The Student loan con

Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell


Three truths support the student loan industry:

  1. America needs college educated, young people in order to compete in the world economic and military power structure
  2. Lending is profitable.
  3. The very rich, who run America, promulgate  the Big Lie that the U.S. can run short of its own sovereign currency, so federal taxes are necessary to fund federal spending.

Even in the early days of America, days of a low-tech, agrarian America,  educating our young was recognized as necessary for the economic growth of this nation.

So cities, counties and states voted to provide free education through grades K-12. Some governments even have made such education mandatory for children up to the age of 18.

While cities, counties and states are monetarily non-sovereign, meaning they can run short of dollars and do require taxes or other income in order to spend, the U.S. federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, cannot run short of dollars and can spend forever, with no income at all.

Yet, the less financially-viable states, counties and cities give money for education, while the unlimited-spending,  federal government has provided a lending system — a system that makes advanced education less available than if dollars simply were given.

Federal Student Loan History

The federal government began guaranteeing student loans provided by banks and non-profit lenders in 1965, creating the program that is now called the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program.

The first federal student loans, however, provided under the National Defense Education Act of 1958, were direct loans capitalized with U.S. Treasury funds, following a recommendation of economist Milton Friedman.

One only can speculate about why Friedman wanted the Treasury to lend, rather than give, funds. The payback of those loans had no benefit to the Treasury, whatsoever, but it punished the private sector.

When Congress wanted to expand on that start, budget rules made the guarantee approach seem more attractive. Today, this system of guaranteed student loans has been entirely replaced, and all new loans are issued directly by the Department of Education.

Under 1965 budget rules, a direct loan would have to show up in the budget as a total loss in the year it was made, even though most of it would be paid back with interest in future years.

In contrast, a guaranteed loan, which placed the full faith and credit of the United States behind a private bank loan, would appear to have no up front budget cost at all — because the government’s payments for defaults and interest subsidies would not occur until later years.

This raised concerns among economists, who worried that the government was making financial commitments without accounting for the ultimate costs.

The so-called economists “worried” about the financial commitments of a government that never has had, and never will have, any difficulty paying those financial commitments.

In 1990, President George H.W. Bush’s  Federal Credit Reform Act (established that) all government loan programs—whether guarantees of commercial loans, or loans made directly from a federal agency—would have to account for their full long-term expenses and income. Every loan program would have an estimated “subsidy cost.”

The subsidy cost is the amount of money that needs to be set aside when the loan is made in order to cover the costs to the government over the life of the loan.

Here, federal financing is confused with private financing. While private lenders may need to “set aside money to cover costs,” the federal government has no such need.

Indeed, the federal government never sets aside money, simply because the federal government creates dollars ad hoc, by spending dollars.

According to the Government Accountability Office, the old approach “distorted costs and did not recognize the economic reality of the transactions,” while the new approach “provides transparency regarding the government’s total estimated subsidy costs rather than recognizing these costs sporadically on a cash basis over several years as payments are made and receipts are collected.”

The GAO completely confuses private financing with federal financing. The “economic reality” of federal transactions is: The federal government’s method for creating dollars is to spend dollars.

The federal government pays all its bills by sending instructions (no dollars) to each creditor’s bank, instructing the bank to increase the balance in the creditor’s checking account.

At the moment the bank does as instructed, dollars are created.

This more rational approach to budgeting changed the nature of policy discussions on Capitol Hill. Student loan programs were among the first to be affected.

“More rational” means “irrational” for a Monetarily Sovereign government.

In 1993, newly elected President Clinton proposed replacing the guarantee program with the direct approach as part of his deficit reduction plan. Estimates from all of the government’s budgeting and auditing agencies showed that direct lending would deliver the same loans to students at significantly lower cost to taxpayers.

President Clinton’s administration ran federal surpluses (took dollars out of the private sector) in the final years of his term, which led to the recession of 2001. Every depression and most recessions in U.S. history have resulted from decreases in deficit growth.

Federal spending does not cost taxpayers anything. Even if all federal taxes were reduced to $0, the federal government could continue spending, forever.

In 1994, Congress  passed a law that prohibited the Department of Education from encouraging or requiring colleges to switch to the direct loan program.

Those profiting from the guarantee system could use their substantial resources to lure or retain colleges and universities, while the direct loan program was not allowed to make its own case. Not surprisingly, campus participation in the direct loan program declined.

As usual, Congress voted for a system favored  by their rich banker campaign contributors, despite it being more costly to the public.

In 2003, a team of investigative reporters at U.S. News and World Report looked into what was causing some colleges to switch back to the guarantee program.

Their front-page story found that much like old-time political ward bosses, the student loan industry “used money and favors, along with their friends in Congress and the Department of Education, to get what they wanted.”

The #1 criminal enterprise in America is the U.S. Congress.  It freely and legally (Congress makes the laws) accepts bribes to favor the rich.

If the RICO laws ( Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) applied to Congress, every Senator and Representative would be in jail.

By 2007, new volume in the direct loan program had reached the lowest share of total federal student loan volume since it began in the 1990s. This trend, however, reversed in 2008.

Widespread credit market disruptions in 2008 and 2009 threatened the ability of many private lenders to make loans under the federal guaranteed student loan program, and numerous private lenders discontinued participation in the program.

In response, schools that previously participated in the guarantee program switched to the direct loan program, and direct loan program volume, as share of total loan volume, began to increase in 2008.

Note that no consideration was made regarding what was best for students or for the American public at large. The sole concern was for bank profits.

Congress and President George W. Bush enacted a temporary program in May 2008 to allow the U.S. Department of Education to buy guaranteed loans made by private lenders. The proceeds from the loans would be used to originate new student loans.

The temporary program, the Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act (ECASLA), marks a major historical change in the guaranteed loan program, as it provides federal capital to private lenders making student loans. In this regard, the guaranteed program now shares more characteristics with the direct loan program.

In 2010, Congress passed and the President signed into law a bill that eliminated the FFEL program for all new loans made as of July 1, 2010.

With ECASLA, the banks lend to students; then the government buys the loans, giving the banks immediate profits. The banks use that money to make new loans, and thereby their profits multiply.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the elimination of the FFEL program under the law would generate $68.7 billion in savings over the next ten years. These savings were used to increase funding for the Pell Grant program.

The supposed “savings” to the federal government are not used to fund Pell or any other government program. All dollars sent to the U.S. government are destroyed upon receipt. They cease to be a part of the money supply. The government creates new dollars, ad hoc, when it spends.

“Pell” provides one drop of water when the entire Great Lakes are needed.

The Federal Pell Grant Program supplies grants for students who have limited income with funding to pursue an undergraduate post-secondary education. The Pell Grant does not have to be repaid, and eligible applicants are determined by specific criteria.

Federal Pell Grants are awarded via participating colleges and institutions to individuals who are enrolled in specific programs that are directed towards teacher certification or licensing.

According to the Federal Student Aid website, “The maximum Pell Grant award for the 2008-09 award year (July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2009) is $4,731.

The student loan scam is brilliant in that it widens the Gap between the rich and the rest in three ways.

  1. It saddles “the rest” with a debt from which they have difficulty recovering, even into retirement, thus forcing them to work longer and harder. Unlike Donald Trump, who “smartly” used the bankruptcy laws for his own profit, students can’t discharge their loans in bankruptcy.
  2. The burden of debt makes it difficult for the young people to start businesses that would allow them to move up the financial ladder.
  3. The prospect of debt forces not-rich young people to seek out less prestigious, cheaper universities (making them less competitive in the job market) or to give up college altogether (making financial advancement less likely).

The student loan program guarantees the rich a large and desperate population of underpaid workers to toil in job slavery.

What makes the program truly brilliant is that the populace doesn’t object. Aside from FICA, the student loan program is our single, most regressive federal program, and the people happily accept both.

If Congress were sincere in its desire to educate the American public it would provide Steps #4 and #5 of the Ten Steps to Prosperity:

Step 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.


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.

The public is well aware of the need to educate our young people, but the elite .1% have bribed all sources of information.

The Politicians are bribed with campaign contributions; the media are bribed via ownership and advertising budgets; the university economists are bribed with university donations.

Thus the public is led to believe that the federal government can’t afford to provide free college education, and that the 99.9% don’t deserve free education.

As always,  the Big Lie  dominates political and economics discourse, and no one of influence seems to have the knowledge or the desire to debunk it.

The federal student loan programs constitute a gigantic con, and the public has bought into it, like fish rushing with mouths agape, at a hooked worm.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty


The single most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the have-mores and the have-less.

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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 

8 thoughts on “The Student loan con

  1. I remember several years ago doing some research on the topic when I was writing about the rising cost of tuition at American universities, and I would have never been able to guess back then that Milton Friedman had anything to do with the issue we have now, but you spelled it out quite nicely here.

    A common argument against free college I’ve seen from people online is that it would make college education a lot more like McDonald’s and it wouldn’t be as valuable for that reason. People sadly fall into this line of thinking and completely miss the underlying issue. Same when it’s people solely blaming the government for this problem.

    In the end, it’s a cycle of ignorance among the masses and there’s so much misleading crap online recommending the wrong solutions to the wrong problems.

    I really feel that it’s very hard for most people to get past the “pulling yourself up by the bootstraps” line of thinking and realize they have been had. We feel all the time like we need to earn this and toil hard while spoiled rich kid billionaire brat Drumpf gets to go around and take advantage of bankruptcy laws and tax loopholes to get further ahead in life than many of us would since we’re so strapped with all this private debt and these federal student loans too.

    I just graduated from a state school and the main reason I went there was due to financial reasons. I felt it would have even more expensive to go to a school three hours away, an out-of-state school, or to a private college despite receiving plenty of financial aid. I was also a commuter for much of the time and noticed how costly additional expenses like paying for gas and other living expenses could be.

    I have constant concerns about how long it will take me to pay off over $20,000 in student loan debt in addition to the credit card debt I have at the moment. My major was pretty decent, but I still find myself having to do a lot of my own legwork and self-teaching to have a better chance of landing that job interview within a few weeks to the next few months.

    Anyway, I wanted to elaborate more on what I have noticed with people wanting to feel like governments don’t have the power to actually mitigate and take full authority as currency issuers. In a comment section where I was fully explaining the concepts of Monetary Sovereignty and MMT and there were a lot of Marxist commentators who placed heavy emphasis on the labor theory of value, I was horrified to see gold standard and goldbug logic being used by several of the people in the comments.

    They were so caught up in believing that you would need taxes to pay for Universal Basic Income and talking about the first, second and third world economies and what would happen with automation.

    I would have thought people who are further on the left than the mainstream left would know better, but I swear if I hadn’t read their whole comments, I would have thought the rhetoric had come straight from some Austrian or some right-libertarian GOPer. I was not only disappointed to see what was going on here, but how hard it was for someone else who understood these concepts and could understand the importance of Karl Marx to economics and sociology and the importance of thinking about economics through a class perspective try to explain it to this person.

    The opponent this person was trying to explain this to just kept sticking to a strict interpretation of labor theory of value and could never get past his own dogma and think outside of his ideological bubble.

    He claimed that no school of economic thought denies that money is a representation of value and also kept asking how a government could just issue the money and saying that this was not a Marxist conception of currency, even questioning how you could discuss economics at all if you didn’t “get” this guy’s limited point of view. It was quite sad to see and I think the debate is still going on.

    This person did not have the knowledge that you and I do about monetarily sovereign governments and therefore undermined his own cause as well, and could never see it because he was just repeating whatever fit his ideological dogma. It was like trying to explain Calculus or C++ to someone living 200 years ago. I wonder what you make of all of this and what your advice would be when dealing with people like this, which I’m sure mean very well, but seem to care more about aggressively winning an argument without critically thinking about the position of the opponent rather than coming to a greater understanding that could help his cause greatly.


  2. If a person does not understand Monetary Sovereignty, then it is not possible for him (or her) to be a genuine leftist. Inevitably he helps to worsen poverty, inequality, racism, and so on. He helps the neoliberals, the right-wingers, the rich, and their toadies. He is a fool trying to use liquor to cure alcoholism, while he congratulates himself on his “brilliance.” He does not understand Marxism, socialism, or capitalism. He does not understand anything about economics. He is a right-winger in liberal clothing.

    Rodger asks, “Why do people doubt undeniable fact?” My answer is gap dynamics. Most people will submit to endless suffering as long as they know that people below them are suffering even more. Most people’s desire to keep other people trapped below them is stronger than their desire for self-preservation. Therefore they dismiss anyone who exposes the Big Lie. “Of COURSE the emperor has new clothes. If you can’t see them, you are an idiot.”

    They claim to oppose racism, for example, but they are liars.

    Ultimately the refusal to understand the truth is not an intellectual failing, but a moral failing.


    1. Well said. It didn’t occur to me until now to think about this in that way, but yeah, I could have changed a few of the words some of these people were saying and I wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between what they were saying and what a typical right-winger would claim, but they all say they hate capitalism and are worried about automation. Someone trying to argue with those people about MMT called it “Marxist tunnel vision.”

      Now someone in the same comment section wanted to see a Marxist critique of MMT, claiming it was just utopian Keynesianism. Yes, that is the kind of thinking we have to face. That same it’s all “pie-in-the-sky” stuff used against Bernie Sanders and what he wanted to do with spending and universal healthcare. It’s as if they have to come up with more and more complicated and complex ways of explaining why the poor are getting poorer and the rich get richer, so this understanding is limited even more.

      As I said, I’m sure these people mean very well, but they don’t want to admit this line of thinking really helps the people they hate the most, the bourgeoisie, which was my biggest point that I made in the comment section. I really feel with these people, it’s more about how hard it is to accept that there is an authority that actually creates the currency and spends it. They try to focus their energy on “the capitalists!” but when engaged in such a semantics game, it distracts from who they should really be fighting against.

      Have a good laugh and read this whole thing, Elizbaeth. I showed it to someone else and he said the link worked.

      I brought this up over at Mike Norman’s blog too, as I regularly read it in addition to RMM’s.

      As a final point I also left on another blog post on MNE, I wrote this:

      “I’m aware there’s a paper by Matthew Forstater discussing Marx and MMT that I want to read soon and I’m also sure that would be helpful as well to bring up in a response to such a critique or live debate on this subject. It seems to be the biggest points of contention if there were to be a debate is discussing money, value and authority and what to do about increasing automation in the future and clarifying what was Keynes’s role in influencing MMT and how this differs among several economists in this camp. I don’t think people would automatically change their minds on these points, but at least people would probably agree on what TPTB have done in impoverishing others below them.”

      The last point would be the most important to hammer to the Marxists as hard as possible.

      BTW, Elizabeth. I love your Monetary Sovereignty blog and actually showed it to someone when I was discussing holdings at the Fed. I’d love to see more posts in the future.


      1. [1] “They all say they hate capitalism and are worried about automation.” ~ Penguin

        Perhaps they prefer socialism. However they do not understand socialism if they do not understand the nature and operation of money.

        Indeed they *oppose* socialism. How could they have socialism if (as they erroneously claim) all dollars come from tax revenue and / or bank loans? Perhaps they fantasize about a world with no money of any kind. This is not possible in any community that is larger than a small commune. Moreover, even without money there would still be gap dynamics and social hierarchies. Even in socialist nations like the USSR there are social strata.

        To such people I say, “First learn the facts about money and gap dynamics. Then let’s talk.”

        The rich know these facts. That is one reason why they are rich.

        Regarding automation, once again people first need to learn the facts about money. There are infinite dollars to pay for universal social security, for example, and they would not cause mass laziness. On the contrary, universal social security would unleash the masses, as was proven by the Mincome experiment in Canada.


        [2] “Someone in the same comment section wanted to see a Marxist critique of MMT, claiming it was just utopian Keynesianism.” ~ Penguin

        This is an aspect of gap dynamics, in which people use bullshit to validate their selfish drive to keep “inferior” people trapped below them on the ladder of wealth and social power.

        In our cowardice, we pretend to care about the poor, while we screw them by dismissing all real, workable, proven, practical, real-world solutions as “utopian.”

        Universal social security? Single payer health care? Free education? Nonsense. “There’s no free lunch!”

        Thus sayeth the selfish peasants, who just want to have people to look down on, and who are in turn looked down on by the rich.


        [3] “I’m sure these people mean very well.” ~ Penguin

        If they meant well, they would admit that the problem lies in everyone at all levels who refuses to understand the facts about money. It’s a case of the emperor’s new clothes. The peasants insist on believing that the emperor is not naked. When the emperor decrees that the peasants must pay for his (non-existent) new clothes, the peasants blame their poverty on everything except their own selfish and stupid belief in the emperor’s new clothes.


        [4] “They try to focus their energy on ‘the capitalists!’ but when engaged in such a semantics game, it distracts from who they should really be fighting against.”

        The fight is against themselves. The reason the ship is sinking is that most passengers (not just rich passengers) refuse to help bail water.

        Most people are unwilling to grasp the simple facts about money (not merely unable, but unwilling).


        [5] REGARDING THE VIDEO, that spokes-clown agrees that universal social security has been proven practical, but he opposes it on the grounds that a basic guaranteed income would eliminate “any perceived spark of revolutionary potential.”

        He wants to radically increase people’s suffering (no amount of suffering can ever be enough) in the hope that it will cause people to revolt.

        Like all Marxists today, he is a would-be elitist with no courage or compassion; a self-styled Che Guevara living in his mom’s basement. He is a megalomaniac for whom no societal development could ever be good enough, since no worship of him could ever be profound enough. When he sees right-wing neoliberals, he wants to usurp their power, claiming all their privileges for himself alone.

        Latin nations with leftist governments (e.g. Ecuador, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua) have active Communist parties whose members hate the Latin socialist governments more than the right-wing neoliberals hate them. Why? Because the Communists want supreme power. They want to be worshipped as the divine gods of “permanent revolution.” They are motivated by greed, not by generosity. Vanity, not sympathy. Ambition, not compassion. They cling to the Big Lie because want to be high priests and cult leaders. In their hostility they imagine that only their savage and total tyranny that can bring people “freedom.” Only the permanent enslavement of the masses under the Marxist dictator can make the masses “free.” Welcome to the Kafka-esque world of “1984.”

        (I am not attacking Marx. I am dismissing Marxists.)

        Marxists fancy themselves to be intellectual giants, never grasping that people follow courage, not intellect. People follow personal life examples, not rhetoric. People want to be spiritually inspired, not logically lectured to. They want uplifting stories, not sullen sermons.

        Today’s Marxists are right-wingers in “leftist” clothing. Like neoliberals, they want to eliminate Food Stamps, for example, because they imagine that famine will cause a revolt (which will put Marxists in supreme power, so they can liquidate all who question their divinity).

        I say rather than starve people of food or money, let’s educate people that dollars are infinite. Let’s show them that they only need to realize that there are more than enough dollars for everyone.

        The clown in the video also opposes universal social security on the grounds that it will not alleviate the suffering of people in “Third World” sweatshops and shanty-towns.

        Fine. Let’s educate foreigners about money. Contrary to Marxist claims, it is not necessary to torture people to free their minds, or awaken them from “the matrix.”

        [6] REGARDING MIKE NORMAN, I have no complaints about him. I like how he tries to teach people how to use MMT principles in market speculation. I like how he’s more focused on practical applications than on silly things like the MMT “jobs guarantee” chimera.


Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s