–A truly outstanding summary of Monetary Sovereignty for those who want to understand economics Thursday, May 17 2012 

Mitchell’s laws: The more budgets are cut and taxes inceased, the weaker an economy becomes. To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments. Austerity = poverty and leads to civil disorder. Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.

A reader directed me to the following site: http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2012/05/playing-monopolis-monopoly-an-inquiry-into-why-we-are-making-ourselves-so-miserable.html

Somehow, through the magic of the Internet, I lost the reader’s comment, but the site he sent me to is so outstanding I ask that everyone read it.

Reader, whoever you are, please accept my apologies and send me another comment, so I can thank you by name.

Oops, just found it. You can to, in the comment section of the previous post.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth. Monetary Sovereignty: Cutting federal deficits to grow the economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia. Two key equations in economics:
Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings
Gross Domestic Product = Federal Spending + Private Investment and Consumption + Net exports


Who says Trump doesn’t have a plan? Friday, Jun 15 2018 

Who says Trump doesn’t have a plan?

Here was the Trump plan on September 5, 2017:

China’s ‘Freeze for Freeze’ Plan for North Korea Gets Chilly Reception in U.S.
Paul D. Shinkman, Senior National Security Writer

Image result for trump kim

Trump re. the murderous dictator, Kim: “He really wants to do a great job for North Korea. Excellent relationship.”

THE U.S. GOVERNMENT IS not considering any changes to ongoing military exercises it conducts on and around the Korean Peninsula with its allies.

U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley dismissed as “insulting” the proposal that Beijing has touted for months and repeated at an emergency Security Council meeting Monday, held in response to another nuclear test that North Korea claims involved an advanced hydrogen bomb.

“When a rogue regime has a nuclear weapon and an [intercontinental ballistic missile] pointed at you, you do not take steps to lower your guard,” Haley said at the meeting. “No one would do that. We certainly won’t.”

A State Department spokesman confirmed Tuesday there is no intent to cancel or otherwise change military exercises.

Other officials have defended the exercises despite North Korean claims that they are provocative and dangerous.

“These are regularly scheduled. It’s an annual exercise that we do all the time,” State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said in late August. It comes with many months of planning. But to suggest that our activity with our ally of the Republic of Korea is in any way equivalent to the DPRK’s actions is simply false.”

Here is the Trump plan on June 14, 2018:

Donald Trump’s Kim Jong Un Meeting Achieved Nothing and North Korea Isn’t Destroying Weapons Sites, Classified Report Reveals

The Israeli foreign ministry report also says that the Trump administration backtracked on many of the demands it had said it would make in the run-up to the meeting with Kim.

“Regardless of the smiles in the summit many in Japan, South Korea and the U.S. Congress doubt that North Korea is sincere in its intentions.”

The report also noted that Trump’s decision to halt joint military exercises between the U.S. and South Korea while denuclearization, a proposal known as “freeze to freeze,” was a significant reversal of Washington’s previous position.

China had proposed this option last year and was completely rebuffed by the Trump administration.

Image result for trump duterte

Trump re. the murderous dictator, Duterte: “We’ve a great relationship. He is doing a great job.”

The assessment appears to be in line with that of many North Korea experts, who say that the agreement between the Trump administration and the regime of Kim Jong Un contained very few concrete plans of action. Experts also noted that the two regimes likely have very different ideas about what denuclearization means.

Chairman Kim has told me that North Korea is already destroying a major missile engine testing site,” Trump said in the wake of the summit in Singapore on June 12, without detailing which site Kim had pledged to dismantle.

But an analysis by monitoring group 38 North revealed that there is still no evidence that North Korea is destroying anything.

“38 North has conducted a survey of the North Korea’s rocket and missile launch and engine test facilities using recent high-resolution satellite imagery and has not yet identified any activity associated with the dismantlement of facilities at Sohae or any other test sites in North Korea,” the report said.

Here is what history has taught everyone except Trump:

“The U.S. has only agreed to suspend (the tests) once before, in 1992. That was enough to get North Korea to agree to denuclearization at that time, though it became apparent that the nation’s actions didn’t match its words.

“We get along very well, we have a good chemistry,” Trump told Steve Doocy of “Fox & Friends.” “I agreed to meet. Of course, I agreed. You’ve got to agree to meet. If you don’t agree to meet, you’re gonna have nuclear war,” Trump said.

Related image

Trump re. the murderous dictator, Putin: “I have a relationship with Putin . . . he’s done a great job.”

“He wants to make his country great.  He’s the head of a country. He’s a strong head,” Trump said. “He speaks and his people sit up and pay attention. I want my people to do the same.”

In summary:

The U.S. canceled the tests once before, in order to encourage North Korea to negotiate, and after the negotiations, North Korea developed atomic weapons and ballistic missiles.

Trump does have a plan: It is to have a “great relationship” with the murderous dictators of the world, whom he greatly admires.

Do you feel safer, now?

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

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

I could not help writing this article, and you cannot help reading it. Wednesday, Jun 6 2018 

Here is an article that I may or may not have decided to write, but it will affect you in ways over which you have no control.

The “butterfly effect” is an allusion to the idea that a butterfly flapping its wings in one country can cause or influence a tornado in another country.

The idea, by Edward Lorenz, refers to a feature of chaos theory, in which a small change in initial conditions can create a large change in later results.

It began this way. Lorenz had been running a computerized weather prediction system:

“At one point I decided to repeat some of the computations. I stopped the computer, typed in a line of numbers that it had printed out a while earlier, and set it running again.

“After the computer had simulated about two months of weather, the numbers being printed were nothing like the old ones.

“The new values at first repeated the old ones, but soon afterward differed by one and then several units in the last decimal place, and then began to differ in the next to the last place and then in the place before that.

“In fact, the differences doubled every four days or so, until all resemblance with the original output disappeared somewhere in the second month.

“What had happened: the numbers that I had typed in were not the exact original numbers, but were the rounded-off values that had appeared in the original printout.

“The initial round-off errors were the culprits; they were steadily amplifying until they dominated the solution.”

Though chaos theory describes small perturbations resulting in large, often unpredictable, changes, the butterfly effect can have an even deeper inference: Philosopher Johann Fichte said:

In every moment of her duration Nature is one connected whole; in every moment each individual part must be what it is, because all the others are what they are; and you could not remove a single grain of sand from its place, without thereby, although perhaps imperceptibly to you, altering something throughout all parts of the immeasurable whole.”

Think of the implications: You are much bigger than a butterfly, so you create greater disruptions to your environment than does a butterfly’s wing or a grain of sand. Everywhere you go and everything you do causes a ripple effect that spreads.

Other philosophies assert that, like a stone dropped into a large pond, the spreading ripples continuously damp down, until they disappear, so that the butterfly doesn’t affect the tornado.

The four laws of thermodynamics would seem to side with Fichte, in that nature is one connected whole and nothing disappears.Image result for boulder at a tipping point

The “butterfly’s wings” analogy might seem to be a violation in that the small energy of the flapping wing would have to affect the massive energy of the tornado — unless the tornado had arrived at a tipping point, in which case a minuscule application of energy changed its dynamics.

Anything you touch will react to that touch, and that reaction will touch off another reaction, and the whole effect will spread.

While, like the dampening ripples, the effect may moderate by being repeatedly divided, still it will cause a widening, non-zero effect that never can end.

If, as currently suspected, the “big bang” creation of the universe began with something approximating a singularity, then at that time everything indeed did directly affect everything, and the effect of that “touching” still may be felt.

More to the point of this article, however, is the fact that in human psychology, which is a large part of economics, chaos is everywhere. A mere thought, at the atomic level, can cause a nation to go to war.

Economics, being based on human psychology as well as on all manner of natural occurrences,  may be more subject to chaos — more subject to the “butterfly’s wing” than other sciences.

Not only is economic prediction often difficult-to-impossible, but working backward from effect to determine cause, may equally be difficult-to-impossible.

This brings us to an article in the May 26, edition of ScienceNews magazine:

In China, coffee shop habits show cultural differences tied to farming
Even among longtime city folk, legacy of rice versus wheat agriculture affects behavior

How close people sit and whether they dodge or move chairs blocking aisles reveals whether their cultural roots go back to rice farming in southern China or wheat farming in northern China, researchers report.

As many as 9,000 years of neighboring families working together to cultivate rice paddies in southern China has encouraged a lasting focus on others over self, even among that region’s city folk today, say psychologist Thomas Talhelm and colleagues.   

That dynamic plays out in coffee shops. Middle-class city dwellers in southern China who have never farmed rice often sit with others and show deference by walking around chairs blocking aisles, Talhelm’s group says.

In northern cities, people more often sit alone and move offending chairs out of the way. A long history of more individualistic wheat and millet farming in the north has promoted a focus on self over others, the scientists propose.

People in a self-oriented culture often try to change a situation to their advantage, whereas people in an others-oriented culture typically change themselves to fit the situation, other research suggests.

Consistent with that pattern, only about 6 percent of Chinese people in southern rice regions moved Starbucks chairs out of the way rather than squeezing through them, versus about 16 percent of the caffeine crowd in northern wheat regions.

Economics is not just the science of money flow. More importantly, economics is a psychology science of attitudes and what people do about money, labor, saving, charity, power,  obligations, etc.

A psychologist could create an endless list of attitudes and actions, all related to economics.

If you had asked me to list the specific factors affecting people’s actions and attitudes about squeezing between chairs vs. moving them aside, growing rice vs. growing wheat would not have made the top ten thousand. 

Even after reading the article, I have doubts, but there is a more important point to be made. Rice growing is as distant from chair moving as butterflies are from tornadoes. Yet, there can be a logical connection.

And if there truly is a connection between rice growing and chair moving, who is to say there also isn’t a connection between any action and any effect?

The hypothesis of the “big bang” holds that at the very beginning, everything was connected to everything in one infinitesimal, which then exploded and separated into the universe we experience.

If that hypothesis is true, what is there to say that the connections disappeared rather than merely being stretched? Quantum mechanics uses the word “entanglement” to describe two particles connected in a way that an operation on one affects the other, no matter how far apart they are.

Your body is composed of star stuff, material created in numerous supernovas, so there surely could be atoms in you, in your brain, entangled with atoms millions of light years distant.

So, if you have a thought, which changes a property of an atom in your brain, that thought also could change a property of an entangled atom in a star, tipping the star into supernova status.

That would be the ultimate “butterfly/tornado” scenario, in which your mere thought precipitated the destruction of an entire solar system.

If everything is connected, then nothing is unimportant, and everything you do, even everything you think, has consequences. You shake the universe just by existing.

And that, in turn, would mean everything you think is caused by other connections, going all the way back to the big bang.

Drop two bottles, side by side, into the ocean, and they will drift apart, landing at distant shores. Their movements are chaotic but not random. The bottles do not go where they wish to go, but rather drift where the swirling wind and the thrashing water molecules take them.

Your entire body, including your brain, is composed of molecules, down to atoms, down to electrons and quarks, all obeying quantum laws. Your every thought is an arrangement of those molecules, atoms, electrons, and quarks.

Is there a point at which you control those arrangements?

That is, do you have free will, or is the future foreordained? Are you just a grain of sand in a shaking sandbox, being tossed about, or do you think you create your decisions from nothing?

Is it possible to create something from nothing? Or more intuitively, does everything have a precedent, and must that precedent have a precedent?Image result for falling dominoes

In summary, if the universe began in the big bang,  every motion by every molecule, atom, and quark began. Nothing changes without a changer.

Your thoughts control your actions. But, I can think of no way in which you intentionally, starting from zero, can control the molecules, atoms, and quarks that constitute your thoughts.

Today, you and everything else in the universe is the result of an unbroken chain of events and information that originated with the big bang.

I wrote this, and you are reading it, not because you and I have control, but rather because something happened 13 billion years ago, and the sandbox continues to shake us grains of sand.

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

Are you paying for Trump’s tariffs? Saturday, Jun 2 2018 

It takes only two things to keep people in chains:Image result for treachery

The ignorance of the oppressed
And the treachery of their leaders


A May 31, 2018, CNN headline began: Trump hits allies with metal tariffs.

Why should you care? Aside from the fact that the headline claims we are hitting our own allies, with Trump as president, we really don’t have allies anymore, do we?

And the rest of the headline is: “Mexico, EU, and Canada vow to retaliate.” Well, that “retaliate”  word doesn’t sound very good. It sounds like war.

But Trump has assured you that, “When a country (USA) is losing many billions of dollars on trade with virtually every country it does business with, trade wars are good, and easy to win.

Thus, you are faced with four questions:

  1. Are you actually paying for Trump’s tariffs?
  2. Do tariffs help domestic industries grow?
  3. Is the U.S. losing many billions of dollars on trade?
  4. Are trade wars good and easy to win?

The CNN article tells us:

President Trump is imposing steep tariffs on steel and aluminum from three of America’s biggest trading partners — Canada, Mexico and the European Union.

The trade penalties, 25% on imported steel and 10% on imported aluminum, take effect at midnight, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross told reporters Thursday.

Who will pay for those tariffs? It’s a trade war,  and in any war, you assume your government is shooting at the enemy.

In this case, the “enemy” is Canada, Mexico, and the European Union.

Image result for backwards shooting gun

Shoot at your own people

So you may assume that Canada, Mexico, and the EU will pay those tariffs, right? Wrong.

  1. Are you actually paying for Trump’s tariffs?
    A trade war is not like any war you ever have known.

    In a trade war, your government shoots at you, because it is you who pays the tariffs. Canada, Mexico, and the EU will not pay one cent.

When the imported products arrive in America, they arrive with their usual price.

Then the U.S. government adds a tariff to that price, and that increased price is what you pay.

Steel and aluminum are used widely: Cars, planes, appliances of every type. Are you thinking of buying a car, house, a refrigerator, a TV, a computer, a phone, any canned good?

Even your gas and oil will cost more because the oil industry and energy utilities use steel and aluminum extensively.

Steel and aluminum prices affect almost every product and service you buy, so prepare to pay more here, more there, more everywhere.

2. Do tariffs help domestic industries?
Existing American factories cannot supply U.S. needs. So new factories would have to be built and/or old factories be re-opened.

But consider the realities. Trump changes his mind, minute-by-minute. Would you invest millions or billions of dollars, and years of effort, to build a new factory, or to re-open old ones, when tomorrow Trump might decide that, “No, there won’t be tariff increases”?

At best, current factories might be able to ramp up production somewhat, which will increase profits but have a negligible effect on employment. More likely, they simply will raise prices, because they won’t have to compete with foreigners.

Meanwhile, U.S. manufacturers who use aluminum and steel will have to keep importing and paying the duties. That will require them to cut profits or raise prices, both of which will negatively affect Americans.

Even if an American manufacturer buys from domestic steel mills or aluminum smelters, those companies would raise their prices because they wouldn’t have to worry about competition from low-priced imports.

Under any circumstances, you would pay more, while the federal government takes dollars out of the private sector. No matter what happens, there would be scant benefit from a trade war and substantial punishment to the American economy.

3. Is the U.S. losing many billions of dollars on trade?
When Trump says “the U.S. is losing many billions of dollars on trade,” he means the U.S. is running a “trade deficit.” But a trade deficit is not the same as “losing” dollars.

Related image

The man receives money; the woman receives food. The woman is running a “trade deficit,” but neither one is “losing.”

When you shop at your local grocery store, you give them dollars and they give you goods and services.

In reality, you run a trade deficit with that store, but do you consider that to be “losing money”?

When you buy shoes that were made China, you run a trade deficit with China, but are you “losing money”?

Would you prefer not to run a trade deficit with your grocery store, and instead grow or manufacture all your groceries, yourself?

The vast majority of Americans would answer “No,” to both questions. We buy from foreign nations because the things we buy there either are better or cheaper, or both.

It benefits us to buy better and cheaper goods and services.

Further, when dollars flow out of the U.S., this is no problem for our Monetarily Sovereign government, which has the unlimited ability to create dollars.

Ben Bernanke: “The U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost.”

Sending dollars to Canada, Mexico, the EU, China, et al, does not make the U.S. even one cent poorer. It merely strengthens the dollar’s position as the world’s go-to currency.

That is why, for many years, the U.S. has been able to run billions of dollars in trade deficits, with no adverse effect on our economy. In fact, our economy has grown massively.

Being Monetarily Sovereign, we can continue to run trade deficits forever, and the only result will be that we will receive better, and/or less expensive, products and services than we can produce domestically.

4. Are trade wars good and easy to win?
For the U.S., a trade war is stupid. There is no better way to say it. Stupid.

The Democrats know it. The Republicans know it. Our foreign friends know it. Our foreign enemies know it. The vast majority of economists knows it. Only Trump seems not to know it.

He likes conflict, especially when he can bully others, so he has begun an “I-can-cut-off-America’s-nose-faster-than-you-can” trade war.

Contrary to Trump’s statement, trade wars are not good, and no one wins.

Imagine, for instance, that Trump “triumphs” over China, and China agrees to reduce its deficit with the U.S. It can accomplish this in two ways: It can sell less to us and/or it can buy more from us.

If it sells less to us, we either will have to buy elsewhere (which makes no change in our trade deficit) or we can make the goods ourselves. But if we were able to make those goods better, or at a better price, we already would be doing so.

We either will have to settle for higher prices or for lower quality.

If China buys more from us, that means China will send us more dollars than it previously had.

But the U.S. does not need more dollars from China. Being Monetarily Sovereign, we already can create unlimited dollars.

The irony is that the GOP wants China to send us more dollars by purchasing goods and services, but does not want China to send us more dollars by “lending dollars” to us.

The GOP worries about the federal “debt” to China, which is nothing more than China converting yuan to dollars, then depositing those dollars into U.S. Treasury-security accounts.

If China were to increase its purchases from us, that would increase the U.S. dollar supply in the same way that federal deficit spending does. But the GOP worries (wrongly, as it turns out) about increases in the U.S. dollar supply causing inflation.

So, in actual effect, the Trump/GOP debt hawks support the same thing they oppose: An increase in the U.S. money supply.

In summary:

1. Trump’s tariffs will cost you money.
2. Trump’s tariffs will not help domestic employment or businesses.
3. The U.S. is running a trade deficit, but it is not “losing many billions of dollars on trade.”
4. Trade wars not good and not easy to win. No one wins a trade war.
5. In the unlikely event a trade war is “successful,” i.e. adds dollars to the U.S. economy, it does nothing the federal government can’t do without costing Americans higher prices and a poorer selection of products.

After failing to destroy health care for the poor and middle income groups, and failing to make Mexico pay for his wall, Trump is desperate to claim an accomplishment that people care about.

Unfortunately, all he will accomplish is inflation, a poorer availability of products, and job loss.

Now you understand why American banks no longer will deal with Donald Trump, and before he became president, he and his family were forced to go overseas for business funds. He is not trusted by anyone.

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


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 A MONTHLY ECONOMIC BONUS TO EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA (similar to Social Security for All) (The JG (Jobs Guarantee) vs the GI (Guaranteed Income) vs the EB (Guaranteed Income)) 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 EVERYONE Five 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.
Businesses are dollar-transferring machines. They transfer dollars from customers to employees, suppliers, shareholders and the federal government (the later having no use for those dollars). Any tax on businesses reduces the amount going to employees, suppliers and shareholders, which diminishes the economy. Ultimately, all business taxes reduce 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 business 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.


Next Page »

%d bloggers like this: