Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
The “Big Lie” is the statement that federal taxes fund federal spending.
It is a lie that easily is debunked:
Unlike the euro nations, and unlike U.S. cities, counties and states, the U.S. has a Monetarily Sovereign (MS)government, which is:
- A government arbitrarily having passed the laws from thin air:
- That created, also from thin air, its sovereign currency, and
- That specified by decree, the value of its currency.
- A government continuing to retain the power to:
- Create again from thin air, more of its sovereign currency, and
- Continue to control the value of its currency.
Based on the above, the U.S. government never unintentionally can run short of dollars. It neither needs nor uses tax dollars or borrowing to pay its bills. And. it can control inflation at the level it chooses.
Therefore, even if all tax collections fell to $0, the federal government could continue paying its bills, forever.
The “gap” can be described as the distance between two or more groups. Examples of group members are:
–A citizen of a country
–A resident of some area within a country
–A member of a religion or a non-believer
–An employee of a company
–A member of a team
–A person with a certain level of income
–A person with a certain level of wealth
–A person with a certain level of power
So addicted to group formation are we, that we continually multiply groups. Judaism begat Christianity which begat Protestantism, which begat multiple denominations, in an ever-continuing process of group creation.
Members of groups tend to believe they are superior, in some way, to members of other groups. Given any group of two or more persons, there is a great likelihood that some in the group will be considered “lesser” by some measure, thus creating an additional group — a “lesser” and a “greater.”
The distance between the lesser and the greater is the “Gap.” In any population, there can be many such Gaps.
The U.S. Census Bureau, for instance, tracks income levels in $5,000 increments: “Under $5,000; $5,000-$9,999; $10,000-$14,999 . . . $200,000 and over.” The income “Gaps” represent the distance between any two income levels.
Some years ago, we concluded that the first law pertaining to all Gaps is:
People wish to narrow the gap above them and to widen the gap below them.
When applied to money income, money wealth, and political power:
First Law: The poorer wish to narrow the Gap vs. the richer, and the richer wish to widen the Gap vs. the poorer.
This leads to the:
Second Law: Every income level believes those below them should not be allowed to close the Gap.
We call this”Gap Psychology.”
Based on the Big Lie, politicians make such false austerity claims as:
–Social Security is “going broke.”
–Medicare should be privatized
–Taxpayers pay for all benefits to the poor and middle-classes
–The federal government can’t afford to [fill in the blank]
Despite the fact that the Big Lie easily is debunked, politicians, the media, and the university economists, all having been bribed by the rich (via “contributions”), feel free to make false claims, because the public accepts the laws of Gap Psychology.
Yes, the concept, “Cutting one’s nose to spite one’s face” comes to mind. But, the people’s emotional need to keep those below them down is more powerful than their own desire to rise up.
This phenomenon is known as “Loss Aversion.”
In economics and decision theory, loss aversion refers to people’s tendency to prefer avoiding losses vs. acquiring equivalent gains: it’s better to not lose $5 than to gain $5.
Some studies have suggested that losses are twice as powerful, psychologically, as gains. Loss aversion was first demonstrated by Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman.
For most people, a narrowing of the Gap below — that is allowing the poorer to come closer — is felt to be a personal loss, even when there has been no change, or even an improvement, in one’s own finances.
Loss aversion —-> Willing acceptance of the Big Lie —-> Widening of the Gap
At any given level, a benefit to the poorer offers them a greater reward than the same benefit offers the richer. For instance, five thousand dollars means more to a person earning $10,000 a year, than the same five thousand dollars means to a person making $20,000.
If everyone were to receive the same benefit, all Gaps would narrow, but very few people, rich or poor, want the Gaps below them to narrow.
So powerful is this feeling that the populace angers when the Big Lie is explained to them. The end of the Big Lie would mean federal benefits could bring the poor closer to those above them.
On a personal level, if you believe your taxes pay for federal spending, and Medicare and Social Security are going broke, and the poor receive too many benefits, you are helping to perpetuate the Big Lie, and you are helping to widen the distance between you and those “above” you.
In short, the Gap above you grows because you accept the Big Lie.
“Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.”
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 benefitting 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.
32 thoughts on “How does the Big Lie enable the Gap?”
 “The concept, ‘Cutting one’s nose to spite one’s face’ comes to mind. But, the people’s emotional need to keep those below them down is more powerful than their own desire to rise up.” ~ RMM
Yes. Loss aversion helps to explain why average people tend to vote for their own impoverishment and enslavement. Their fear of falling (i.e. their aversion to loss) tends to be stronger than their dream of rising. Their fear (or hatred) of the poor is stronger than their envy of the rich.
Average people vote for their own enslavement in order to keep poor people farther down on the ladder. They conceal this with political correctness. For example, they don’t care that we are cramming our prisons full of black people, but they shriek if someone uses the “N” word.
 “In short, the Gap above you grows because you accept the Big Lie.” ~ RMM’
And you accept the Big Lie because you want to widen the Gap below you.
If you believe the Big Lie, you hate the poor. You want them to remain poor, i.e. below you. You can deny this, but I don’t hear you.
On a side note, you cannot understand the facts of Monetary Sovereignty (MS) by approaching MS through the lens of economics. Instead, you must approach it through the lens of ethics. You must overcome your selfish desire to widen the Gap below you, and then you must embark on a sincere inquiry as to what money is, how it works, where it comes from, why we have rich and poor, and how we can foster more equality.
It is only by giving up Gap Dynamics that we can understand Gap Dynamics.
Until then, we are sheep in the herd. We are slaves of those above us, and of our desire to keep poor people below us.
And I repeat that if you do not understand Gap Dynamics and loss aversion, then you do not understand economics. Period.
I often comment on what I call fake leftism, a.k.a. right-wing fanaticism in progressive clothing.
I also comment on how liberals and conservatives are mirror images of each other.
Both sides uphold the Big Lie, and are therefore right wing n action, if not in words.
Both sides indulge in self-righteousness and political correctness.
Both sides support neoliberalism, either directly or indirectly. For example, if you think that FICA taxes pay for Social Security, then you are neoliberal by default. This is unavoidable.
There is another phenomenon that I have a problem with. It is similar to fake leftism, but it can infect right-wingers too. I call it fake contrition.
Just now I saw a video of U.S. veterans at the Standing Rock protest event in North Dakota. Veterans were apologizing to Native Americans on behalf of the U.S. Army. The veterans were bowing before seated “Indians” and receiving exculpatory blessings and forgiveness via a pat on the head.
Did European invaders slaughter Native Americans? Yes. Was this a crime? Absolutely.
Did Native Americans tribes make war on each other? Yes. Was this a crime? Absolutely.
Does this mean that war is okay because everyone wages war? Absolutely not.
What makes me sneer is that these rituals legitimize more crime.
By patting me on the head, the “Indians” confirm that I am sensitive and enlightened, i.e. better than you. They absolved me, so I can continue, with a clear conscience, to support the extermination of foreign people, and support the Big Lie.
I see this same arrogance in Germans who luxuriate in holocaust™ guilt, imagining that it makes them morally superior to non-Germans. “We are uniquely righteous, because we are uniquely contrite.”
No, you are conceited. If Germans were contrite (instead of arrogant) they would not participate in the Global(ist) war Of Terror. There are almost 1,000 German troops in Afghanistan alone, helping to sustain the production of heroin so we can keep our prisons full.
The authentically humble person does not think himself better or unique. He looks at Native Americans and thinks, “We slaughtered them, and they slaughtered each other. Clearly we humans are insane. Therefore we must guard against self-indulgence wherever it occurs”.
Genocide cannot be excused, condoned, exculpated, absolved, or forgiven. It must be transcended. To do that, we must learn from our crimes and make sure we never repeat them again, anywhere at any time.
A ritual pat on the head from a seated “Indian” is not what I’m talking about.
Sorry to keep beating the drum, but your theory will continue to be irrelevant until you can prove that creating money (any amount) does not devalue existing money stock.
If you can mathematically prove that (i dont think you can because supply / demand theory states otherwise) than people wont have a choice but to believe you.
And by supply and demand i’m specifically referring to currency – not the demand for currency.
If the supply and demand theory is correct (and logically, it is) than your entire theory falls apart.
I dont know how you and liz can ignore supply and demand and continue to push this thing. Its irresponsible.
“Creating money (any amount) devalues existing money stock.”
>>So if the U.S. government creates more dollars, causing the economy to increasingly take off, will you give me your increasingly worthless dollars?
“I don’t know how you and Liz can ignore supply and demand and continue to push this thing. It’s irresponsible.”
Supply and demand is central to the whole game. No one ever said otherwise. Your error is to assume that the supply and demand of money is separate from the supply an demand of goods and services.
First you must understand the concept of excess capacity, in which the production of goods and services is less that what could be achieved with more money in circulation. Excess capacity means there are plenty of people who want to work, and plenty or work to be done, but no work is being done, because there is not enough money changing hands.
So here’s the deal…
If the supply and velocity of money is low, and excess capacity is high, the result is a recession. That’s what we have now.
If the supply and velocity of money is high, but excess capacity is low (because everyone has a job) the result is price inflation.
If the supply and velocity of money is high, and excess capacity is high, the result is a booming economy.
The USA has tremendous excess capacity. Therefore putting more money into circulation would boost the U.S. economy without reducing the value of dollars.
Thanks for your questions.
“More money would boost” Liz
I disagree with your assessment of excess capacity and the notion that “if only there was more money”. The idea os borderline moronic if you think about it. Do all countries have the same amount of money? You and i know some nations have way more “money” than the us – why isn’t their excess capacity kicking in?
I never said that supply and demand for money is separate from goods and services – but i fail to see your point. You are also going from supply and demand to supply and velocity. Velocity is not the same as demand.
You and most liberals complain about inequality yet it is your own ideas that make it worst. Didnt the us government print a bunch of money to stave off the real estate collapse? Did the money go to the things you would have liked or did it go to the pocket of executives? Even if banks were responsible (which many were) they didnt do what the fed was hoping they do (lend). How could they lend to consumers who were already broke?
The biggest socialist governments are in the eu, i cant wait until one of them breaks away from the union and starts sending their citizens millions. You will see how folks on your camp will find something else to blame.
Truth is “additional money” will never “boost the economy”, its clear that not what happened during the housing crisis. So your theory is wrong. In fact, additional money stole from the tax payers during the crisis – its just we were never told.
You cant boost an economy by stealing and promoting theft.
Danny, sorry to disappoint you, but here it is. Where is the relationship between debt and inflation?
Red is CPI. Blue is Debt.
Notice that during the “Great Recession,” when debt rose dramatically, inflation went the other way. The value of the dollar is an important factor in inflation. You seem to ignore that.
I’m not ignoring anything, you are.
I did not mention debt on my post, i asked about the amount of currency in circulation. Im not talking about cpi, etc..
Supply and demand theory invalidates your theory because it states that the value will decrease if more currency ia introduced.
Your theory hinges on the notion that the government should introduce more money to make us all rich.
You cannot believe on your theory and the theory of supply and demand at the same time.
So rmm, are you stating that the theory of supply and demand is invalid? How is that so?
What would be the evidence “that the value will decrease if more currency is introduced.” What would you look for?
I innocently thought that if the value of a currency decreased, the symptom would be inflation. But since you are more knowledgeable than me, perhaps I can learn something.
Are you saying supply and demand is an invalid theory?
What does the theory say in your opinion? I’ll help you:
Value = Demand / Supply
So what happens when the Supply goes up and Demand stays steady?
I’ll help you again. The Value goes down.
So what happens to the prices of goods and services when the Value of money goes down.
I’ll help you a 3rd time: Inflation.
So I’ll ask you once more. Where is the inflation?
I will take that as meaning you think you’ve invalidated the law of supply and demand.
The level of government spending and debt has exploded over the last 40 years.
Are you saying we havent had inflation during that time frame?
Are you saying that the level of inequality hasnt gone up during that timeframe? You’ve posted the ginni ratio and if im not mistaken, it correlates with this thesis.
Taking the bubble analogy, wouldn’t the bubble grow more during the early stages? Isnt that what happened with housing prices and any other bubble (i.e. stock market) out there? The level of growth of anything dimishes as it grows. Take balloon, stock market bubbles, housing bubbles. It takes more air (debt) to make the bubble grow as it gets bigger.
When you factor in the high level of debt currently in the system and how much of it is being defaulted on (i.e. destroyed) prices stall (there is little to no inflation). Thats exactly what happened in housing, prices shot up during the early phases – it would have taken a huge amount of debt to keep the bubble going. Same is the case with government debt – the level of new debt would have to be huge to keep prices going higher. This is why prices have stalled just about everywhere from japan to the eu to the us.
Look in the rearview mirror for inflation, inflation that has increased the level of inequality in society. This is all thanks to the fed and liberals who have made the inequality problem worst by trying to “fix it”. Milton Friedman was right, our main problem are the do gooders.
The truth that many folks do not want to hear is that the US was generally well ahead of the world when our government was more open to free markets. 100 years ago, our markets were freer and were more efficient then today. If you dont believe me, our population was doubling every few years in the 1800s and into the 1900s. History is clear, we chose to ignore it and we end up worst off every time
Now that i’ve answered yours, please answer mines. Btw, i’ve seen cases in which you’ve used supply and demand to make a case so im confused. Do you only believe on it sometimes?
Rodger, I continue to be a big fan of MS and your posts. I pretty much relate to all your views, opinions and sound logic. But I do struggle with the stated motive – the gap: seemingly a DELIBERATE ploy on part of the rich to distance themselves from the poor.
I am retired from corporate world, and live in a median home in northern silicon valley. My social circle spans a very broad distribution, from median income to few actual billionaires… but who are all completely down to earth, modest, cordial, and who are just not the deliberate gap creator types. IMO, they just do not comprehend the counter-intuitive Big Truth: FED taxes do not fund FED spending. And that FED taxes are destroyed upon receipt!
I feel certain this need for gap, while internally coveted, in most cases is not deliberate… I feel these are all people like myself, who grew up with the gold standard economics of a balanced budget, and who just have not taken the time to understand post ‘71 dynamics. I stumbled upon your blog a few years ago, and I feel fortunate… but not kidding, it took me > 200 hours of reading, digesting, cross-checking, arguing, youtube-ing, before I became a fan of this theory… and many more hours later to continue reinforcing the Big Truth! I am known to be lot more open-minded… and my acceptance happened only because I had the time and fascination!
My point is the Big Lie is an innocent byproduct of a deep-founded belief in balanced budgets… extendable to corporations, families and even the FED. It is not deliberate, and not a conspiracy. In 7DIF, Mosler talks of how even Larry Summers (Treasury Sec, 1999) believed our debt was unsustainable. And I am not sure if Yellen understands or believes the reality… and if she does, she’d rather not discuss it openly, lest it open a can of revolting worms and cause currencies to crash against hard assets. You have accused Bernie of not openly speaking the truth, only because of his association with MMT specialist, Kelton. Maybe he has not spent the time, either.
Might I suggest you adopt a new tone and attribute the Big Lie to ignorance and not a deliberate ploy, perhaps? Most people would be more receptive to positive slants rather than conspiracy.
Ironically, I feel there is only man who can spread and get the Big Truth accross… and that is Mr. Trump… if we can somehow penetrate through his ADD and make him comprehend this logic, even shallowly… he will not be afraid of saying it like it is: 47% population will accept it instantly… mainstream media will latch on, ridicule him, berate him, and discuss it endlessly… but the truth shall be out in the open… only to later prevail.
I assume you are a decently smart person, but how can you believe on this and ignore pure math that has been out there for hundreds of years?
Are you saying that algebra, calculus, and simple basic math is invalid and incorect?
I am not rich and will likely never be, but the idea that all we need is for the government to start handing out money without it losing value defies mathematics.
Have you ever seen a fraction?
The government can send each family a million bucks tomorrow and i can guaratee you nothing will change (other than perhaps some sort of currency crisis). Prices will simply re-adjust and we will all be as poor as the day before (except for those who had a million who will now be poor).
You are right about saying that it is people that ultimately screw themselves. We screw ourselves in believing in nonsense like ms/ mmt. We want to believe that its the governments fault we arent rich.
The way i see it, the left is restless and will continue with the charade until we collapse into oblivion. We are much more socialist today than 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, etc years ago – yet we are worst off. We went from being a land that would welcome everyone at the turn of the century to one where nobody is wanted.
The reason is simple, back in the early 1920s you came to the us to work, which benefited everyone. Today, many come here for benefits.
Yet, liberals keep beating the same drum and its never enough. I dont see how this is going to change even with trump at the helm.
And those of us who are wealthy, like you and rmm, should stop thinking we need the government to help. We can hold our own. We dont need “freebies”, what we need is to keep our hard earned money which you both seem happy to devalue away.
You want to help someone? Than by all means write a check out of your own account. Stop taking us for fools in selling us this “free” idea, that is nothing but a theft scheme to make the rich richer by forcing money to an industry of your choice. Just like aca is only creating more clients and forced profit to those in healthcare.
Yes sirs, mam, we can add and we know about fractions.
“I feel certain this need for gap, while internally coveted, in most cases is not deliberate.”
The facts of Monetary Sovereignty are so simple and so widely available that denying them can only be a deliberate choice.
It’s like burning down your house. You didn’t want a fire, but your careless tossing of oily rags throughout the house was a choice.
Or consider how people know that the U.S. government can “print” limitless dollars, yet they believe that the U.S. government is bankrupt, and needs loans and tax revenue. This belief is a deliberate choice.
People can see with their own eyes that money is not physical and therefore not limited, and yet they believe that money is physical and limited. Once again this belief is a deliberate choice.
Trump told CNN that the U.S. government would never default on anything, since the government could always print” more dollars. Bernanke and Greenspan said the same thing. Everyone made a choice to ignore them..
Being simply “misguided” is one thing, but deliberate choices are another.
Moreover a correct understanding of economics must include human motives. If we assume that politicians are simply “misguided,” then we falsely attribute innocent motives to them. If someone tries to rob you, but you think he “means well,” then you will be easy prey.
There s nothing innocent about the Big Lie, no matter who traffics in it.
“Trump told cnn” liz
Come on Liz.. And you take that as meaning that you can print whatever you want.
It amazes me how liberals take our current state and somehow take it as meaning we can print all we want without any repercusions.
It’s like thinking that a thin person can eat all the cake he wants because he is eating one right now and is not 500 pounds.
Cant you see how moronic the notion is?
Your response to that link will be to ignore it or contradict it.
You contradict everything.
If someone notes that the weather is calm and sunny, you will respond with, “No, it’s raining heavily!” Just to get attention.
I accept responsibility for this. When I approached your cage, I threw you a peanut, thereby ignoring the the sign that said, “Please don’t feed the trolls.” My disobedience made you worse and worse.
I apologize to all. You’ll get no more peanuts from me.
You see what happens when someone cant logically defend their position? I am not contradicting any of you, i am telling you what you know is true and prefer to ig nore. Not once have you provided a concise reason for believing what you believe – shame on you. I dont portray to have all the answers, but i did not take an absolute position when things did not make sense to me. Now, they make sense to me and i can defend my believes 100% and without hesitation. Poor soul.
I will take that as progress since you and rodger and steve and the other mmters used to laugh and ignore me. Fight it is.
First they laugh at you
Then they ignore you
Then they fight you
Then you win
I understand why the “man-in-the-street” is ignorant about economics, but I doubt that economists are.
The facts are not hidden. Economists are people who study economic facts.
So unless you tell me that meteorologists don’t understand the relationship between humidity and rain, I have to believe economists understand the relationship between a monetarily sovereign government and the ability to create sovereign money.
MS is not sophisticated science. It’s quite straightforward. It’s basic.
The very rich (i.e. billionaires) have economists to advise them. They know the facts.
I’ve written about Larry Summers. I have no respect for his truthfulness.
All of our Fed Chairmen have known the facts, and on rare occasion, have stated them. There is a great quote from Ben Bernanke when, as Fed chief, he was on 60 Minutes:
Scott Pelley: Is that tax money that the Fed is spending?
Ben Bernanke: It’s not tax money… We simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account.
Could anything be clearer? Well, maybe the following:
Here is a statement from the St. Louis Fed:
“As the sole manufacturer of dollars, whose debt is denominated in dollars, the U.S. government can never become insolvent, i.e., unable to pay its bills. In this sense, the government is not dependent on credit markets to remain operational.”
Bottom line, it is impossible to believe the very rich simply are ignorant. These people know that being rich requires widening the Gap. Without the Gap, they wouldn’t be rich, and wider the Gap, the richer they are. So their goal is to widen the Gap.
They do not want the people to know the Ten Steps. If the people did know the Ten Steps, they would be making demands the rich don’t want to fulfill.
Ignorance did not make these people rich. If you want to believe the rich simply are ignorant, that’s your call.
Bernie Sanders did not ignore Monetary Sovereignty out of economic ignorance. He lied because the rich wanted him to lie.
As for me, I don’t underestimate their knowledge of finance.
Great news: The new President of the United States has decided to keep his day job as Executive Producer on NBC’s “Celebrity Apprentice,”
Hmmm . . . NBC is a news organization and the President of the United States is an Executive Producer of one of their shows. What could possibly be wrong with that?
Also, Mr. Trump is “draining the swamp” by hiring all the swamp critters — billionaires and generals — to help him
ruinrun the country.
And his head of the EPA doesn’t believe in global warming. Burn baby, burn.
Liz, you still think Trump and Clinton are “the same”?
I never said they were the same. I said they were equally bad. So it is with all Democrats and Republicans today. The duopoly of tyranny has two head in order to give you the illusion of choice. Anyone who thinks otherwise is drinking the kool-aid.
“Equally bad,” the all-purpose excuse for bad behavior.
This also is known as “draining the swamp.”
And then there’s Trump’s tax plan: Taxpayers at the higher end of the income scale would benefit. There are others, however, who would see their tax rates go up. Especially those on lower incomes.
This is known as “tax reform.”
But Republicans and Democrates are “equally bad,” especially if one ignores all the facts.
Again you are focusing on words, while ignoring actions. Republicans deny climate change, but what have Democrats actually done about climate change? Or about cutting subsidies to Big Oil and Big Ag?
Or enacting single payer?
Or ending the wars?
Or expanding Social Security?
Or upgrading America’s infrastructure?
Or, or, or…
It is a delusion to think that Democrats are better. Democrats and Republicans both work for the rich at our expense. Both parties support the Big Lie. They are equally bad.
Democrats are better? They “have our backs”? They are “fighting for us”? (To use Hillary’s campaign slogan.)
That is what the rich WANT you to think.
Interesting that the Republicans claim Obama is doing too much about climate change. I suspect you will find a secret plot in that too, and disregard any facts I submit, i.e. the “Danny approach, but you asked, so:
President Obama on America’s Clean Power Plan
Center for Climate and Energy Solutions
Republicans deny climate change even exists, so who is worse?
No one has proposed single payer. The Democrats came closest with Sanders, but yes, the Democrat insiders shot him down. Obamacare was a step toward insuring the poor.
Republicans will destroy that step, so who is worse?
Bush destroyed the Middle-east by invading Iraq. Obama has been pulling troops out. Obama initiated a peace agreement with Iran. Republicans want to bomb them.
So who is worse?
No one favors expanding Social Security. Obama is a right-winger on that. However, the Republicans are much stronger for cutting Social Security as you will learn when you want to retire.
So who is worse?
infrastructure, or, or, or . . .
Obama calls for $50 billion infrastructure initiative
President Obama’s 21st Century Clean Transportation System
One thing you seem to ignore is that Obama must deal with a Congress dominated by “the party of ‘No'” — Republicans determined to void any initiative he proposes.
And by claiming everyone is “the same,” you give a free pass to those who are worse. So if Trump tells 1000 lies and Clinton tells 10 lies, in your world “Hey, everyone lies.”
You seem to feel that if one candidate or one party is not 100% pure, then they are as bad as the worst of the worst.
So when Trump appoints a climate change denier to the EPA, you cave in and say, “Oh, well. Both parties are bad.”
And when Trump threatens our civilian-run government by appointing three generals to his staff (after dissing all our generals), you say, “Oh well, Both parties are bad.”
And when Trump wants to hunt down and deport 11 million people, you say, “Oh well, Obama deported a lot of people,” thereby giving Trump a free pass to commit this outrage.
And when Trump is anti-gay, it’s “Oh well, what has Obama done for the gays?”
And when Trump wants to bar all Muslims from America, it’s, “What has Obama done for America.”
And when Trump makes a habit of groping young women and cheating on this three wives, it’s “Oh well, Bill Clinton” who hasn’t run for office in many years, by the way.)
And when the right-wing Supreme Court descimates the voting rights acts, it’s “Oh well, the left-wing isn’t so good, either.”
There is no evil Trump can commit without you saying that both parties are equally bad, thereby excusing his evil.
In short, you use the same excuses as the Trump followers. No matter what outrage Trump commits, they shrug it off with a “Both parties are bad ” excuse — and that is why the worst candidate in my lifetime got elected.
In this world, there are bad and there are worse, and until people understand the difference, the worse will get elected.
Hey, I suppose, unless you yourself are without sin, in your world you are no better than Hitler. You both are sinners.
It’s time to learn proportion. “They both are bad,” simply is lazy thinking.
 “Obamacare was a step toward insuring the poor. Republicans will destroy that step, so who is worse?” ~ RMM
RomneyCare was a means to sidetrack single payer, and to make us obligatory slaves of the private insurance industry. As I have said many times, Republican evil does not become “good” just because Democrats share in it.
 “Bush destroyed the Middle-east by invading Iraq. Obama has been pulling troops out. Obama initiated a peace agreement with Iran. Republicans want to bomb them.” ~RMM
The destruction of Libya and the five year proxy war on Syria don’t count. Nor do the endless drone strikes, or the coup in Honduras and Paraguay, or the occupation of Afghanistan, or anything else. Any claim about Obama reducing the USA’s commitment to imperialist war is silly. And by the way, Obama is overseeing US combat operations against the city of Mosul Iraq.
 “Obama is a right-winger on Social Security. However, the Republicans are much stronger for cutting Social Security as you will learn when you want to retire.” ~ RMM
What makes you assume that I am or am not retired? Anyway I ignore what Democrats and Republicans say. I focus on how they actually vote, and what actually becomes law. Obama had his “grand bargain,” but that remained only chatter, so I’ll let it pass.
 As for Obama calling for increased infrastructure spending, this is just talk. It’s merely symbolic. What is actually happening? In your mind, symbolic talk is the same as action. I don’t agree.
 “One thing you seem to ignore is that Obama must deal with a Congress dominated by “the party of ‘No’ — Republicans determined to void any initiative he proposes.” ~ RMM
This is a lame attempt to excuse Obama’s Republicanism. The U.S. president can do many things by executive order without consulting congress, from launching a war (e.g. the destruction of Libya) to ending the “gold standard.” Before this recent election, you agreed that Obama has always worked for the rich alone. Now, suddenly, Obama has always been a well-meaning “victim.” Please.
 “By claiming everyone is ‘the same,’ you give a free pass to those who are worse.” ~ RMM
By claiming that one party is better than another, you give a free pass to rich people’s “good cop / bad cop” scam. You support the tyrannical duopoly by claiming that one half of the two-headed hydra is “better.”
 “You seem to feel that if one candidate or one party is not 100% pure, then they are as bad as the worst of the worst.”
Illogical. No politician on any side opposes the Big Lie, for example. How does that make Democrats “better”?
 “So when Trump appoints a climate change denier to the EPA, you cave in and say, ‘Oh, well. Both parties are bad’.” ~ RMM
You cave to the duopoly when you espouse the nonsense that the “good cop” is better than the “bad cop,” when in reality both of them conspire together to screw you. You believe that Democrats are victims who mean well. You are like people who insist that the US government needs tax revenue. No matter what happens, you and they have your UT (Ultimate Truth).
 “And when Trump is anti-gay, it’s ‘Oh well, what has Obama done for the gays?’.” ~ RMM
I’m a bigot, remember? (Or was it a KKK member or a Nazi?) I don’t care about gays. To me they are a non-issue until they get in my face and militantly scream for special rights. Rich people and their puppet politicians (and people like you) use the entire “gay rights” mess to distract public attention from neoliberalism and the ever-widening gap.
 “And when Trump wants to hunt down and deport 11 million people, you say, ‘Oh well, Obama deported a lot of people,’ thereby giving Trump a free pass to commit this outrage.” ~ RMM
In your cement-headed delusion, you translate “Democrats are just as bad” as “Republicans are okay.” No one ever said that, or even hinted at it. This hallucination is a product of your hallucination that Democrats are saintly victims in comparison to Republicans. If two murderers stand before us, then we do not excuse either of them by calling them both murderers.
 “And when Trump wants to bar all Muslims from America, it’s, ‘What has Obama done for America’”” ~ RMM
Republicans and Democrats have equally overseen the extermination of countless Muslims, and rendered countless more Muslims homeless. It is mental illness to insist that this somehow makes Democrats “better.”
 “And when Trump makes a habit of groping young women and cheating on this three wives, it’s ‘Oh well, Bill Clinton’ who hasn’t run for office in many years, by the way.” ~ RMM
I don’t care about unproven hearsay mudslinging from bimbos trotted out by the Washington CompPost to vilify Trump. Those issues are superficial drama that have no material effect on you and me (except in your imagination). What has Trump actually done while in office to affect your material wellbeing? (Hint: Trump is not in office.)
 “There is no evil Trump can commit without you saying that both parties are equally bad, thereby excusing his evil.” ~ RMM
Let me say it again in case people in the back didn’t hear.TO SAY THAT BOTH SIDES ARE EQUALLY BAD IS NOT TO EXCUSE BOTH SIDES. For you, to say that both sides are the same is to say that one side is better. Clearly you are “above” facts and logic.
 “In short, you use the same excuses as the Trump followers. No matter what outrage Trump commits, they shrug it off with a ‘Both parties are bad’ excuse — and that is why the worst candidate in my lifetime got elected.” ~ RMM
That works both ways. No matter how much the Democrats become Republicans, you shrug it off by saying, “At least they’re not Republicans.” In this way you fall for the “good cop / bad cop” trick that is perpetrated by the rich. Both parties scheme together to destroy you, and you gladly put your head in the noose, because at least the “good cop” is not the “bad cop.”
You know that I am correct. That’s why the truth hurts. It’s like being told there is no Santa Clause. If I tell you there is no such thing as the tooth fairy, you respond with, “That means you are defending leprechauns!” Ah…no. No it doesn’t. And no, it does not justify the tooth fairy.
As for the remainder of your comments, you mentioned Hitler, and thereby shut the door, having “won.”
Thank you for reading.
Here is an example . . .
Trump will nominate all these horrendous people. The Republican-majority Senate will confirm them. Democrats will vote against them, and will face no penalties from the rich, since everyone knows that the Democrats will not be able to block confirmation. The Democrat vte will be symbolic.
In this way, Democrats pretend to champion average people, while they actually serve the rich at our expense.
This is how the game is played. When Democrats have no chance of opposing something negative, they symbolically vote against it. When Democrats (like Obama) have a chance to do something positive they do nothing, or else they push the negative. They do this over and over without fail. And yet, they want you to think they are “better.”
It’s the old “good cop, bad cop” routine to enslave you.
Please ignore what politicians say or promise, and instead focus on what politicians actually do, and what actually becomes law.
For example, Rep. Sam Johnson (R-TX) is the Chairman of the House Social Security subcommittee. Liberals are screaming about a bill that Johnson introduced two days ago as an attack on Social Security. Johnson’s bill would change the benefits formula in order to reduce payments for people with high salaries. It would also change the inflation metric used to calculate benefits to one that shows lower inflation, essentially slowing the growth in benefits. It would also gradually raise the full retirement age from 67 to 69 for people who are today 49 or younger.
Everybody’s screaming about this, but they don’t stop to think. Johnson’s bill (HR 6848) has no co-sponsors, and its actual text has not yet been formally entered into the Congressional record. Moreover the current Congress (114th) ends on 3 Jan 2017, at which point all pending bills will be thrown out, including Johnson’s. Everyone will have to start over.
Johnson’s bill has no chance of passing. It is merely symbolic.
It may be fun to pretend that symbolic means actual. But such a pretense is a delusion.
As Trump said, “I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters.”
His followers were good at making excuses, too.
The laws you ask for, will come — as will the excuses.
ME: Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum are both murderers.
RMM: How can you make excuses for Tweedle Dum like that?
ME: He entered a bill at the last minute, knowing it could not possibly pass. Thus it was an evil, but symbolic gesture.
RMM: You’re making excuses for him!!!!
Thus goes RMM “logic.”
I’ll bet I could comb through your past blog posts and produce twenty quotes in which you affirmed that Democrats and Republicans are equally bad. But I won’t make the effort, since you would simply change the subject.
Understood: All criminals are equally bad.
I wrote a carefully worded response to this, but you deleted me.
However you don’t delete people like “Danny.”
So be it.
It was getting silly. “Yes it is; no it isn’t; yes it is” nonsense. Time to get back to economics.