Do you understand how “The Big Lie” affects you and everyone else? The answer is here.

Alan Greenspan: “A government cannot become insolvent with respect to obligations in its own currency.”

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.”

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.

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.”

Press Conference: Mario Draghi, President of the (Monetarily Sovereign) ECB, Question: I am wondering: can the ECB ever run out of money? Mario Draghi: Technically, no. We cannot run out of money.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………..

The Big Lie in economics, simply stated is: The U.S. government unintentionally can run short of U.S. dollars.

In 1792, the U.S. government created the first U.S. dollars from thin air. It arbitrarily passed laws that created as many dollars as it wished, and gave those dollars the value it wished. Since then, the U.S. government continues to create U.S. dollars, and it arbitrarily has changed the value of the dollar many times.

Since its founding in 1776, the United States has had a variety of monetary systems including bimetallic systems where the dollar was backed by both gold and silver (1792-1862), a fiat monetary system (1862-1879), a full gold standard (1879-1933), and a partial gold standard (1933-1971).

Each new system changed the value of the dollar.

A Billion Dollars Was Transferred Over Venmo In January | Money cash, Money stacks, Investing — **The federal government has the infinite ability to create dollars, without inflation.**

From 1971 to present the United States has been on a fiat monetary standard.

The U.S. government can create laws from thin air, and those laws can create dollars from thin air. The U.S. government cannot unintentionally run out of laws or dollars. For that reason, no agency of the U.S. government can run out of dollars unless Congress and the President wish it. Any time you hear or read about the U.S. government not being able to “afford’ some expenditure, or about some federal agency running short of funds, or about federal taxes needing to be increased, you are subject to The Big Lie. Being Monetarily Sovereign, the federal government neither needs, nor even uses, tax dollars to fund its spending. It creates dollars by spending; that is its primary dollar-creation method. Similarly, any time you read or hear that the federal “debt” is unsustainable, or the federal deficit is “unaffordable,” you are being told The Big Lie. Here is an article that exemplifies The Big Lie you are expected to believe:

Go-broke dates pushed back for Social Security, Medicare The annual Social Security and Medicare trustees report says Social Security’s trust fund will be exhausted in 2035, instead of last year’s estimate of 2034. By Fatima Hussein and Tom Murphy Associated Press WASHINGTON — A stronger-than-expected economic recovery from the pandemic has pushed back the go-broke dates for Social Security and Medicare, but officials warn that the current economic turbulence is putting additional pressures on the bedrock retirement programs.

The annual Social Security and Medicare trustees report released last week said Social Security’s trust fund will be unable to pay full benefits beginning in 2035, instead of last year’s estimate of 2034.

The year before that it estimated an exhaustion date of 2035. The projected depletion date for Medicare’s trust fundfor inpatient hospital care moved back two years to 2028 from last year’s forecast of 2026.

In the post titled, “’Wolf,’ ‘The sky is falling.’ ‘Social Security and Medicare will be insolvent'” you read why the Medicare and Social Security so-called “trust funds” are not trust funds at all, but rather are mere balance sheet notations on the government’s books — notations that the federal government can change at will. You might ask, “How is it possible for an agency of a government to run short of the dollars the government has the infinite ability to create.” The answer: It isn’t possible unless that is what the government wants. If Congress and the President wanted Medicare and Social Security to pay more benefits, they simply would pass a law mandating Medicare and Social Security to pay more benefits. And, if Congress and the President wanted to reduce or even eliminate the FICA tax, they would pay for the mandate the same way they pay for the military and all other federal expenses: By writing checks. No tax dollars are involved. And if Congress and the President wanted the nation to have free, no-deductible, comprehensive Medicare for every man, woman, and child in America, they could do that by passing laws. No tax dollars necessary. And if Congress and the President wanted every man, woman, and child in America to receive Social Security — even with triple the current benefit levels — they could pass the appropriate law. Again, no tax dollars need to be collected. The article continues:

“Economic recovery from the 2020 recession has been stronger and faster than assumed in last year’s reports, with positive effects on the projected actuarial status of the trust funds in these reports,” the report states.

The “actuarial status” assumes the FICA tax funds Medicare and Social Security “trust funds.” It doesn’t. FICA funds nothing. FICA,indeed all federal taxes are destroyed upon receipt. (This is not true of state/local taxes, which remain in the economy.) The federal government funds Medicare and Social Security by creating new dollars, ad hoc.

President Joe Biden said in a statement that the report “shows that the strong economic recovery driven by my economic and vaccination plans has strengthened programs that millions of Americans rely on and has put our nation in a better fiscal position.”

The U.S. cannot be “in a better fiscal position”; it already is in a perfect fiscal position. The government has zero fiscal need for taxes. Even without taxes, the federal government has the infinite ability to pay any bills it ever receives.

Social Security pays benefits to more than 65 million Americans, mainly retirees as well as disabled people and survivors of deceased workers.

Medicare covers roughly 64 million older and disabled people.

When the Social Security trust fund is depleted, the government will be able to pay 80% of scheduled benefits, the report said.

Medicare will be able to pay 90% of total scheduled benefits when the fund is depleted.

Wrong. The government already pays 100% of benefits and will be able to pay 100% of future benefits, no matter how many people are collecting benefits or how large those benefits prove to be. All dollars sent to the U.S. Treasury are destroyed upon receipt.

Income for Medicare’s hospital insurance fund is projected to be higher than estimates from last year because the number of covered workers who help fund it and their average wages are both expected to be higher.

Income is irrelevant for a government that has the infinite ability to create dollars.

A main source of financing is payroll taxes on earnings paid by employees and employers. About 183 million people paid those taxes in 2021.

Payroll taxes are nothing more than a deduction from the private sector — a net loss for Gross Domestic Product and the economy. They do not finance anything. The sole source of federal financing is the federal government’s Monetary Sovereignty.

The trustees of Social Security and Medicare include the secretaries of Treasury, Health and Human Services, and Labor, as well as the Social Security commissioner.

They are supposed to be joined by two public trustees, however those positions have been vacant since 2015.

The “Trustees” do nothing. They have no power. It’s all just a bookkeeping function, which is handled automatically by computers. That is why trustee positions can be vacant without harm.

A representative from the White House did not respond to an email inquiry about whether the president intends to nominate new public trustees.

Trustees are unnecessary.

The trustees report is an added reminder of the U.S. government’s financial troubles, as it juggles historically high inflation, recovery from a pandemic and Russia’s war in Ukraine.

The economy may have “financial troubles.” It can run short of dollars. But the government cannot have financial troubles. It has infinite dollars with which to pay its bills. And it has the unlimited ability to control inflation.

AARP CEO Jo Ann Jenkins said the reports “send a clear message to Congress: despite the short-term improvement, you must act to protect the benefits people have earned and paid into both now and for the long-term.”

The first step to “protect the benefits” is to stop telling The Big Lie.

“The stakes are too high for the millions of Americans who rely on Medicare and Social Security for their health and financial wellbeing,” she said.

This year, Social Security retirees got a 5.9% boost in benefits, the biggest cost-of-living adjustment, also known as COLA, in 39 years.

You, retirees, could have received a 10% or 100% or greater boost in benefits if Congress and the President wished it. Congress and the President have absolute control over benefits. The destructiveness of The Big Lie, is shown in the following article:

500,000 Floridians could lose health coverage, study says Christopher O’Donnell,Tampa Bay Times More than 500,000 Floridians could lose their health insurance if Congress fails to extend tax credits passed through the American Rescue Plan Act, a new report warns.

The tax credits dramatically lowered premiums for millions of Florida families who this year obtained their health insurance through the Affordable Care Act.

But those subsidies will expire at the end of this year as attempts by Congress to extend them have stalled.

Can you answer this question? Why would a Congress, that has infinite dollars at its fingertips, not be able to lower premiums for millions of families?

If lawmakers cannot reach an agreement, premiums could rise by 53% in 2023, forcing millions of Americans to go without health insurance.

Florida would be one of the states hardest hit, according to a study by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Urban Institute.

Roughly 96 percent of the 2.7 million Floridians enrolled in the Affordable Care Act were eligible for the tax credits this year. Without them, a household of four with an income of $111,000 will pay hundreds of dollars more in premiums next year.

Families that earn above that limit would no longer be eligible for the program. They could face an average increase of about $2,000 per year in premiums if they have to purchase private insurance.

The likely impact, the study warns, is the number of uninsured in Florida could rise by 25 percent, from 2 million to 2.5 million.

Families without health insurance typically forego critical preventative and early treatment of health issues until their condition forces them to seek emergency room care — the same strain on hospital resources and budgets that the Affordable Care Act was intended to relieve.

“A 53% increase on premiums could be very painful for a whole lot of families in the state of Florida.”
Of course, it’s not just Florida. The unnecessary pain will extend to families all over America. Can you answer this question? Why is this even an issue, for a government having unlimited financial resources?
Opposition to extending the tax credits has focused on the cost.

Extending them would increase the federal deficit by $25.3 billion in 2023 and by $305 billion over 10 years, the study says.

House Democrats can extend the credits via a reconciliation bill to clear Republican opposition.

But the fate of that program and many others depends on negotiations between President Joe Biden and West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin to get the president’s social spending bill through the Senate.

Can you answer this question? Why are 100% of Republicans plus one Democrat opposed to providing federal financial aid to families?

U.S. Rep. Charlie Crist, D-St. Petersburg was critical of Republican Gov. DeSantis. Florida is one of only 13 states that continues to reject a provision of the Affordable Care Act — passed over a decade ago — that would expand Medicaid eligibility to more than 400,000 of the poorest Floridians.
The federal government pays 90% of the cost. So by expanding Medicaid, Florida will pay only 10 cents to receive each dollar the federal government pumps into its economy. Can you answer this question? Why would Florida refuse those many millions of support dollars? And why does Florida reject federal aid for its poorest residents?
In 2021, Florida lawmakers did pass legislation to make Medicaid available for for mothers and babies, extending their coverage from 60 days to a full year following childbirth.

But Floridians who earn less than the federal poverty level of $13,590 are not eligible for Medicaid as they would be in states that have fully expanded Medicaid.
Can you answer this question? Why are the poorest Floridians not eligible to receive federally supported Medicaid?
Since it took effect in 2014, the Affordable Care Act — often called Obamacare — has made health insurance affordable to more Americans by creating health insurance marketplaces and subsidizing the cost of premiums.

It helped the program add 2.5 million more Americans this year, expanding nationwide enrollment to a record 14.4 million.

“People who previously turned away and looked at alternative options like short term insurance were able to reconsider and saw a really affordable rate,” said Katie Roders Turner, executive director of the Family Healthcare Foundation.

She said a family of four that her group helped find insurance had just been hit with a $6,000 emergency room bill after their child developed a high fever because their short-term insurance policy included a large deductible.

Desperate people were buying junk insurance policies because they couldn’t qualify for federally supported insurance.

A lady named Graciela Lopez said subsidies in the Affordable Care Act enabled her to afford the coverage she needs to cover life-saving treatment. She was diagnosed with breast cancer three years ago and had a double mastectomy.

She sees an oncologist every three months and another specialist twice a year. She is also on daily medication that would cost $1,000 per month without insurance.

Most of the cost is covered through a marketplace plan offered by Blue Cross Blue Shield, which costs her $169 per month.

Insurance also pays for a substantial portion of the daily medication she takes to lower hormone levels that could trigger her cancer.

She is worried she won’t be able to afford a substantial premium hike.

“If I change my insurance, I have to find different oncologists,” she said. “I have to keep my insurance as long as I can.”
Can you answer this question? Why does Gracie Lopez, along with millions of other Americans, not receive free, comprehensive, no-deductible health care insurance paid for by the federal government? The answers to all of the above financial questions are:

The widespread (and false) belief the federal Monetarily Sovereign finances are the same and your personal (monetarily non-sovereign) finances, and that the federal government, like you, can run short of dollars.

The widespread (and false) belief that federal taxpayers fund federal spending or that the federal government borrows dollars.

The widespread (and false) belief that if Monetary Sovereignty were correct “someone” would have done “something” about it, and provided free Medicare, free Social Security, and other financial aids (See “Ten Steps To Prosperity” below) to every man, woman, and child in America.

The widespread (and false) belief that federal spending “overheats the economy” and causes inflation.

Gap Psychology, the desire of the rich who run America, to widen the income/wealth/power Gap beween them and those below them.

Both political parties are responsible for disseminating The Big Lie. The Republican party, being the party of the rich, is somewhat more culpable, but both parties, virtually all media, and most economists are guilty to some degree.

ANY TIME YOU READ OR HEAR . . .
. . . the U.S. government can’t ‘afford’ some expenditure, or about some federal agency running short of funds, or about federal taxes needing to be increased, you are a victim of The Big Lie.” (The federal government can’t unintentionally run short of dollars.)

. . . in reference to some proposed federal expenditure, “Who will pay for it?”, you are a victim of The Big Lie. (The government will create the dollars.)

. . . the phrase “taxpayers’ money” in reference to federal spending, you are a victim of The Big Lie. (Federal taxpayers’ dollars are destroyed, not spent.)

. . . that the federal deficit or debt are “unsustainable,” you are a victim of The Big Lie. (Federal deficits and so-called “debt” are infinitely sustainable.)

. . . concerns that China will stop lending to us, you are a victim of The Big Lie. (The federal government does not borrow dollars.)

. . . that federal spending causes inflation, you are a victim of The Big Lie. (Inflation always is caused by shortages, and actually can be cured by federal spending.)
Congress and the President could repudiate The Big Lie by changing laws, with a few strokes of a pen. We are now heading into midterm elections. Congress and the President care about two things: Money and votes. If you disagree with The Big Lie, contact your political leaders, and tell them how they can receive your money and/or vote.

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:

The Ten Steps will grow the economy and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and the rest.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

“Wolf!” “The sky is falling” “Social Security and Medicare will be insolvent.”

Which of the following is a story with a false narrative: “The Boy Who Cried Wolf!” or “Henny Penny announcing, ‘The sky is falling,”or “The CRFB claiming, “Social Security and Medicare will be insolvent”?

Answer: All three are false narratives. The first two are meant to teach children valuable lessons. The third should teach adults a valuable lesson.

That lesson is: Don’t believe the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) when it howls like a wolf, squawks like a chicken, and pontificates in solemn terms that Social Security and Medicare “trust funds” are running short of dollars.

It’s all lies.

Here is what the CRFB now says:

Trustees: Social Security and Medicare Headed for Insolvency in 13 and 6 Years The Social Security and Medicare Trustees just released their 2022 reports on the financial status of the Social Security and Medicare programs.

The Trustees show that the Social Security and Medicare Hospital Insurance (HI) trust funds rapidly approach insolvency. Their funding imbalances need to be addressed sooner rather than later to prevent across-the-board benefit cuts or abrupt changes to tax or benefit levels.

In effect, the CRFB claims:

1. Social Security and Medicare benefits are paid for by trust funds.

2. These “trust funds” will run short of money.

3. The solution to Medicare or Social Security insolvency requires cutting benefits and/or increasing taxes.

All three are factually FALSE.

1. SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE BENEFITS ARE PAID FOR BY TRUST FUNDS

Wrong.

To quote from the Peter G. Peterson Foundation website:

Federal trust funds bear little resemblance to their private-sector counterparts, and therefore the name can be misleading.

A private sector “trust fund” implies a secure source of funding.

(A federal trust fund merely tracks inflows and outflows for specific programs. There is no secure source of funding.)

In private-sector trust funds, receipts are deposited, and assets are held and invested by trustees on behalf of the stated beneficiaries.

In a federal trust fund, the receipts — as part of the M2 money supply measure — are destroyed upon receipt. They no longer are part of any money supply measure.

There are no stated beneficiaries, as the criteria for beneficiaries change daily.)

The federal government owns the accounts and can, by changing the law, unilaterally alter the purposes of the accounts and raise or lower collections and expenditures.

The federal government (Congress and the President) can do whatever they wish with the “trust funds”: Add to them, subtract from them, or change them to pay for anything or nothing.

At the click of a computer key or the passage of a law, the balance in any federal “trust fund” could be changed to $100 trillion or $0 or anywhere in between.

Alan Greenspan: “A government cannot become insolvent with respect to obligations in its own currency.”

If Congress and the President wished, the Medicare “trust fund” could be changed to pay for Las Vegas vacations, jewelry, Congressional vacations, etc. Almost every year, the federal government arbitrarily changes what Medicare will pay for and how much it will pay.

In fact, that is exactly what the CRFB suggests when it writes about “benefit cuts or abrupt changes to tax or benefit levels.”

In a real “trust fund,” the trustees would not have that control.

2. THESE TRUST FUNDS WILL RUN SHORT OF MONEY

Wrong.

The United States government is unlike state and local governments. It also is unlike euro governments, private businesses, you, and me. The U.S. government uniquely is Monetarily Sovereign. It is sovereign over the United States dollar.

In the 1780’s it created the original dollars from thin air and gave them an arbitrary value. Today, the government continues to create dollars from thin air and continues to provide them with an arbitrary value.

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.”

The government never unintentionally can run short of its own sovereign currency, the dollar. Even if the federal government didn’t collect a penny in taxes, it could continue spending forever.

This absolute control over the U.S. dollar means no federal government agency can run out of dollars unless Congress and the President will it.

The only way Medicare or Social Security or any other federal agency can run short of dollars is if Congress and the President want them to run short of dollars.

3. THE SOLUTION TO SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE INSOLVENCY REQUIRES CUTTING BENEFITS OR INCREASING TAXES

Wrong.

Despite all the pretense about fake “trust funds,” Federal taxes (which include FICA) do not fund Medicare or Social Security. Those FICA dollars deducted from your paycheck (but tellingly, not deducted from other sources of income received by the wealthier among us) — those FICA dollars do not pay for anything.

They merely become part of the federal government’s infinite supply, and effectively are destroyed. (You mathematicians know that infinity plus any amount still = infinity. Thus, your tax dollars do not increase the federal government’s supply of dollars by even one cent.)

In fact, with regard to Medicare Part B, there is a wholly different pretense.

While Medicare Part A (pays for hospitals and doctors, Part B pays for clinical research, ambulance services, durable medical equipment, and some drugs. And Medicare recipients are charged extra, above FICA, ostensibly to pay for Part B.

But in reality, those charges, like all dollars coming into the federal government, are destroyed upon receipt.

The solution for Social Security and Medicare insolvencies is simply for the federal government to pay for them, which it could do the same way it pays for everything: By creating new dollars, ad hoc.

So group the warnings about Social Security and Medicare “trust fund” insolvency along with the boy who cried, “wolf” and Henny Penny’s “the sky is falling” as silly, little lies. There are no “trust funds.” Congress and the President have absolute control over all federal agency finances.

All your tax dollars are for naught. The federal government could and should provide free, comprehensive, no-deductible Social Security and Medicare for every man, woman, and child in America.

Continuing with the CRFB’s charade:

The Social Security Trustees estimate the Social Security Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) trust fund will deplete its reserves by 2034 and the Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) trust fund will not become depleted within the 75-year projection window for the first time since the 1983 Trustees’ report.

On a combined theoretical basis, assuming revenue is allocated between the trust funds in the years between OASI and SSDI insolvency, Social Security will become insolvent by 2035. Upon insolvency, all beneficiaries will face a 20 percent across-the-board benefit cut, which will grow to 26 percent by 2096.

The Trustees estimate a 75-year actuarial shortfall of 3.42 percent of taxable payroll for Social Security, which is slightly lower than the 2021 report’s estimate of 3.54 percent of payroll, but higher than any other year prior.

And blah, blah, blah. The CRFB substantiates the old saying, “Figures don’t lie, but liars figure,” by providing statistics to make their lies sound factual.

Ooh, it must be true. There even is a graph. Except the graph is phony. The “Trust Fund Exhaustion” is based on the lie that Social Security benefits are paid by the fake “trust fund.” It’s not a trust fund and it pays for nothing. It’s just a record of ins and outs.

And here is another graph of lies:

Same story. The “Trust Fund Exhaustion” is based on a lie. The phony “trust fund” pays for nothing.

Why does the CRFB tell such big lies?

I suppose it’s possible they don’t know they are lying, and that they are providing the misinformation out of economic ignorance.

Actually, I don’t think so. My belief, based on no data, is that they know it’s a lie. If I am correct, why are they lying?

It all comes down to Gap Psychology, the human desire to distance ourselves from lower income/wealth/power people, while coming closer to the higher income/wealth/power people.

Rich is a comparative word, not an absolute. You only can be rich if someone else is poorer. Without the Gaps, no one would be rich. We all would be the same. So, to become richer, you need the Gap below you to widen and/or the Gap above you to narrow.

And that even includes the rich, who want to be richer, which they can accomplish by making the rest of us poorer.

Because the rich control the politicians, it is no coincidence that FICA is deducted from salaries rather than from the investment income that is the major part of the income received by the rich.

And there even is a cap on the income subject to FICA.

And then there are all the tax loopholes available to the rich — you know, those loopholes that made it possible for billionaire Donald Trump to avoid paying any taxes at all in 8 of the past 10 years. (How does it feel to know you’ve paid more taxes than a billionaire?)

Part of the plan by the rich, to widen the Gap below them, is to make you pay unnecessarily for Social Security and Medicare, and not only to pay more, but to have your benefits cut and taxed.

So the CRFB, as a paid mouthpiece for the rich, does everything it can to “prove” you should pay more taxes and receive less in benefits, thereby widening the Gap between you and the rich.

And they have been quite successful. Now that you have seen their phony statistics, here are some real statistics: Inequality is rising. The rich are growing richer; the poor are becoming poorer.

The Gini coefficient measures inequality, where “0” represents perfect equality (Everyone has the same) and “1” represents perfect inequality (where one person has everything). The higher the line, the more unequal the measure is.

And finally, of the two major political parties, one, the Republicans, tend to believe the poor are poor because they are dumb and lazy, while the rich are rich because they are smart and work hard. Here is one example of that belief:

IN SUMMARY

The U.S. federal government is Monetarily Sovereign. It never unintentionally can run short of its own sovereign currency, the U.S. dollar. Even if $0 federal taxes were collected, the federal government could continue spending forever.
Medicare and Social Security, as agencies of the U.S. government, cannot run short of dollars unless that is what Congress and the President want. The federal government funds all its agencies’ pending by creating new dollars, ad hoc. All tax income is destroyed upon receipt.
The Medicare and Social Security “trust funds” are not trust funds. These fake trust funds do not pay for benefits, but only keep records of dollar inflow and federal spending. As mere record keepers, they neither can be solvent nor become insolvent.
There is no financial reason to cut Medicare or Social Security benefits or to increase taxes, or even to continue collecting taxes. The federal government funds benefits paid by both programs regardless of tax income.
“Rich” is a comparative, not an absolute. According to Gap Psychology, people generally wish to widen the income/wealth/power Gaps below and to narrow those Gaps above. The rich can become richer by acquiring more for themselves and/or by forcing those below to acquire less.
The rich run America by bribing politicians, the media, and economists. To make themselves richer, the rich widen the Gap below by backing false narratives and laws that reduce federal benefits to the poorer while increasing taxes on the poorer.

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.”

The Ten Steps will grow the economy and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and the rest.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

A tried-and-true solution to shootings. Are we smart enough to learn?

When it comes to shootings, mass or otherwise, America is an outlier among first-world nations.

The U.S. has 3.96 deaths from gun violence per 100,000 people in 2019. That was more than eight times as high as the rate in Canada, which had 0.47 deaths per 100,000 people — and nearly 100 times higher than in the United Kingdom, which had 0.04 deaths per 100,000.

The numbers come from a massive database maintained by the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, which tracks lives lost in every country, in every year, by every possible cause of death.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is image-7.png — **Source: Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation Credit: Connie Hanzhang Jin/NPR**

Here are some Republican ideas for stopping the slaughter

Arming teachers.

Limiting access to school buildings to a single locked door.

Expanding research into school violence.

Creating a federal task force to recommend how communities can make schools safe. Improving mental health care.

Republicans have offered up seemingly every potential solution to stop mass gun violence except restricting access to the weapons themselves.

Here’s a classic:

“What about getting a department that’s looking at young men that’s looking at women that’s looking at their social media?”

That brilliant comment came from the choice of Republican voters and Donald Trump to be a Senator from Georgia, Herschel Walker, in a Fox News interview.

Walker’s ex-wife said he had pointed a gun at her head, and “talked about having a shoot-out with police.” His own therapist said, “He threatened to kill her, myself, and himself. I called 911, and the police came.”

Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick touted his state’s existing program that allows teachers to be armed, which did not prevent the massacre and called for more security around schools.

Republicans are open to legislation that would “harden” school buildings to make them more difficult to attack, although Democrats have criticized the idea of making campuses into jail-like fortresses.

YOUR CHILDREN’S SCHOOL IF GOVERNOR DAN PATRICK RULES

The Republican “sensible” solution for mass school shootings: “Hardened” school buildings with armed police surrounding every elementary school, high school, college, and university in America. But no gun control laws. And all the other public buildings in America –surround them with police, too?

Why is the United States so unusual in the number of gun-related deaths, and why are Republicans making such strange, impossible suggestions to “cure” the problem?

The answer, which every honest person knows, is quite obvious: America is unique. It has way too many guns and way too many people carrying them. That is the problem.

The symptom of that problem is too many gun deaths. Mass murders, individual murders, suicides, crimes involving guns, woundings — way too many.

Attempts to solve a problem by addressing a symptom cannot work. To solve a problem we must address the problem.

The politicians and their voters who claim that “guns don’t kill; people kill” are liars; they know they are liars, and they’ll keep lying until enough voters stand up to them.

Guns are meant for shooting. When masses of people carry guns, masses of people will be shot. Period.

The problem begins with the Supreme Court Justices who claimed the 2nd Amendment really says, “Any damn fool can have a gun of any kind, and wave it around like the damn fool he is” — well those Justice were liars too.

The first 13 words of the 2nd Amendment are: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State . . . The lying Justices, who claim they are “originalists” (people who obey how something would have been understood or was intended to be understood at the time it was written) — those right-wing Justices are damn liars, if they totally ignore those first 13 words.

Where is the Militia? Where is the “well-regulation”?

And then there’s, “. . . the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Historic Weapons, Lawrence Collection | Boston Athenæum — **If you truly are an originalist, this is what you mean by “arms.”**

As for the “arms,” are they swords and flintlock pistols? Are they automatic rifles? Are they hand grenades, flame throwers? Or are “arms” something like this:

Question for the Supreme Court: Should every American be allowed to own and carry AA12s? If not, why not? They are today’s “arms.”

Then there is the question of which “people”? Two-year-olds are people. Criminals are people. All those in jails and prisons are people? Aliens are people. Witnesses testifying in court are people. Should they all be allowed to pack guns? If not, why not?

Back in the 1700s, anyone of any age could carry a gun. Is that what the phony “originalists” now want in the 2000s?

Or should we merely wait for the next shooting, then offer our “thoughts and prayers”?

If so, you don’t have long to wait. Mass shootings in the United States are far more common than you have imagined:

U.S. marks Memorial Day weekend with at least 12 mass shootings

Since the Uvalde, Tex., elementary school tragedy, there have been at least 15 other shootings that had at least four victims By Annabelle Timsit Updated May 31, 2022

But mass shootings have already happened again — and again. At least 15 mass shootings have taken place across the United States since Tuesday, from California to Arizona to Tennessee.

This Memorial Day weekend alone — spanning Saturday, Sunday and the federal holiday on Monday — there have been at least 12 mass shootings.

The Gun Violence Archive, a nonprofit research organization, defines a mass shooting as one in which “four or more people are shot or killed, not including the shooter.”

So is the situation hopeless? Are we doomed to keep repeating the same mistake over and over again? Will children and adults keep dying, because we are not smart enough to make necessary changes?

Will we continue to insist that everyone should have the right to own and carry a killing machine, while we simultaneously pray the killing and wounding will stop?

Are we really that stupid?

Do we sincerely want a solution?

What can Australia teach us about guns and gun control?

A (mass gun) massacre rocked Australia.

So, the then-prime minister, a conservative politician and close friend of George W. Bush, pushed through sweeping gun control legislation just 12 days after the shooting.

“The hardest things to do in politics often involve taking away rights and privileges from your own supporters,” Howard said.

The tough new laws banned the sale and importation of all automatic and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns; forced people to present a legitimate reason, and wait 28 days, to buy a firearm; and – perhaps most significantly – called for a massive, mandatory gun-buyback.

Australia’s government confiscated and destroyed nearly 700,000 firearms, reducing the number of gun-owning households by half.

Howard told Doane, “People used to say to me, ‘You violated my human rights by taking away my gun.’ And I’d tell them, ‘I understand that. Will you please understand the argument, the greatest human right of all is to live a safe life without fear of random murder?'”

If we tally mass shootings that have killed four or more people, in the United States there have been well over 100 since the 1996 Port Arthur tragedy. But in Australia, there has been just one in the 26 years since their gun laws were passed. Plus, gun homicides have decreased by 60%.

Perhaps, Australians simply are smarter than we are.

Or is it just that their High Court is smarter and more honest than our Supreme Court?

Or is it that Australian media don’t include a “guns-for-everyone” medium like Fox News. (Murdoch’s news channel in Australia has celebrated the country’s gun control laws — and expressed hope that the U.S. would adopt similar ones.)

Or do Australians care more about life than we do?

The problem: America has more guns per capita than any first-world nation on earth.

The symptom: America has more gun-related deaths, woundings, and crimes than any first-world nation on earth.

To cure the symptom, we must cure the problem. Australia has shown us one way to begin.

Are we too stubborn or simply too stupid to learn?

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.”

The Ten Steps will grow the economy and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and the rest.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Why are Republicans so mean?

This is not a random accusation. It’s a sincere question that has troubled me for several years. It actually is a two-part question:

Are Republicans mean?
If so, why?

1. ARE REPUBLICANS MEAN?

Given the key problems of the day, Republicans seem to settle on the meanest possible solution.

GUNS: Another day, another mass gun murder.

More guns = more gun deaths.

There are more guns in the United States than there are people — over 393 million firearms in the United States, and this number only includes civilian-owned firearms, meaning it doesn’t count firearms in possession by the military, government agencies, or by law enforcement.

That number means that there are enough guns for every single person in the United States (including men, women and children) to own one, with 67 million guns left over.

That number is incredibly high, especially when you consider that only four in ten adults say they live in a home with a gun.

The United States has the most civilian owned firearms than any other country in the world at 120.5 per 100 people, with Yemen, a country that has been in a bloody civil war for several years, coming in a far second at 52.8 guns per 100 people.

What is the Republican solution to gun killings? More guns. Arm everyone. Armed guards in every school, (despite the fact there already was an armed guard in the Texas school).

“We can’t stop bad people from doing bad things,” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said in an interview with Fox News on Tuesday.

“We can potentially arm and prepare and train teachers and other administrators to respond quickly. That, in my opinion, is the best answer.”

Such a program already exists, to an extent: the Texas School Marshals Program, which was created in the wake of the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

That program allows teachers and administrators to act as “school marshals,” entitled to carry firearms after completing 80 hours of a training course conducted by a law enforcement academy.

(Reuters reports that the Texas State Teachers Association has opposed the program, arguing that the focus should be on taking guns out of schools.)

In fact, the armed guard at the Texas school did nothing. Armed police were in the school for an hour an armed man finally killed the murderer.

That’s a total of an hour and twenty minutes that fully armed people did nothing.

From the Chicago Tribune: Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. tried to nudge Republicans into taking up a domestic terrorism bill that had cleared the House quickly last week after mass shootings at a grocery store in Buffalo, New York, and a church in Southern California targeting people of color.

He said it could become the basis for negotiation.

But the vote failed along party lines, raising fresh doubts about the possibility of robust debate, let alone eventual compromise, on gun safety measures.

The final vote was 47-47, short of the 60 needed to take up the bill. All Republicans voted against it.

And then there are the military-style solutions:

During Fox News’s coverage Tuesday night of America’s most recent mass shooting, it was apparently too soon to discuss gun reform—but the right time to propose that schools be equipped with booby traps, armed military contractors, and bulletproof blankets.

Sean Hannity urged the U.S. government to hire military and police contractors to patrol schools.

“[Place] retired military, retired law enforcement outside the perimeter of every school in the country, they can donate their time, we can offer them tax breaks, no income tax in the state, no income tax federally, 10 hours a week, and we can have every school in America covered,”

Another solution pitched on the network came via Maureen O’Connell, a former FBI agent, who suggested that the onus is on parents to invest in bulletproof armor for their children.

Colion Noir, a gun-culture social media influencer, said on Fox News that American schools should be “so hardened”––i.e., heavily defended and inaccessible to the public.

If you think the above “solutions” are crazy, that’s only because you are not a right-wing viewer of Fox News, the home of the Republican, Trumpian gun-nut clan.

Reducing the number of guns and the number of people carrying guns is unthinkable to Republicans, who always choose the most confrontational, warlike, aggressive, mean-spirited approach to any problem.

RELIGION: If you believe religion is about morality and the Golden Rule, you would be wrong with regard to the Republican party, or at least to its political efforts.

For the party (if not individuals), religion is about Christianity über alles. Other religions need not apply.

GOP pols Robinson, Walker, and Cawthorn align themselves with a movement seeking to end the separation of church and state.

A particular theme to which all three men have returned is that of persecuted Christianity and the need to institute religious teaching and principles into all areas of civic life, particularly public schools, which they say should be reformed according to their religious principles or abandoned by Christian families.

The American Renewal Project was launched by founder David Lane in the 2013-2014 election cycle. Its goal, as stated by Lane, is to “engage the church in a culture war for religious liberty, to restore America to our Judeo-Christian heritage and to re-establish a Christian culture.”

Robinson stated that the United States is and has always been a “Christian nation” and invited those who disagree with that premise to leave the country.

Mark Levin, a talk radio personality who hosts a weekend Fox News program, suggested that bringing “Judeo-Christian principles” and prayer into schools could help stop future mass shootings.

There is nothing wrong with someone having religious beliefs, but when those beliefs claim ownership of America, the eviction of non-Christians, and the establishment of a harsh theocracy, democracy is doomed.

ABORTION: The Republican solution favors punishment for women and children, vs. embryos and fetuses, even those embryos that clearly are not yet sentient.

Many Republicans favor no abortion at any stage, and some want to eliminate any form of birth control, like condums and IUDs, even when no embryo has yet formed. They choose a sperm over a human.

I won’t go through all the “side” effects of abortion banning, the inevitable deaths of mothers, the ongoing misery for financially, emotionally, or mentally unfit mothers birthing unwanted, unaffordable, and/or disabled children.

I merely argue that banning abortions, particularly in the first few weeks of pregnancy, is the meanest possible approach to the question of abortion.

**Unauthorized immigrants removed or returned**

IMMIGRATION: America is a gigantic nation, in area, population, and in resources.

As of March, 2022, we had 332,812,000 people living here, of whom about 12 million (3.6%) are undocumented.

In 2020, we removed or returned 406,000 immigrants, or about one-tenth of one percent of our population.

Had we accepted every single one of them, our population would have “soared” from 332,812,000 to 333,218,000. This would not have made a noticeable difference in any anti-immigration factor.

Why are they removed or returned? Mostly it’s because they are illegal according to current law, and our method for processing them is so inefficient and antiquated, they have little hope of becoming legal (except if you are rich, in which case there is no problem at all).

All of us are immigrants or descendants of immigrants (Yes, even you indigenous folks. Your ancestors came here from other lands). Yet, there is now the false claim that rather than being an asset to America, immigrants take, but don’t contribute.

An article published by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis describes the many ways in which immigrants are a net benefit to working America.

They do not take jobs away from native-born Americans; they do not fill the rolls for public assistance; they are less likely to engage in criminal behavior than are the native-born, and they do pay taxes.

While both political parties suffer from an anti-immigrant delusion to some degree, the Republicans are more ruthless in their interpretation and utilization of immigration law.

They even want to send back the 650,000 “Dreamers,” who are among our very best people.

The Trump administration announced in September 2017 that it planned to scrap the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (Daca) program created by the Obama administration to give temporary, renewable protections to these young people, nicknamed Dreamers.

Trump’s decision immediately threw Dreamers into turmoil and fear, while also triggering a legal battle that wound up in the supreme court last year and led to this June 2020 decision.

The program has been in limbo since the 2017 announcement.

HEALTH CARE: The right-wing is notorious for its attitude toward the not-rich. They wanted to eliminate the very popular ACA (Obamacare).

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released a new report that shows 31 million Americans have health coverage through the Affordable Care Act – a record.

The report also shows that there have been reductions in uninsurance rates in every state in the country since the law’s coverage expansions took effect.

Today’s report shows the important role the ACA has played in providing coverage to millions of Americans nationwide.

The report also shows that between 2010 and 2016, the number of nonelderly uninsured adults decreased by 41 percent, falling from 48.2 million to 28.2 million.

All 50 states and the District of Columbia have experienced reductions in their uninsured rates since the implementation of the ACA, with states that expanded Medicaid experiencing the largest reduction in their uninsured rate.

To date, 37 states and the District of Columbia have expanded Medicaid to cover adults under the ACA.

Sadly, 12 Holdout States Haven’t Expanded Medicaid, Leaving 2 Million People In Limbo

Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin. Guess which party they vote for.

There are more than 2 million people across the United States who have no option when it comes to health insurance.

They don’t qualify for Medicaid in their state, and make too little money to be eligible for subsidized health plans on the Affordable Care Act insurance exchanges.

Essentially, the federal government will cover 90% of the costs of the newly eligible population, and an additional 5% of the costs of those already enrolled. It’s a good financial deal.

An analysis by the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that the net benefit for these states would be $9.6 billion.

The reluctance among some Republican-led legislatures and governors to expand Medicaid may be a combination of partisan resistance to President Obama’s signature health law, and not believing “this kind of government intervention for these groups of people is appropriate.”

It’s not a financial decision by these Republican states. They do it out of meanness and a lack of concern for those who are not rich.

**https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/05/02/why-people-are-rich-and-poor-republicans-and-democrats-have-very-different-views/**

POVERTY: Republicans tend to blame the poor for being poor, and claim the poor are lazy, need to lift themselves by their bootstraps, and should not rely on help from the government.

Thus, Republicans slash programs that benefit the poor, despite the fact that:

Republican districts have more poor residents overall:

The Republican House Committee on the Budget reported a budget resolution for 2017 calling for trillions of dollars in cuts to programs serving vulnerable populations.

Major cuts affecting low-income individuals include:

$2 trillion from Medicaid – up to $1 trillion from cutting the base program plus another $1 trillion from repealing the Affordable Care Act Medicaid expansion;
$887 billion from already-low non-defense discretionary funding levels, putting a broad array of programs serving low-income populations such as housing assistance, WIC, job training, and others at risk of deep funding cuts; $185 billion from federal college aid for low-income students;
$157 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program;
and $0.6 trillion from other income security programs, a category where most spending is for safety-net programs such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, child nutrition, Supplemental Security Income for the aged and disabled, Unemployment Insurance, refundable tax credits for low-income workers, and child care.net programs such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, child nutrition, Supplemental Security Income for the aged and disabled, Unemployment Insurance, refundable tax credits for low-income workers, and child care.

CRIME: Republicans oppose street crime (which is more often committed by poor people) than white-collar crime.

For street crime, Republicans favor harsh punishment after the fact as a future deterrent vs. prevention of the causes of street crime (poverty, poor education, poor housing, poor opportunities).

Republicans believe in more stringent sentencing laws for felons, support a database for convicted child murderers, support courts having the right to use the death penalty, and believe in stronger victim rights and harsher punishments for certain, especially heinous crimes.

They view stricter punishment as a deterrent to future crime, and believe this is the best way to address crime and criminals in today’s society.

They oppose prison reforms proposed by the Democratic Party that would see better higher education options and more comfortable accommodations in prisons.

IN SUMMARY, Republicans choose the most mean-spirited “solutions” to problems involving Guns, Abortion, Immigration, Health Care, Poverty, Religion, and Crime.

2. WHY DO REPUBLICANS CHOOSE THE MEANER SOLUTIONS?

The excuse often given is money, especially with regard to Immigration and Health Care.

But this excuse is belied by the fact that 12 states would have received an additional $9.6 billion from the federal government, had they accepted the expansion of Medicare.

Further, there is zero evidence that immigrants are a financial burden on America. On the contrary, they are the basis upon which America was built.

With regard to Guns, the excuse is that there is a Constitutional right for a citizen to carry a gun. But this is a manufactured excuse created by the intentional misreading of the 2nd Amendment.

Right-wingers argue that the first thirteen words of the 2nd Amendment — “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” — are absolutely meaningless, the first and only time that self-proclaimed “originalists” have made such an extraordinary effort to ignore plain language in the Constitution.

More than money, the meanness of the right-wing has to do with power. Gap Psychology describes how people often wish to narrow the income/wealth/power Gap above us, and to widen the Gap below us.

Income is “high” or “low,” not in absolute, but in relative terms. An income of $20,000 a year is high if everyone else is making $2,000, but it is low if everyone else is making $200,000. Wealth and power are similarly subject to relativism.

Because hatred, anger, and meanness are childen of fear (See: Fear and hatred, the evil twins of human emotion) it is the fear of losing ground, especially to those “below,” that leads to hatred and its final expression: Meanness.

The “great replacement” is a conspiracy theory that states that nonwhite individuals are being brought into the United States and other Western countries to “replace” white voters to achieve a political agenda.

A white supremacist “Unite the White” demonstrator walks into Lee Park in Charlottesville, Va. Some marchers chanted, “Jews will not replace us.”

White supremacists argue that the influx of immigrants, people of color more specifically, will lead to the extinction of the white race.

The alleged supermarket shooter and other extremists claim the U.S. has to close its borders to immigrants.

The “great replacement” theory is sometimes seen in other ways such as claims of voter replacement and immigrants invading America.

The claim assumes that immigrants and nonwhite people will vote a certain way, ultimately drowning out the votes of white Americans.

White supremacists blame Jewish people for nonwhite immigration to the U.S., and the “replacement” theory is now associated with antisemitism.

President Donald Trump, the most powerful Republican leader in decades, condemned both neo-Nazis and white nationalists.

But, his first statement and subsequent defenses of it, referred to “very fine people on both sides.” implying a moral equivalence between white supremacists and those who opposed them.

Trump also referred to African countries, Haiti, and El Salvador as “shithole” nations and he asked why the U.S. can’t have more immigrants from (white) Norway.

Republicans are motivated by a GOP stoked-from-above fear that the Gap below them will narrow. They are afraid that immigrants will take their jobs, and that Jews will outcompete them. They are afraid of women making decisions.

The conservative men compare their own masculinity with that of black men, and find themselves wanting, which is why they idolize the hyper (though phony) masculinity of a Donald Trump, and fear gays.

Their fear manifests itself in the need to have, carry and even display the protection of guns, the bigger and more powerful, the better.

Republicans are “conservatives” whose fears demand that they protect themselves by conserving a mythical old moral order.

Sadly, the mythical old order that Republicans fondly embrace in their imaginations includes xenophobia, slavery, misogyny, hopes for a Christian theocracy, fear and loathing of the poor, and bigotry against non-whites, gays, Jews, Muslims, and other non-Christians.

In short, they fear being replaced.

Democrats are progressives, meaning they wish to progress beyond such archaic beliefs. No, they are not pure. They have their own selfish desires. But they don’t fear the future the way conservatives do.

That is why conservatives are anti-science. Science brings the changes conservatives fear.

In clinging to a mythical past, the conservatives also reject past realities to the point where they fear schools even discussing critical race theory (housing segregation, the impacts of criminal justice policy, and the legacy of slavery on all Americans).

They also dread teaching “Social and Emotional Learning“ (ethically managing one’s emotions, empathy for diverse groups, etc.) for fear that this lifts minority groups to parity with white Christians.

If you want to understand what motivates Trump worship, QAnon belief, Fox News viewership, white supremacy, gun hugging, extreme religiosity, harsh treatment of immigrants, criminals, and the poor, religious bigotry, attempts at a coup, and all the other craziness of today’s right-wing, the answer can be found in one word: FEAR.

These people exhibit all the symptoms of group terror. In various ways, the fear of being replaced is fundamental to the meanness and bigotry that has become more widespread in America.

Perhaps the only way to solve the problem is not to reason with Trumpist Republicans, which undoubtedly you have found doesn’t work, but rather to reassure them.

And the best way to do that is to maintain the Gaps in the lower strata.

This may seem like heresy, but I am coming to the belief that Gap Psychology — the part about not wanting the Gaps below you to be narrowed — is so baked in to the human psyche, that no amount of well-meaning, logical argument will overcome it.

While we should narrow the Gaps near the top where the billionaires currently reside, our efforts should be to lift the bottom and middle as one unit.

Examples: COVID vaccinations are available free to everyone, regardless of income. A Medicare for All program should cover everyone equally, regardless of income. So should Social Security for All.

So should federal financial food assistance, including Free School Meals for ALL Children (just as school vaccinations are free to everyone) and Food stamp programs.

These federal benefits should be available to all children, regardless of income.

All federal government program benefits should be available, regardless of income.

There can be any number of criteria for receiving federal benefits, but income should not be one of them.

This will help allay the “replacement” fear that is the basis for inter-group hatred and meanness.

And by the way, not only can the federal government easily afford it, but income-unrelated benefits will grow the economy for all Americans.

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.”

The Ten Steps will grow the economy and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and the rest.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: