Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
My family’s motto is, “Good comes from bad.”
It means that when bad things happen, they often provide lessons or opportunities that otherwise might not have appeared.
Unquestionably, the Donald Trump we all know, has the most awful résumé for filling the job of President of the United States. His promises to “make America great again” (again?) ring hollow when coming from a compulsively lying, often bankrupt, misogynist, bigoted, inexperienced and ignorant egomaniac of infidelity.
Yet his victory, as bad as it seems, makes abundantly clear something we have been saying for years: The Democratic Party, the traditionally liberal party of the working class, neither is liberal nor cares anything for the working class.
Barack Obama is a right-winger who loves bankers more than workers, money more than principle, and compromise more than leadership. Hillary Clinton is an even more conservative version of Obama.
Did you see those thousands of people at Trump’s rallies, you know the “basket of deplorables” Hillary scoffed at? Those were working class people — people who should have been Democrats if only there were any Democrats running for President.
Not many “too-big-to-jail” bankers in those crowds — just ordinary working people, trying to make a life for themselves and their children. Unfortunately, they can’t get ahead; they can’t reach that elusive American dream. The rich have stolen it.
The Gap between the rich and the rest has grown, as the middles have merged with the lowers, while the idle rich criticize the working poor as “takers.”
Ironically, along comes a classic example of the cruel rich, a billionaire who has cheated thousands of workers out of their salaries, a nativist who has his merchandise produced abroad and who tries to evict “deplorables” from his properties.
But he told the people what they wanted to hear, so desperately, they ignored his reality in favor of the tales he has spun. Who can blame them? The Democrats offered more of the same old, same old.
Republican leaders are proud to be conservative, but Democratic leaders, having spent their lives hobnobbing with the rich, want nothing to do with liberalism. Even union leaders, whose sole purpose ostensibly, is to fight for the working class, have become mere tools of the rich.
Money talks and big money screams through a megaphone.
The Democrats have lost their leadership, lost their direction, lost their liberalism, and as a result, have lost their base and this election.
Having lost to such as Donald Trump, the least qualified Presidential candidate in generations, shows just how far the Party has fallen.
Elizabeth Warren, perhaps the sole liberal in Congress, could have won this election. She should have run.
I suspect she would have instituted the Ten Steps to Prosperity (below) or something very much like it.
Meanwhile, we must suffer years of a Donald Trump, and a Republican Party, and a right-wing, activist Supreme Court, that will continue to steal from the working class, and give to the rich, unless and until the Democrats return to their roots.
Good may come from yesterday’s bad, but at my age, I probably won’t live to see it. I hope you will.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
The single most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the rich and the rest.
Wide Gaps negatively affect poverty, health and longevity, education, housing, law and crime, war, leadership, ownership, bigotry, supply and demand, taxation, GDP, international relations, scientific advancement, the environment, human motivation and well-being, and virtually every other issue in economics.
Implementation of The Ten Steps To Prosperity can narrow the Gaps:
Ten Steps To Prosperity:
1. ELIMINATE FICA (Ten Reasons to Eliminate FICA )
Although the article lists 10 reasons to eliminate FICA, there are two fundamental reasons:
*FICA is the most regressive tax in American history, widening the Gap by punishing the low and middle-income groups, while leaving the rich untouched, and
*The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, neither needs nor uses FICA to support Social Security and Medicare.
2. FEDERALLY FUNDED MEDICARE — PARTS A, B & D, PLUS LONG TERM CARE — FOR EVERYONE (H.R. 676, Medicare for All )
This article addresses the questions:
*Does the economy benefit when the rich can afford better health care than can the rest of Americans?
*Aside from improved health care, what are the other economic effects of “Medicare for everyone?”
*How much would it cost taxpayers?
*Who opposes it?”
3. PROVIDE AN ANNUAL ECONOMIC BONUS TO EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA, AND/OR EVERY STATE, A PER CAPITA ECONOMIC BONUS (The JG (Jobs Guarantee) vs the GI (Guaranteed Income) vs the EB) Or institute a reverse income tax.
This article is the fifth in a series about direct financial assistance to Americans:
Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Employer of Last Resort is a bad idea. Sunday, Jan 1 2012
MMT’s Job Guarantee (JG) — “Another crazy, rightwing, Austrian nutjob?” Thursday, Jan 12 2012
Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Jobs Guarantee is like the EU’s euro: A beloved solution to the wrong problem. Tuesday, May 29 2012
“You can’t fire me. I’m on JG” Saturday, Jun 2 2012
Economic growth should include the “bottom” 99.9%, not just the .1%, the only question being, how best to accomplish that. Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) favors giving everyone a job. Monetary Sovereignty (MS) favors giving everyone money. The five articles describe the pros and cons of each approach.
4. FREE EDUCATION (INCLUDING POST-GRAD) FOR EVERYONEFive reasons why we should eliminate school loans
Monetarily non-sovereign State and local governments, despite their limited finances, support grades K-12. That level of education may have been sufficient for a largely agrarian economy, but not for our currently more technical economy that demands greater numbers of highly educated workers.
Because state and local funding is so limited, grades K-12 receive short shrift, especially those schools whose populations come from the lowest economic groups. And college is too costly for most families.
An educated populace benefits a nation, and benefiting the nation is the purpose of the federal government, which has the unlimited ability to pay for K-16 and beyond.
5. SALARY FOR ATTENDING SCHOOL
Even were schooling to be completely free, many young people cannot attend, because they and their families cannot afford to support non-workers. In a foundering boat, everyone needs to bail, and no one can take time off for study.
If a young person’s “job” is to learn and be productive, he/she should be paid to do that job, especially since that job is one of America’s most important.
6. ELIMINATE CORPORATE TAXES
Corporations themselves exist only as legalities. They don’t pay taxes or pay for anything else. They are dollar-transferring machines. They transfer dollars from customers to employees, suppliers, shareholders and the government (the later having no use for those dollars).
Any tax on corporations reduces the amount going to employees, suppliers and shareholders, which diminishes the economy. Ultimately, all corporate taxes come around and reappear as deductions from your personal income.
7. INCREASE THE STANDARD INCOME TAX DEDUCTION, ANNUALLY. (Refer to this.) Federal taxes punish taxpayers and harm the economy. The federal government has no need for those punishing and harmful tax dollars. There are several ways to reduce taxes, and we should evaluate and choose the most progressive approaches.
Cutting FICA and corporate taxes would be a good early step, as both dramatically affect the 99%. Annual increases in the standard income tax deduction, and a reverse income tax also would provide benefits from the bottom up. Both would narrow the Gap.
8. TAX THE VERY RICH (THE “.1%) MORE, WITH HIGHER PROGRESSIVE TAX RATES ON ALL FORMS OF INCOME. (TROPHIC CASCADE)
There was a time when I argued against increasing anyone’s federal taxes. After all, the federal government has no need for tax dollars, and all taxes reduce Gross Domestic Product, thereby negatively affecting the entire economy, including the 99.9%.
But I have come to realize that narrowing the Gap requires trimming the top. It simply would not be possible to provide the 99.9% with enough benefits to narrow the Gap in any meaningful way. Bill Gates reportedly owns $70 billion. To get to that level, he must have been earning $10 billion a year. Pick any acceptable Gap (1000 to 1?), and the lowest paid American would have to receive $10 million a year. Unreasonable.
9. FEDERAL OWNERSHIP OF ALL BANKS (Click The end of private banking and How should America decide “who-gets-money”?)
Banks have created all the dollars that exist. Even dollars created at the direction of the federal government, actually come into being when banks increase the numbers in checking accounts. This gives the banks enormous financial power, and as we all know, power corrupts — especially when multiplied by a profit motive.
Although the federal government also is powerful and corrupted, it does not suffer from a profit motive, the world’s most corrupting influence.
10. INCREASE FEDERAL SPENDING ON THE MYRIAD INITIATIVES THAT BENEFIT AMERICA’S 99.9% (Federal agencies)Browse the agencies. See how many agencies benefit the lower- and middle-income/wealth/ power groups, by adding dollars to the economy and/or by actions more beneficial to the 99.9% than to the .1%.
Save this reference as your primer to current economics. Sadly, much of the material is not being taught in American schools, which is all the more reason for you to use it.
The Ten Steps will grow the economy, and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and you.
31 thoughts on “Good comes from bad”
Thank you. Please join “The Movement” not for your sake or mine but for the sake of our children and our childrens grandchildren. Challenge :
POTUS Trump calls for help from ALL of us. Tear away all that misdirection
(Which BTW helped to tear away this rigged system) and HELP TO MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.
Very good points, also true for the rest of the so-called western democracies.
As for the “good comes from bad” part, in Italy we experienced a Trump-like leader (Berlusconi, with so many Trumpish traits including unlikely hairs). From his demise in 2011, we are still waiting for a truly liberal leader. The one we have now is way more detached from working class than Berlusconi. And he belongs to a party which derives from the Communists. Go figure.
As long as Italian politicians insist that Italy keep using the euro, Italy’s leaders will not serve Italy. They will serve Germany and the Troika (IMF, ECB, and European Commission).
Therefore, as long as Italy uses the euro, it will not be possible for an Italian leader to be a true liberal, since all Italian leaders must serve the bankers. There are no exceptions.
As long as Italy uses the euro, Italy will only have fake liberals like Matteo Renzi, the current prime minister, who calls himself a communist, but is actually a right-wing neoliberal who serves as camouflage for the criminal bankers.
Yes, and as long as the USA pays interest to the top 10%ers in order to have money issued we will be “…To allow it to become a source of revenue to private issuers is to create, first, a secret and illicit arm of the government and, last, a rival power strong enough ultimately to overthrow all other forms of government.”(Frederick Soddy).
Pretty certain Italy will vote to leave the Eurozone.
Oh dear indeed. QE is fundamentally an asset swap to increase the reserve position/liquidity of banks and lower short term interest rates to increase private lending. QE as applied to local governments in your proposal, is essentially having the Federal Reserve function as a private lender by purchasing state issued bonds.
This is not “QE” and is not part of the Fed’s mandate. What you are proposing would in essence be a nationalization of the banks. States would still be accumulating debt and would have to pay these bonds back to the fed, and likely have to raise taxes to do so. The only difference maybe slightly more favorable rates. States would merely be indebted to the government (which doesn’t need the money), rather than private investors/banks (looking for income).
Also, as readers here know any effort to reduce the Federal debt will also decrease private sector wealth and increase private sector indebtedness. So why doesn’t the Federal government just give the States the grant money it needs for these projects: no new taxes, increased jobs, income, and wealth.
Please read Malcolm’s ten steps…..
There is some hope. Trump has said that the US will never default on the debt. Hillary has not said that. And the Gap is in part caused by globalization that put domestic workers in direct competition with foreign workers, which led to huge American job losses. The Gap could close if some of the outsourcing is eliminated.
Bruce: What you are proposing would in essence be a nationalization of the banks. States would still be accumulating debt and would have to pay these bonds back to the fed, and likely have to raise taxes to do so. The only difference maybe slightly more favorable rates. States would merely be indebted to the government (which doesn’t need the money), rather than private investors/banks (looking for income).
1. Please understand..No where is ‘nationalization of banks’ mentioned.
Separation , yes.
2. What do you not understand- The Central Bank had given $16trillion
to BANKS…for banks to make profits !!!
OMG…Can you imagine if the FED “Reverse, proceed and lend
that money to PUBLIC BANKS (1 for each state) to create 25 to 50 million new jobs use a low interest to insure return “FOR THE PEOPLE”!
3…. states ” likely have to raise taxes to do so.” Yeah, but with $ and jobs
who would complain about paying back at 2%.
 “The Democratic Party, the traditionally liberal party of the working class, neither is liberal nor cares anything for the working class.” ~ RMM
This has been obvious since Wall Street installed Bill Clinton twenty-four years ago. And you wonder why authentic progressives despise Hillary. Bill Clinton gave us NAFTA, and he would have pushed for the privatization of Medicare and Social Security had not the Lewinsky scandal got in the way. And don’t forget the catastrophic “Clinton budget surplus” that dragged on for four miserable years. Obama was more of the same with his TPP and his deficit reduction. Hillary would have been Obama on steroids.
 “Good may come from yesterday’s bad, but at my age, I probably won’t live to see it.” ~ RMM
The good is here and now. The money powers no longer have a fake “liberal” to serve as camouflage as they rape us.
Only a democrat (i.e. a fake “liberal”) can get away with privatizing Medicare and Social Security, and with pushing things like the TPP and TTIP. Only a democrat can get away with imposing a balanced federal budget. Only a democrat can get away with the “humanitarian” destruction of entire nations (e.g. Libya).
Americans have spoken. They will no longer worship Republicans who call themselves “Democrats.”
 “Elizabeth Warren, perhaps the sole liberal in Congress, could have won this election. She should have run.” ~ RMM
And Bernie Sanders would have wiped the floor with all of them, including Trump, if Hillary and the DNC had not rigged the primary process.
Incidentally I consider Warren a fake liberal, or at best a quasi-liberal. Actual liberals currently in Congress (based on their voting records) would be people like Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) Rep. Eleanor Norton (D-D.C.), Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) and a few others. In the Senate I would point to Bernie Sanders, Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Kirstin Gillibrand (D-NY), Jeff Merkley (D-OR) Sheldon Whitehouse (D- RI), Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and a few more.
At the extreme far right in the Senate is James Inhofe (R-OK) and in the House there is Jeff Duncan (R-SC). Ugh!
Unlike what Obama had to deal with, Republican Trump will have a Republican Senate, a Republican House, and a Republican Supreme Court (after his nomination) — so no excuses from him or whining from his supporters.
So that’s a good thing that came from bad.
You just said that Democrats have sold out.
Now you are blaming everything on Republicans again.
Previously you said you would oppose Trump even if he enacted your “ten steps to prosperity.”
I presume that you would despise Trump even if he becomes the most saintly and benevolent president ever. And you would adore Hillary even if she became the most Republican-like president ever.
Some people can be reached. Some cannot.
Hopefully this is rock bottom; that way the only direction to go is up.
Just hopefully if we go up we don’t come down hard.
We are nowhere near rock bottom. Not even close. Wait until you see what happens to Obamacare.
And don’t even think about the international situations.
I was adamantly against Clinton even to the point of justifying Trump,but now I only see darkness ahead.
RMM, take a break. A sabbatical to discover “Where we went wrong and How we can fix it.” BTW Do you not understand that TRUMP IS NOT A REPUBLICAN (That party of the past as well as the past Dem.Party is no longer). He may just be what is an answer to politics:
The POTUS becomes CEO for all Americans and the BOD(Congress) should also, dare I mention the Supreme Court . One should never stop seeking “Live,Liberty and Justice for ALL !
Elizabeth, you’ve been watching too many Trump conspiracy movies. Your assumptions are a bit on the delusional side.
Hey, do you remember this:
Wait until saintly and benevolent Trump introduces Trumpcare. It should be an interesting year.
RMM…. Get off your misdirection. As for elimination of Obamacare.
YES for TRUMPCARE….IF, ( that magical word that people can not understand) IF it were-
“So why not a Medicare that:
A. Covers every man, woman and child in America?
B. Covers all hospital, all doctor and all pharmaceutical bills?
C. Covers every form of medical diagnosis and treatment?
D. Covers long-term care
E. Pays 100% of the bill?
MONTHLY COST FOR EACH TAXPAYER GROUP:
Tax Group One (12%)
Income up to $50,000 will be taxed at a rate of…..12%
JOINT Income up to $100,000 taxed at a rate of…12%
ZERO MONTHLY COST
Tax Group Two (25%)
Income from $50,001 to $150,000 will be taxed at a rate of …..25%
JOINT Income up to $100,001 to $150,000 will be taxed at a rate of …..25%
$100 PER PERSON MONTHLY COST: PAYS 90%
Tax Group Three (33%)
$150 PER PERSON MONTHLY COST; PAYS 50%
This is what you should be writing about, or have you forgotten your mission “for the people.”
ejhr2015, “I hope that wasn’t a mirage.”
Yes I too.
But more than hope, we must continue to let those who are our CEO, BOD of our nation, understand what it means to form …”for the people”…a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,…”
AND LET THEM KNOW THAT “WE THE PEOPLE” CAN PAY FOR IT!
God bless you, God bless America. We will return to “IN GOD WE TRUST.”
We’ve discussed this way too many times over too many years, for me to believe you just don’t get it.
THERE IS NO MONTHLY COST FOR EACH TAXPAYER GROUP. None. Zero. Zilch.
At long last, Justa, read Monetary Sovereignty. The federal government has the unlimited ability to create the dollars to pay any bills of any size. Period. NO TAXES NEEDED.
My mission is to try to teach Monetary Sovereignty, and unfortunately, I seem to have failed.
May I give your name and address to the people I met at social security
offices that have @$ 120-$140 taken out of their check…”TO PAY FOR MEDICARE BENEFITS.
Or better yet how about a Class action law suit to recover the billions
paid (“HAD DEDUCTED FROM THEIR CHECK”) .
Rodger, I am fully aware of Monetary Sovereignty and you must be confused because “We the people are not Monetarily capable of “unlimited money printing”…Maybe, perhaps that would be a felony.
Please note;my comment above:
“AND LET THEM KNOW THAT “WE THE PEOPLE” CAN PAY FOR IT!”
“We the people” are a Monetary Sovereignty and as “We the people” can pay for it.
See Step #1 of the Ten Steps to Prosperity
Your response,WOW, what a spin!
Are you saying”*The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, neither needs nor uses FICA to support Social Security and Medicare.”
Yes, Justa, that is exactly what Monetary Sovereignty says: FEDERAL TAXES DO NOT FUND FEDERAL SPENDING.
Even if FICA collections fell to $0, the government could continue to pay Social Security and Medicare benefits, forever.
Your federal tax dollars are destroyed upon receipt. They no longer exist as part of the money supply.
Get it? The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, does not need to collect taxes.
FEDERAL taxes, unlike state and local taxes, are completely unnecessary.
Is there any way I could be clearer?
Before you write yet another long, long, and wrong comment, please read, https://mythfighter.com/2010/08/13/monetarily-sovereign-the-key-to-understanding-economics/
Then read: https://mythfighter.com/2013/07/27/i-just-thought-you-should-know-lunch-really-can-be-free/
Then read the a couple more times until you understand them.
You nailed it Malcolm. The Dems are “class” traitors and deserve all the shit poured on them. I’m hoping for a big blood letting within the sections that bumped Bernie for HRC.
Did you notice in his acceptance speech there was a hint of following at least a few of your 10 steps? I hope that wasn’t a mirage.
What if at President Trump’s first media briefing…
President Trump: “My first order of business is to create a National Debt Offset account which always has a balance exactly equal to the National Debt. The Assets and Liabilities offset, and there will no longer be a National Debt.”
Political Pundits laughing: “If you do that President Trump, the US Economy will collapse. Inflation will be worse than it was in the Weimar Republic during the 1920’s”
President Trump: “During my first meeting with the Federal Reserve, I was informed that Nixon set up that account 45 years ago, but chose not to make that information public. The Federal debt has actually been $0.00 since. And the economy has not collapsed”
I must admit I’d not heard of that. Please supply a reference.
It is fictional as far as I know (I started my post with a What If). But the US has the ability to create such an account, and it could have been done. And had it been done in 1971, there would not have been any consequences. Which is exactly my point.
Your’s may be fiction..but here’s real fact:
*****************Decrease…… Federal Debt:
Accounting-entry “QE” (Quantitative Easing)
“All the perplexities, confusions, and distresses in America arise, not from defects in their constitution or confederation, not from a want of honor or virtue, so much as from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit, and circulation.” —John Adams in a letter to Thomas Jefferson, August 25, 1787
***The ease with which the government’s debt could be paid in this way was demonstrated in January 2004****
As the chairman of the Coinage Subcommittee observed in the 1980s, the entire federal debt could actually be paid in this way. The Federal Reserve has already established that it can issue $4.5 trillion in accounting-entry QE without triggering hyperinflation. In fact, it has not succeeded in triggering the modest inflation the exercise was designed for. As with QE, paying the federal debt in this way would just be an asset swap, replacing an interest-bearing obligation with a non-interest-bearing one. The market for goods and services would not be flooded with “new” money that would inflate the prices of consumer goods, because the bond holders would not consider themselves any richer than before. They presumably had their money in bonds in the first place because they wanted to save it rather than spend it. They would no doubt continue to save it, either as cash or by investing it in some other interest-generating securities.
The ease with which the government’s debt could be paid in this way was demonstrated in January 2004, when the US Treasury called a 30-year bond issue before its due date. The bonds were redeemed “at par” to avoid a 9-1/8% interest rate, which was then well above market rates. The Treasury’s January 15, 2004 announcement said that payment would be made “in book entry form,” meaning numbers were simply entered into the Treasury’s online money market fund (Treasury Direct). In effect, the money just moved from an online savings account to an online depository account, converting interest-bearing bonds into non-interest-bearing cash.
Where did the Treasury get the money to refinance this $3 billion bond issue at a lower interest rate? Whether it came from the private banking system or from the Federal Reserve, it was no doubt created out of thin air. As Federal Reserve Board Chairman Marriner Eccles testified before the House Banking and Currency Committee in 1935:
When the banks buy a billion dollars of Government bonds as they are offered . . . they actually create, by a bookkeeping entry, a billion dollars.
The US government can just as easily create this money by a bookkeeping entry itself. It can and it should, to avoid the interest charges that compound the national debt and make it unrepayable.
Quoting Thomas Edison again:
“If the Nation can issue a dollar bond it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good also. The difference between the bond and the bill is that the bond lets the money broker collect twice the amount of the bond and an additional 20%. Whereas the currency, the honest sort provided by the Constitution pays nobody but those who contribute in some useful way”.http://ellenbrown.com/…/how-obama-could-beat-the-debt-ceil…/
MAYBE, PERHAPS, “GOOD COMES FROM BAD” or “What may appear to be bad may really turn out to be good.”
AN OPPORTUNITY FOR TRUMP TO JUMP START HIS LEGACY !
Honor a PLEDGE !
“Good comes from bad” is a logical fallacy which may be an optimistic motto, but can lead to errors of thinking. This is revealed in Rodger’s last paragraph above: “Good may come from yesterday’s bad, but at my age, I probably won’t live to see it”.
The logical issue with “good comes from bad” is that the time scope for “comes from” is unlimited. This means that if a good hasn’t arisen yet from a bad, you haven’t waited long enough. This makes the statement unfalsifiable. It also suggests we learn from experience, universally.
The fallacy is somewhat related to the Gambler’s fallacy, and “bad news comes in threes”.
There are many likely consequences we will see from the Trump Presidency, good and bad.
The reason I’m posting this, is that I actually heard someone a few days ago argue that good would necessarily come from Trump.
You are correct that “bad” doesn’t automatically create good. But as the 2nd line of the post says, “When bad things happen, they often provide lessons or opportunities that otherwise might not have appeared.”
Trump clearly is the worst thing to happen to America in many years, but he may provide good lessons for Americans, among which are:
1. Vote today, so you won’t have to complain tomorrow (Hello, black, brown, gay and women voters)
2. Bigotry against them hurts you. (Hello red states)
3. What a person has done in the past is the best clue to what they will do in the future. (“He’s another Trump” will become a long-lived, warning pejorative.)
To my knowledge, America never has had a “Trump,” so too many of my fellow citizens were naive about what such an evil character can create. Now we will learn a lesson we can teach our children.