hates blacks, browns, yellows, and immigrants, is concerned about a 1-inch fetus?
Do you believe the government should spend more on armaments to protect us, but less on Social Security and Medicare — to protect us?
Do you believe Ted Cruz didn’t know he has health care insurance?
Do you believe the rich work harder than the poor?
Do you believe the federal government needs to borrow the dollars it originally created?
Do you believe that outlawing alcohol and drugs will reduce the use of alcohol and drugs?
Do you believe that for-profit insurance companies paying doctors and hospitals provide better health care than the non-profit government paying doctors and hospitals?
Do you believe that “freedom of religion” means America should be a Christian nation?
Do you believe that “freedom of religion” means the owner of a company can force his employees to obey his religious beliefs?
Do you believe that “freedom of religion” means not needing to obey secular laws?
Do you believe that money is free speech and that the rich should be allowed more free speech than the poor?
Do you believe the federal government can run short of dollars?
Do you believe that rich people themselves — rather than the businesses mostly created by middle- and lower-income people — are the real jobs creators?
Do you believe rich people don’t receive special tax breaks not available to the non-rich?
Do you believe that less federal spending on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, education aids and poverty aids will grow our economy, today and in the future?
Do you believe that widening the gap, between the rich and the rest, benefits America?
Do you believe that citizens should not expect help from their government, but instead, everyone should be self-sufficient?
Do you believe that saving federal government money today is more important than saving the environment for tomorrow?
Do you believe that preventing an adverse event that never has happened in U.S. history (hyperinflation) is more important than preventing an adverse event that happens, on average, every five years (recession and depression).
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 grow the economy, and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and you.
THE RECESSION CLOCK
Recessions begin an average of 2 years after the blue line first dips below zero. There was a dip below zero in 2015. Recessions are cured by a rising red line.
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 
Nicely done Rodger…
https://monetarysov.wordpress.com/2016/01/25/the-twenty-six-theses/
LikeLike
🙂
LikeLike
More logic: Clearly, Chicago doesn’t have enough guns:
What gun nuts are too stupid to figure out: When you make it easy for yourself to buy and carry guns, you make it easy for every wild-ass goof-ball to buy and carry guns.
More guns = more gun crime.
LikeLike
Nice post
Do you believe the rich work harder than the poor?
I do not, but that is because I do not define work as having anything to do with economics. Producing something is work, but the moment you sell that production you have stopped working.
Not one dollar is ‘earned’ (which is a stupid word in this context) except through competition and selling. No one can obtain a job without competing against other job seekers, no one can keep a job unless their employer is competitive, and not one dollar is ever earned unless something is sold.
What’s more, not one person who ever ‘produces’ anything of substance can actually turn around and buy it themselves. While I may earn $500 for doing one job, the person I sold the work to paid more than $700 in order for me to cover my expenses and taxes. Which means if I wanted to then purchase the very same work I performed, I am short more than $200. I can not purchase that which I produce which means I have to extract wealth from others in order to consume what I produce.
Why are we playing this same game the rich play? They are good at being competitive, outsmarting others, using the law to their advantage, bargaining to their advantage, convincing people to buy what they don’t need. And most disturbing, they have convinced us that the most important assets to own are those that do not reproduce on their own (cattle, seeds, etc), but those that can only ever be extracted from another human being…if I need gold to grow, I have to extract it from another..if I need money to grow I have to extract it from another…buy low sell high…that’s the name of the game we all call work…The rich are hard workers all right – they work hard at being good at selling – and we want to be like them?
Interestingly, I have a question regarding logic.
Do you believe that you common law right to life and limb, and all that this implies, is ‘conditioned’ upon you having to sell your labours, own property as a proprietor, and compete (in other words, imitate the rich)?
LikeLike
Not sure why you imply I think the rich work harder than the poor. Quite the opposite.
It seems to me that you don’t like competition. Why is that?
Your definition of “work” is unique. I probably don’t understand it the way you do.
You said, “Not one person who ever ‘produces’ anything of substance can actually turn around and buy it themselves.” Again, I may not understand your point, but are you saying that the people who work on the Ford production line can’t buy Fords?
Or are you saying they would be better off each building their own cars rather than buying them?
Personally, I would rather buy food than grow it. I’d rather buy a house than build one. I’d rather hire a plumber and an electrician rather than try to do that work myself.
Human success is based on our ability to form societies, where specialization is superior to each person trying to be a jack-of-all-trades.
I’d hate to try to build the Large Hadron Collider all by myself.
LikeLike
Do you believe that citizens should not expect help from their government, but instead, everyone should be self-sufficient?
What about a third option – co-operating on an individual basis (or as a family) with government to use, develop, and preserve the resources needed to meet your basic needs under an arrangement?
Instead of owning the resources (land, house, tools etc) as a proprietor (by this I mean owning something with the intent it have some monetary value that can be realized at some later time), hold them under a shared profit (not profit in money, profit in substance) arrangement with the government. The government holds title to the land, house, tools etc, you merely use it to grow food, harness energy, etc, and if there are any surpluses of food or energy, you simply give it back to the government who does with it what it pleases. When you die (unless your children take over the arrangement), all use of the property reverts back to the government.
And if the arrangement happens to need repairs, maintenance, more tools (for example a solar panel needs fixing or replacing) or if due to weather not enough food or energy is produced, the government steps in and provides whatever is needed – because as you have said, it does not cost the tax payer anything.
This arrangement benefits the government because you are not owning property as a proprietor which means the property remains part of the commonwealth, you have no use for money and are therefore not competing over money (which burdens government because government must regulate commerce), and the private sector benefits because they are supplying any necessary goods or services to the arrangement and getting paid.
No one suffers under this arrangement nor does it infringe on any others right or desire to operate under whatever economic system they wish.
I would appreciate any thoughts on this from anyone?
LikeLike
I do not believe everyone should be self-sufficient. Quite the opposite. The purpose of government is to relieve everyone of the enormous burden of being self-sufficient.
I visited Cuba five years ago, and your proposal reminds me of the Cuban approach. Also, Israeli kibbutzes work somewhere along the lines you seem to be suggesting
Cuba doesn’t work and kibbutzes do. I believe the concept can work for small groups and tribes, but not for nations.
There are many problems with centralized control, not the least of which is human motivation.
LikeLike
Thanks Rodger, I appreciate you taking the time to answer. Your answers and questions back have proved helpful in the sense that it has shown me that it is quite easy for words and meanings to be misconstrued but good in the sense that it gives me a chance to elaborate better.
Not sure why you imply I think the rich work harder than the poor. Quite the opposite.
– I didn’t think that about you at all, and assumed your point was that the rich don’t work harder than the poor and thus have no justification for all their wealth (please correct me if I am wrong). I was trying to point out that the rich do not work at all in my view. They produce nothing of substance, and accumulate their riches from being middle men. They feed off the lack of trust between everyone who produce substance and then exchange it. Every legal relation today in exchange economics requires middle men such as brokers, advisers, lawyers, and of course government to name a few. But then again, who do we blame for this, the middle men for taking advantage of an opportunity, or all those who operate under legal relations based on lack of trust?
It seems to me that you don’t like competition. Why is that?
– I’m not against competition if that is what ‘you’ or anyone else wants. But just because Adam Smith or Keynes said we ‘all’ need competition doesn’t mean I have to agree. I simply do not want to compete based on my own principles as I see no benefit from it because I do not aspire to any of the goals competition brings and do not believe there is any law or logic that dictates I must. It is just an assumption that competition is a good thing. For example, it is said competition lowers prices – but my question is, why should I care what the price of something is if I want to live under an economic model that is not based on ‘income’, ‘profit’ and ‘exchange’, but rather on ‘deposit’ and ‘trust’. But the point I was making is that competition should be allowed to exist for those who want to compete. I would never attempt to put in place some economic model or system which forced everyone to operate within its rules – only those who want the goals the system is designed for. Therefore, if my goal is not about profits, but rather about building trusts with people (starting with the government), pooling resources (my only asset is my labour – I own nothing else), and producing more than is consumed within that trust and pool, then what need is there for those involved in that pool to compete?
Your definition of “work” is unique. I probably don’t understand it the way you do.
– It’s no different to applying your labours for a productive purpose. I just don’t agree with the concept that being able to convince someone they need to buy what you produce is work. The work was done when you produced the item – it is not work the moment you attempt to profit from it. It is only those who are good at selling who will win the game of wealth, but this does not prevent those who are not good at selling to be burdened by the superior skills of the best salesman on the planet. But most ‘great’ sellers do not produce anything of substance, they extract all the wealth from those who do produce substance. But that is just me, and again, I do not wish to impose this belief on any other. I will also add that I believe that building trust between people, rather than relying on government or the lawyers to write your contracts for you, also takes work and effort and is probably the hardest work of all to undertake. It takes a lot of effort to study law, and to read contracts and insurance policies and to know your rights etc, or to understand the motives behind the other party etc. It is a lot easier just to let the other party do all the ‘legal’ stuff, or to just rely on government to make laws to protect us, and never consider the costs.
You said, “Not one person who ever ‘produces’ anything of substance can actually turn around and buy it themselves.” Again, I may not understand your point, but are you saying that the people who work on the Ford production line can’t buy Fords?
– Not exactly. They can, but they can’t buy one Ford for every ‘one’ Ford they produce. For example, let’s say it takes 1000 man hours to make one Ford. Each man hour costs Ford say $30 (I’m just plucking a figure out – I don’t know what Ford workers are paid). Therefore, the labour cost to Ford to build one Ford is say $30,000 . Ford then has to add taxes, land rates, costs for use of buildings, interest costs on loans etc, to the point where to cover all expenses, and for Ford to make a profit, the car might get sold for $50,000. Let’s assume this one Ford factory worker, who after working 1000 hours (the man hours it takes to build a Ford), saved every dollar he earned – because he wanted to buy a Ford – after working for 1000 hours, he only has $30000 less any taxes he must pay on it. He is still short over $20,000. The point I was making is that the cost to sell something now far exceeds the cost to produce because there are all these ‘passive income’s’ being tacked on by land, property, and money owners who are now essential in production, i.e. one cannot produce today without having to borrow land, machinery, or money from someone, not to mention all the taxes being tacked on also.
Or are you saying they would be better off each building their own cars rather than buying them?
– Not at all. Again, my point was to demonstrate that all the big land, property, and money owners, who are becoming increasing relied upon in everyone’s pursuit of economic wealth, are causing ‘production’ to cost the end consumer far more than what the producer is paid for his efforts. Again, a land owner does nothing but still makes money from his land. A property owner does nothing but still profits from his buildings. A money lender does nothing but still profits from lending. Why are these people getting rich off the back of hard working producers by passing their charges on to the end consumer? But the real question is, why are we becoming increasingly reliant on these people to produce? Why doesn’t the Ford worker stop and actually think about why he has to work almost 2000 hours to buy that which it only took him 1000 hours to make?
Personally, I would rather buy food than grow it. I’d rather buy a house than build one. I’d rather hire a plumber and an electrician rather than try to do that work myself.
– So would I. I am not suggesting at all that we as individuals have to build anything at all. In fact, I would be doing a dis-service to all those who are out there trying to make a living under what they believe to be the best economic model to fulfill their goals if I did not employ them. Although for myself I do enjoy growing food and raising chickens etc, at no point did I suggest I would have to build the house, or do the electrical work myself. In fact, my model would employ only those who produce substance (builders, plumbers, electricians, other food growers etc). At no time does my model require the use of middle men.
Human success is based on our ability to form societies, where specialization is superior to each person trying to be a jack-of-all-trades.
– Bingo!!! The first half of this sentence, you have hit the nail on the head. The second half can be both positive and negative. The ability to form societies – I would assume being built on trust? And so is that what we are doing? Whenever I enter into any labour contract, lease agreement, or when I let my telco company, my bank, my electricity company write up the contract for me, have I allowed something to be specialized, which I ought to learn for myself? And why the contract, and not a trust? Why can’t I form a trust with the electricity company, why ‘must’ I enter into a contract in order to get electricity? The answer is because all legal relations today are not based on trust but on the opposite, a lack of trust. Building societies requires building trusts – and no one has any excuse not to do this – but we are not taught law or trust in school, instead we are taught mostly useless crap that means nothing other than preparing us for the exchange economic model based on pursuing self-interests.
I’d hate to try to build the Large Hadron Collider all by myself.
– That is fair enough. I would have no such desire either.
I do not believe everyone should be self-sufficient. Quite the opposite. The purpose of government is to relieve everyone of the enormous burden of being self-sufficient.
– Again, either do I (I could just as easily be a musician (which I am) and employ this model purely as a musician – everyone has a skill, gift, or talent they can use which benefits society and which they do not need to sell), and as I elaborated above, I would be doing a dis-service to all those who produce substance if I did not utilize them for my needs. There is a key difference between how my model pays for my essentials in life, and the customary way which is to go out and sell something. Money is not the only way to pay for something or give what the law calls ‘consideration’ in exchange for anything. My model pays for the essentials in life (housing, food, energy etc) by giving to the government that which ‘relieves its burdens’, and because I relieve burdens of government, they in turn ‘pay’ those who supply me with any necessary goods or services I cant produce on my own – which if your MS theory (well its not really theory is it? its more fact) is correct, does not burden anyone but instead benefits the whole of society. It is not welfare, because welfare recipients receive money. The way I benefit government (which is my consideration) is that I do not own property, I merely use it as usufructuary, I do not pursue money, I do not compete, I do not do commerce, I do not enter into legal relations based on contracts and which place a burden on government to regulate. My model does not receive or even use money, because all the money side of things is taken care of by the relation between the government and those who supply the models needs. Picture a triangle – the private sector supplies the model goods and services (food, energy, tools, instruments etc), in turn the model pays the government (not in money) but by relieving it of the burdens it would otherwise place on it if it did compete, and in turn the government pays the suppliers. Everyone benefits, no one loses, no one has suffered any property damage or economic loss. What’s more, the model is able to make it exclusively domestic goods and services because price is not an issue. I once delivered (as my current occupation is a truck driver until I can figure out how to implement this model) a nice looking door with two window pane sides. It looked magnificent. The guy who received it said, “would you believe it was made in China?” He then asked, “I paid $1800 for it, including getting it shipped here. Guess how much I was quoted to have the same door built here locally?” It was $6400!!! Is it any wonder he bought the door from China? My model, if it needed a door (although the model would buy a door for its purpose as a door and not for any cosmetic reasons) would buy locally, because price is not an issue to it, and it makes sense to support locals and makes no sense to import.
I visited Cuba five years ago, and your proposal reminds me of the Cuban approach. Also, Israeli kibbutzes work somewhere along the lines you seem to be suggesting
Cuba doesn’t work and kibbutzes do. I believe the concept can work for small groups and tribes, but not for nations.
– Again, this model does not seek to change the whole system, nor does it wish for capitalists to stop being capitalists. I have no desire to be a capitalist or seek the same goals a capitalist seeks and as such I have no right being in their sand box.
There are many problems with centralized control, not the least of which is human motivation.
– Not sure what you mean.
If I understand your proposal (call it “Deanism”), it seems the key sentence is, “I do not believe I should have to compete over resources to meet my basic needs.”
Specifically, which resources do you feel you should use without competing and without following any laws?
– I never said anything about not following the law. On the contrary, this model is about the only way I can see how I can fulfill the law (I am referring to just ‘me’ here..I am not implying that you or anyone else who does what you do makes you break the law). But that is just me. Law is not a blanket that covers every action. Some laws are created for specific purposes and only apply to those purposes. For example, if I own property legally (i.e. I have to right to sell it, encumber it, dispose of it how I please), I am subject to all the laws that govern that form of property ownership. If I don’t own property in that fashion, then how would those laws apply to me? I am a firm believer in obeying the law, but I do not agree with the notion of there being too many laws created because people are too lazy to learn the law for themselves. Legislation especially is like some huge force that fills the void for the lack of trust and knowledge in society.
– To address the first part of your question, it is better to ask it this way – ‘what is the purpose you hold any resource for?’ If we take a house as an example, do you simply use it to fulfill a basic need, i.e. shelter, privacy, and to raise a family? Or, do you hold it and legally own it, for the purpose of realizing some monetary gain down the road, and/or, to hand it down to your children? If it is the former, I do not agree it should come at the cost of competition. If it is the latter, then it should come at the cost of competition. Another way of looking at holding property, if I am a musician who has a picture of my favourite musician on the wall, do I hold it for productive purposes (because it inspires me to practice which in turn benefits those I perform in front of) or do I hold it merely for status, monetary purposes, to show my friends, cosmetics etc? Two completely different purposes but with two completely different outcomes. If I hold a resource for the purpose of employing it to make my contribution of my skill, gift, or talent more beneficial to society, it makes no sense to compete with society in order to obtain the use of it.
I don’t expect you to agree with my model, and that is fair enough, and you might have many reasons, some of which you have touched on, albeit from a different understanding which I hopefully have altered. However, you have a great mind Rodger, and I have specifically targeted you (as I have done with others all around the world) to get your feedback (if you desire to, and if you don’t I accept that also) to disprove the model from a legal perspective, because in the end, if it is proven the model is not unlawful or illegal, there is no grounds to prevent its implementation.
One reason many would not like the concept is because it is easy for people to assume that if it was this easy everyone would do it – but the point of the model is that it is not easy and most people would never do it – it takes much understanding of law, especially trust law, and it takes much understanding of what drives people – people actually need to study themselves from an objective point of view, as if to observe themselves, before they can understand anything about society. But, earning a living under the current economic model is easy. I don’t have to worry about law as the government makes all them for me. I don’t have to worry about the forming of all the legalities of contracts because all the corporations do this for me. I don’t have to study myself or understand why I act or make the decisions I do – if McDonald’s has an ad on TV which all of sudden makes me get up and buy McDonald’s, I don’t have to care about observing what just happened, and even if I was shown that anothers will power became stronger than my own, it matters not as I am ‘doing my bit for society’. All I have to do is specialize in some skill, follow the mantra, get a good education, get a good job, buy a dream home, and everything else is taken care of. As an example also, it would take a lot of shedding of some core beliefs before most people could give up the idea of not ‘owning’ their own home – yet is has never been a dream of mine, I have never understood it, and I have found this to be the exception to the rule. I have not met many people who share the same belief as me about what a house is and its purpose. I do not believe I am benefiting my children by leaving them property when I die – but that is just me – I would rather leave them with knowledge. Point being, most people would not employ this model because it is opposite to what they have been taught is what will make them happy in life.
I also agree with you we should specialize, but at the same time, I spend most of my time studying, I do not watch much TV, and so I do not agree with any notion that people do not have time to learn other stuff. I am a full time truck driver, I have a family with 6 children and now 1 grandchild, my wife works in child care as a director, and so we have to share the cooking, cleaning, shopping etc…and yet I still find time to study many hours a day (including listening to audios while driving my truck). I get up two hours earlier every morning before work to study because this I have found is when my mind is most fertile. I have been doing this for nearly 15 years. My parents won $500,000 in a state lottery in 1998, and in 4 years were bankrupt. I then found this happens to 19 out of 20 lottery winners! Can you believe that?? But then I found out that 19 out of 20 people will retire with insufficient funds (by the way my model does not require any retirement fund which is another relief for the government), and 19 out of 20 businesses ultimately fail. This is NO co-incidence. And considering that only a few months prior we had 9/11 – these events altered me forever. It is not money or competition I have problem with if others want to use it, but it is the principles behind why money exists that I can no longer support. As the Bank of England pointed out – money fills the void for lack of trust. If I keep using money, I endorse and perpetuate the lack of trust in society. Some of us need to turn to operating under trust exclusively, in order to ease the burdens inherent in competition – but we are not asking everyone to do the same – that would be pointless – that would be like taking the world from one extreme to the other. Life has always been about finding a middle way, and if some people want to compete, then we need to have others who don’t compete to balance things out.
You may ask why I haven’t implemented it, and that would be a great question. As I said on another post, I have been trying to find a legal perspective that proves that no one suffers by having one family implement this model. Although I believe I have now found it, thanks in part to finding your blog, I still need to determine who in Government exactly I have to approach about it, and to present it in away that hopefully will not require me to have to utilize the court system, although the courts do have the jurisdiction to declare something as being lawful and as it was said in Franklin v The Queen (No 2) [1974] 1 QB 205 at 218 where Lord Denning said “It is always presumed that once a declaration of entitlement is made the Crown will honour it.”
I will just keep working on it.
Thanks again for your input – it was most helpful
LikeLike
I would just like to add Rodger, that it has been told to me by friends that I am not a good writer. My brain works quicker than my typing or writing and as such what begins with attempting to address one point often ends up becoming muddled with other points and quickly turns into a mush of points which confuses the reader.
And for this, I must apologize.
This is something I have made an intention to address, especially before I ever get to the point of trying to explain it to the government or a court. The last thing I want to do is confuse the heck out of them!
LikeLike