This is a book you should read.
Stephanie Kelton explains economics from the standpoint of Modern Monetary Theory and her own inside experiences with U.S. Senators.
She provides you with some her own take about why Congress refuses to acknowledge its unlimited ability to create dollars, and pay for benefits.
While “the DEFICIT MYTH” is not exactly on point with Monetary Sovereignty, the fundamentals are the same (the federal government’s infinite ability to pay for things and the need for federal “debt”). The book is an easy, enjoyable read.
No economics gobbledygook.
You’ll be able to see how her explanations for the causes of inflation and the need for federal taxes differ from those of Monetary Sovereignty. Read her book, and then we can discuss it from the standpoints of the differences and the similarities.
I recommend it to you. I also recommend it especially to your Congressional representatives, who would do well to learn the facts. After you read it, make a difference in the world by sending a copy to your most intelligent Congressperson.
It’s available on Amazon. Enjoy.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty Twitter: @rodgermitchell Search #monetarysovereignty Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
THE SOLE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT IS TO IMPROVE AND PROTECT THE LIVES OF THE PEOPLE.
The most important problems in economics involve:
- Monetary Sovereignty describes money creation and destruction.
- Gap Psychology describes the common desire to distance oneself from those “below” in any socio-economic ranking, and to come nearer those “above.” The socio-economic distance is referred to as “The Gap.”
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 Monetary Sovereignty and The Ten Steps To Prosperity can grow the economy and narrow the Gaps:
Ten Steps To Prosperity:
2. Federally funded Medicare — parts A, B & D, plus long-term care — for everyone
3. Social Security for all or a reverse income tax
4. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone
5. Salary for attending school
6. Eliminate federal taxes on business
7. Increase the standard income tax deduction, annually.
8. Tax the very rich (the “.1%”) more, with higher progressive tax rates on all forms of income.
9. Federal ownership of all banks
10.Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99.9%
The Ten Steps will grow the economy and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and the rest.
MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY
#Monetary Sovereignty - Mitchell 
Got it last week via Amazon. I’ve finished the first two chapters. Good stuff so far. I agree, it’s an easy and enjoyable read.
LikeLike
Does she show how to get the 1% out of the way in order to make it all happen? Or do they just roll over and say, ” OK, Dr. Kelton, we’re all equal. Anything you say.”
But I’ll buy it to find out.
LikeLike
She doesn’t say, but maybe it will take rioting in the streets. So far as I can tell, that is the only thing that moves the right — they are afraid of informed and angry voters and for their money. Somehow, when simple kneeling didn’t do anything, a few riots now have moved the needle.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on The Most Revolutionary Act and commented:
The Constitution grants Congress unlimited ability to create money to pay for public services. Instead they allow the federal government to borrow the money from private banks, creating massive debt levels. Go figure.
LikeLike
Mr. Bramhall,
The federal debt is not “debt” as you know it.
1. It is the total of DEPOSITS into T-security accounts at the Federal Reserve Bank. Rather than “debt” it should be called “deposits.”
2. It is paid off daily, simply by returning the dollars that are in those accounts. No taxes involved. If the federal government wished, it could pay off the entire “debt” today, while not collecting a single dollar in taxes.
3. It is not a burden on federal taxpayers or on the federal government.
4. Because the federal government has the unlimited ability to create its own sovereign money, it does not borrow. It accepts DEPOSITS. Unlike state and local governments, THE U.S. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT NEVER BORROWS. NEVER.
5. Those who are concerned about the size of the federal “debt” (deposits), do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty.
I wish I knew the name of the fool who first decided these deposits should be called “debt,” so we at long last could end the wrongheaded concerns about federal “debt.”
LikeLike
I read some of your stuff from 2013. Have you not considered how the Article V Convention would create the formal discussion for this stuff?
LikeLike
No, I haven’t, only because I’m not sure how an amendment to the Constitution is necessary. What are your thoughts on that?
LikeLike
The first branch of government (Article I)–the legislature–Congress–is the locus of monetary sovereignty under your rubric. The legislators, due to USSC rulings, are now beholden to whichever corporation will contribute funds to their campaigns.
Widely reported over the past decade, members of Congress spend half their time in office dialing for dollars and going to nice dinners with corporate lobbyists. It’s also been widely reported that corporate banks are contributors, and we’ve had CEOs from Wall St. go through the revolving door between US Government and the private sector. In other words, we have a corporate status quo where things like Glass-Steagal are legislated away to benefit corporate banks. And where ideas like returning the coining of money to the federal treasury are never even discussed, let alone put to a vote. Thus, in order to restructure the economic system, an alteration in the federal legislature must take place, which, under the circumstances will require a constitutional amendment.
According to Article V there are only two modes in which to formally discuss the Congress. One mode is through the Congress itself, and the alternate mode is through the Article V Convention. Congress is not going to formally discuss how it operates with the aim of altering itself, therefore the convention mode is required to formally discuss the Congress, and is precisely why it exists–because the Framers knew what history had taught, that all governments fail after a period of time. Proof that Congress is failed: it hasn’t formally proposed an amendment to the states in almost thirty years when the Constitution was framed with the sense in mind that it would need to be amended as time went on.
For half of a century the convention clause of Article V has been tarred and feathered as a “constitutional convention” that re-writes the Constitution, when in fact it is nothing but a non-binding deliberative assembly of state delegates. The Framers did not stick a cherry bomb in the center of their masterpiece. They were very careful to frame Article V so that whichever mode of proposal, Congress or convention, proposals would need to be ratified by 75%+. That requirement for approval is a political principle, meaning whatever is proposed, it must get all one side of the political spectrum signed on, plus at least half the other, or it goes to the dustbin of history with 10,000+ other failed proposals.
We are at a moment in history, and as a society, where an inevitable conclusion is playing out, the only thing that can and will prevent it is a tipping-point of Americans who are cognizant of the Article V Convention. Convention of States, a national group advocating for a convention, has over three million members. I would estimate there are over ten million who desire a convention but think it near impossible due to the power corporations have over the Congress.
This report by the Congressional Research Service is helpful but there are errors. It’s how members of Congress are taught to view the Article V Convention: http://www.foavc.org/reference/R44435_20171115.pdf
LikeLike
John, from your commentary I believe you assume:
1. Amendments will be beneficial (in your opinion). That is, if you lean left, the Amendments will lean left, and if you lean right, the Amendments will lean right.
2. Politicians somehow will be precluded from “dialing for dollars.”
3. Money will be created only by the federal government and not by banks. (I have no idea how that could possibly work, for all lending creates dollars, whether or no banks do it. I went shopping with my credit card today, thus creating dollars.)
4. The Amendments will not be subject to the votes of those “beholden to whichever corporation will contribute funds to their campaigns” or to them personally.
I suggest that all four assumptions are flawed.
The true implementation of Monetary Sovereignty requires a charismatic leader who understands it and has influence with the public and Congress, or an event of sufficient magnitude to anger the public and force compliance. That is, if the public understood, for instance, that FICA is wholly unnecessary, and is, in fact, harmful, FICA would disappear (as it has partially when politicians agreed.)
As for the former, Trump could have been that charismatic leader, but he is too unintelligent and psychopathic.
As for the latter, we are seeing it acted out right now, as the public marches in anger opposing bigotry against blacks. That will result in new laws — not Constitutional Amendments (too slow) — but laws. There is nothing like an angry public to effect legal change. Time will tell whether the public maintains its anger.
LikeLike
1. Amendments will be beneficial (in your opinion). That is, if you lean left, the Amendments will lean left, and if you lean right, the Amendments will lean right.
Incorrect, because as mentioned, any amendment, whether conservative or liberal, right or left, the requirement for ratification is 75%+. That means an idea must get all the left signed on, plus at least half the right, or vice versa. It has to have overwhelming and broad support, ie. non-partisan.
2. Politicians somehow will be precluded from “dialing for dollars.”
An amendment to publicly fund public elections would make the practice a thing of the past.
3. Money will be created only by the federal government and not by banks. (I have no idea how that could possibly work, for all lending creates dollars, whether or no banks do it. I went shopping with my credit card today, thus creating dollars.)
At present the Federal Reserve prints bills. Removing that function from the Reserve to the Treasury Department is certainly an idea that may gain favor and become a real possibility.
4. The Amendments will not be subject to the votes of those “beholden to whichever corporation will contribute funds to their campaigns” or to them personally.
Amendments are voted on by the legislature, or by mini-conventions within the states. What is important to keep in mind is that by the time we get to that point–having elected delegates, having delegates convene, having them deliberate about the government, having them reach consensus, having them formally propose amendments–the status quo of today, of corrupt politicians blocking reforms, will have been demolished. By that time, the sovereign power of the states will re-manifest, the sovereign people will be woken to their true power, and politicians and judges will be walking and talking differently. In fact just with the call itself, before we get on with the process, politicians and judges will walk and talk differently, before we even get to the ratification stage. In fact, the formal discussion of our collective situation matters more than any amendment proposed today. It is the formal discussion and ability to build consensus that will destroy the current political status quo so that it can be reformed, economic policy along with it.
A nonpartisan idea is more powerful than anyone with charisma. We all have pet amendments, the point is to focus on coercing Congress to issue the call, as required by the Constitution.
The current unrest will go the way of previous periods of unrest under the current status quo: the media will talk about change, and institutions including Congress will look busy around the edges, but nothing will change. Which is why I advocate for the ultimate right of the people–the right to formally discuss our government–that right which makes us unique alongside all other societies. It is indeed our ultimate right as framed into our high law.
LikeLike
1. Any idea that has that much support will be passed by Congress. Congresspeople are followers, not leaders. The trick is to get that much support.
2. Your plan is getting 75% of the population to make political contributions illegal, while making federal contributions, legal. Who would receive those federal contributions? Everyone running for office? I think I may run for office.
3. Printing bills is unimportant. The vast majority of money is not represented by printed bills. We actually are well on our way to eliminating paper currency, now that cell phone swipes can be used in most retail settings. In 20 years, I suspect dollar bills will be collectors’ items.
4. “The status quo of today, of corrupt politicians blocking reforms, will have been demolished. By that time, the sovereign power of the states will re-manifest, the sovereign people will be woken to their true power, and politicians and judges will be walking and talking differently.”
Really? I can’t imagine why the process you describe would accomplish that. Are you also saying the state governments are more honest than the federal government?
LikeLike
1. Any idea that has that much support will be passed by Congress. Congresspeople are followers, not leaders. The trick is to get that much support.
If we get the required support for a federal convention of the states, people like you could begin the formal discussion of Congress.
2. Your plan is getting 75% of the population to make political contributions illegal, while making federal contributions, legal. Who would receive those federal contributions? Everyone running for office? I think I may run for office.
Nine out of ten Americans agree private money corrupts public policy. Logically, if you remove private money from public policy, public policy will reflect just that.
3. Printing bills is unimportant. The vast majority of money is not represented by printed bills. We actually are well on our way to eliminating paper currency, now that cell phone swipes can be used in most retail settings. In 20 years, I suspect dollar bills will be collectors’ items.
I agree printing bills are unimportant, the point I was making was more metaphor–transfer of where money is issued, i.e. abolish the Fed, and place all monetary issues with the US Treasury Department.
4. “The status quo of today, of corrupt politicians blocking reforms, will have been demolished. By that time, the sovereign power of the states will re-manifest, the sovereign people will be woken to their true power, and politicians and judges will be walking and talking differently.”
Really? I can’t imagine why the process you describe would accomplish that. Are you also saying the state governments are more honest than the federal government?
As you may or may not know, in the 114th and 115th Congress, member Luke Messer, introduced a resolution in the Judiciary Committee, that if passed would require the Director of the National Archives to take all existing state applications from congressional records and enroll them as federal documents so they can be officially counted by Congress. If done, records show we’re long overdue legally, and the 116th Congress is acting like the convention clause and Congressional Records do not exist.
Let’s say Messer’s resolution passed and Congressed issued the call. What do you think is the first thing that will happen?
LikeLike
1. Circular thinking. If you get the support, Congress will pass laws. But first, you need to get the support, and that support would get you the laws without a convention.
2. If you remove private money, you are left with public money or no money. Are you really advocating for no money? If not, my question remains unanswered: “Who would receive those federal contributions? Everyone running for office? I think I may run for office. And what about self-funding?
3. Again, it is not possible to place all monetary issues with the Treasury, since the vast majority of monetary issues are created by the economy, not by the government. Private lending creates most money.
4. “Long overdue legally” for what? Not sure how this will “awaken” the people. Who would read that stuff? Not Mr. & Mrs. America.
LikeLike
1. Circular thinking. If you get the support, Congress will pass laws. But first, you need to get the support, and that support would get you the laws without a convention.
You seem to be confusing the effects of legislation, with the effects of newly enacted constitutional amendments.
Once a tipping-point of any society becomes cognizant of an idea, it automatically spills over into the population at large. In other words, it doesn’t matter what the Congress/Executive/Court say the Constitution means, it only matters what a tipping-point of Americans say it means. Congress has instituted a number of measures aimed at the calling of a convention. Why? Because the momentum for a convention is building. Here is a link to the Clerck of the House that has been posting PDF files of state applications: http://clerk.house.gov/legislative/memorials.aspx
In other words, the support is growing and Congress is reacting.
2. If you remove private money, you are left with public money or no money. Are you really advocating for no money? If not, my question remains unanswered: “Who would receive those federal contributions? Everyone running for office? I think I may run for office. And what about self-funding?
I’m advocating for publicly funded elections. Of course there would be a criteria, and if met, the candidate would receive equal exposure prior to voting.
3. Again, it is not possible to place all monetary issues with the Treasury, since the vast majority of monetary issues are created by the economy, not by the government. Private lending creates most money.
Think of the Treasury as the new Fed with an expanded roll. Surely it can be done. Private lending enriches private banks, public lending would enrich public banks.
4. “Long overdue legally” for what? Not sure how this will “awaken” the people. Who would read that stuff? Not Mr. & Mrs. America.
The legal requirement for the convention call has been legally satisfied by the states. Congressional Records show hundreds of applications. Each member of the 116th Congress is currently engaged in federal criminal activity by remaining ignorant of their present duty, or by feigning ignorance.
There are currently about ten million Americans (and presumably growing in number) who are aware of and desiring a federal convention of state delegates in order to formally discuss what Congress will not.
Are you afraid to formally debate the merits of a proposed amendment? I’m not.
LikeLike