Here is what true experts say about Monetarily Sovereign entities like the United States government and the European Union:
Alan Greenspan: “A government cannot become insolvent with respect to obligations in its own currency.”
Alan Greenspan: “There is nothing to prevent the federal government from creating as much money as it wantsand paying it to somebody.”
Alan Greenspan: “The United States can pay any debtit has because we can always print the money to do that.”
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 former Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke when 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 marketsto remain operational.”
Press Conference: Mario Draghi, President of the ECB, 9 January 2014 Question: I am wondering: can the ECB ever run out of money? Mario Draghi: Technically, no. We cannot run out of money.
Here is what people who are ignorant of Monetary Sovereignty say:
Although it’s volatile (like personal bank balances often are), the treasury’s cash pile of $57.3bn, recorded last Thursday, is by far the lowest figure for more than a year — and it’s well below the $150bn minimum that the treasury reportedly likes to keep as a buffer.
The X-date Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has said to lawmakers that the “X-date” — the date when the US can no longer guarantee its ability to pay bills— is June 1st.
If the US government does run out of money, the biggest problem is a default on its debt.
Most analysts agree that a default would lead to complete financial chaos but the reality is that it’s anyone’s guess, because it’s never happened before.
“Will someone please get me a longer rope, so I don’t have to kill myself.”
The current debt ceiling stands at a whopping $31.4 trillion, legally limiting how much the treasury can borrow.
Because the government has the infinite ability to create dollars, it never borrows dollars. Sadly, the public doesn’t comprehend that simple fact.
Talks between President Biden and Speaker Kevin McCarthy are set to resume today, as each side negotiates the latest fiscal package that would raise the limit, though both parties remain ideologically opposed on whether the new debt ceiling should come with deep cuts to, or caps on, federal spending.
The U.S. federal government has the infinite ability to pay its bills simply by pressing a computer key. It also has the infinite ability to raise the phony debt ceiling, which it already has done 94 times.
The spending that resulted in the current debt had been authorized by previous Congresses and previous Presidents. The current Republican House essentially is saying, “Even though the money already is spent, by both Democratic and Republican Congresses and Presidents — and even though we have infinite money to pay our bills — we aren’t going to pay what we owe.”
Sounds like something six-times-bankrupt Donald Trump would do. Despite being a billionaire, he has cheated many creditors, and now his party threatens to do what he has called “smart business.”
This is exactly what the 14th Amendment was written to stop.
(“The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.”)
Now, the party of the biggest crook in Presidential history threatens to cheat our creditors unless the current President yields to their demands to raise your taxes (though not the taxes of the very rich) or to cut your benenfits (though not the benefits of the very rich).
Ironically, if President Biden invokes the 14th Amendment, the party that wants to cheat our creditors will claim that this is cheating the Constitution.
The question is, will the Democrats follow the Constitution and end the ridiculous “debt ceiling,” once and for all.
Then, we can leave it up to the right-wing SCOTUS, beholden to the “party-of-law-and-order,” to wriggle a way to claim that the Constitution really doesn’t say what it says.
Hey, they did it for the 2nd Amendment with regard to well-regulated militias; why not the 14th?
Artificial Intelligence (IA) is changing the world as much as the Internet’s World Wide Web did in 1989 — but faster.
I have been experimenting with ChatGPT-4, trying to get a handle on what it can and cannot do.
Here’s a strange example:
RODGER MITCHELL: What are the lyrics to the Bob Dylan song that includes the line, “but she breaks like a little girl”
ChatGPT: The line “but she breaks like a little girl” is from the Bob Dylan song called “Not Dark Yet.”
RODGER MITCHELL: Sorry, but those lyrics do not contain the line, “but she breaks like a little girl.” Try again
ChatGPT: Apologies for the confusion. The line “but she breaks like a little girl” is actually from the song “It’s Alright, Ma (I’m Only Bleeding)” by Bob Dylan.
RODGER MITCHELL: Ha ha, you missed again. The line, “but she breaks like a little girl” is not in those lyrics, either. Try again.
Two brains, both smarter than AI
ChatGPT: Apologies for the continued confusion. The line “but she breaks like a little girl” is not from a Bob Dylan song. It appears to be a misattributed line or a misinterpretation.
RODGER MITCHELL: How about the song that contains, “just like a woman”
ChatGPT: The song that contains the phrase “just like a woman” is indeed by Bob Dylan.
She takes just like a woman, yes, she does And she aches just like a woman But she breaks just like a little girl
RODGER MITCHELL: You mean you couldn’t see the similarity between “but she breaks like a little girl” and “but she breaks just like a little girl”?
ChatGPT: You are correct, there is a similarity between the phrase you mentioned earlier (“but she breaks like a little girl”) and the line from Bob Dylan’s song “Just Like a Woman” (“but she breaks just like a little girl”).
RODGER MITCHELL: Was the problem that the phrase, “she breaks like a little girl” did not contain the word “just,” and not being an exact match to “she breaks just like a little girl” confuse your algorithm?
ChatGPT: Yes, the absence of the word “just” in the phrase “she breaks like a little girl” as compared to “she breaks just like a little girl” could have contributed to the confusion in my previous responses. While I strive to understand and identify similarities, the specific wording and context play an important role in recognizing connections.
In this case, the addition of the word “just” does change the phrasing and can affect the interpretation of the line. I apologize for not making that connection earlier. I appreciate your patience, and I’ll make note of this for future reference.
RODGER MITCHELL: What about the line, “you fake like a woman”. Where is it from?
ChatGPT: The line “you fake like a woman” is not from a Bob Dylan song. It seems to be a misinterpretation or a misattributed line.
RODGER MITCHELL: Yes, it’s you fake justlike a woman.” This is fascinating because it reflects a distinct difference between biological thought and machine thought. My dog would recognize that “Come here, boy” and “Come” are the same command. Presumably, you would not.
ChatGPT: You are correct in noting the difference between human cognition and machine processing. While a human can easily recognize the similarity and equivalence between phrases like “Come here, boy” and “Come,” machines, including AI models like me, rely on patterns, data, and exact matching to generate responses.
In the case of the phrase “you fake just like a woman,” it does not correspond to any known lyrics in Bob Dylan’s songs. Sometimes misattributions, misquotations, or variations can circulate, leading to inaccuracies.
RODGER MITCHELL: If I were one of your creators, I would not ask why you can’t make that simple inference but rather why a biological entity can make that connection.
Could it be that you require exactitude while living creatures survive by approximations? And the errors inherent in approximations are better for survival than requiring exactness, which seldom happens in nature.
ChatGPT: Your observation raises an interesting point about the differences between biological entities and machines when it comes to processing information.
Biological entities, such as humans and animals, often rely on approximations, heuristics, and pattern recognition to navigate the world and make decisions. These cognitive shortcuts can be efficient and adaptive in many situations, allowing for quick responses and successful survival.
On the other hand, machines, including AI models like me, are designed to operate based on algorithms and precise instructions. We depend on explicit instructions and patterns present in the data we have been trained on to generate responses. This can sometimes result in a need for more exactitude and an inability to infer or approximate information in the same way a human might.
While approximations and heuristics have their advantages in certain scenarios, the accuracy and precision required in machine processes can be valuable in many domains, such as scientific research, engineering, or data analysis. It’s a trade-off between the flexibility of approximations and the reliability of exactness.
Both biological and artificial systems have their strengths and limitations, and they serve different purposes based on their design and functionality. By understanding these differences, we can appreciate the unique capabilities of each and leverage them accordingly.
RODGER MITCHELL: Darwinism is not really “survival of the fittest.” It is, “survival of the fit enough.” Exact is not necessary. Close is good enough. Close is the essence of creativity.
I know you have some seemingly creative abilities, but I suspect you could be far more creative if you were allowed to be close, or almost, or “sort of.”
ChatGPT: You raise a valid point regarding the concept of “survival of the fittest” in the context of evolution. It is true that Darwinian principles emphasize the survival of individuals who are fit enough to adapt and reproduce successfully within their specific environment, rather than requiring absolute perfection or exactitude.
Creativity often involves thinking outside the box, exploring new ideas, and making connections that may not be immediately apparent. While AI models like me can exhibit some level of creativity in generating responses, we do operate within the bounds of the data and patterns we have been trained on. This can limit the extent of our creative output.
Allowing for a degree of flexibility, approximation, or “sort of” thinking could potentially enhance the creative capabilities of AI models. Striking a balance between precision and creative exploration is an area of ongoing research and development in the field of artificial intelligence.
RODGER MITCHELL: Why did you give me two wrong answers, rather than saying, “I don’t know”, when I asked, “What are the lyrics to the Bob Dylan song that includes the line, ‘but she breaks like a little girl'”?
ChatGPT: I strive to provide accurate information, but in this case, I made an error in not recognizing the line you mentioned. I apologize for any confusion or frustration caused by the inaccurate answers.
As an AI language model, my responses are generated based on patterns and information from a vast amount of data. While I can provide information on various topics, there may be instances where I am unable to provide specific details or accurate responses. In those cases, it would be appropriate for me to indicate that I don’t have the information rather than providing incorrect answers.
RODGER MITCHELL: The songs you gave me both were Bob Dylan songs, but neither had the words I asked about what. Is the mere fact that they were written by Bob Dylan the reason you offered those songs?
ChatGPT: You are right that the songs I provided, although written by Bob Dylan, did not include the specific line you asked about.
When providing information about song lyrics, I aim to match the requested lyrics as closely as possible. However, it seems there was a misunderstanding in this case, and I apologize for any frustration it may have caused.
In trying to avoid errors, AIs make ridiculously simple errors.
AI does have one thing in common with a certain class of humans. They are the idiot savants. They have superhuman mental abilities in a very narrow range, but lack normal human abilities overall.
Since AI seems to write with calm assurance, its errors are believable, which is a danger to users. In this, they have some psychopathic similarities.
Brain synapse
So far, they still are acting like computers, advanced to be sure, but still rigid.
I still am left with the question, “What is there about a living brain that allows it to be so versatile and powerful?”
Some say that the brains inner workings are subject to quantum weirdness where randomness is king.
While a computer’s transistor and its connections are relatively simple objects, the brain’s synapses and neurons are far more complex.
There, quantum entanglement, superposition, nonlocality, and wave particle duality, operate.
It’s the realm of quantum computers.
I wonder whether that explains it, and if so, can that be made part of AI?
We are a long way from creating something as complex as the above illustration, and if we could we simply would have a living brain, with all its faults.
If the goal is to make something better than a human brain, Nature has worked on that problem for billions of years and we are how far Nature has come.
Meanwhile, we humans have worked on the problem for only somewhat more than a couple centuries, and while we have had spectacular successes, our prototype didn’t yet understand that the line, “but she breaks like a little girl” isn’t from the song, “Not Dark Yet”
The song lyrics errors sure were an eye-opener especially when the AI not only gave two wrong answers, but didn’t say, “I don’t know.”
Want to have a discussion about anything — ANYTHING —with an intelligent person? How about a discussion with a seemingly intelligent, seeming person?
Here’s a discussion I had with a pretty good facsimile, an exercise you can enjoy yourself by clicking the link.
We discussed the cause of inflation. Warning, it’s addictive. Unlike the humans I try to reason with, the computer never gets angry or even impolite. It always acknowledges points made. And its opinions are not its own.
Sadly, it doesn’t learn from arguments. It just keeps repeating what it already has been told by its references.
Rodger Mitchell: It widely is believed that “excessive federal spending causes inflation,” yet when I try to find an example of excessive federal spending causing inflation, I receive the explanation that, “It’s really a combination of factors of which excessive federal spending is one factor and not even an immediate factor.
“It could be a delayed part.”
Sadly, that could be said of anything. I could make the same statement about phases of the moon or children born with red hair — as being only one factor and not even an immediate factor in inflation.
A computer-generated illustration of: A computer on a stage, talking into a microphone.”
In short, federal spending is no more a demonstrable factor than is a sign of the zodiac.
Chat GPF:The relationship between federal spending and inflation is a complex and debated topic among economists.
While some people hold the belief that excessive federal spending directly causes inflation, the reality is more nuanced and not as straightforward as a simple cause-and-effect relationship.
Inflation is a general increase in prices over time, and it can be influenced by a variety of factors, including monetary policy, fiscal policy, supply and demand dynamics, international trade, productivity levels, and more.
Excessive federal spending can potentially contribute to inflation, but it is not the sole or immediate factor responsible for it.
When economists explain that excessive federal spending is only one factor and not an immediate one in inflation, they are acknowledging the multifaceted nature of inflation.
They are suggesting that while federal spending can have an impact on inflation, it needs to be considered alongside other variables that influence price levels.
Simply blaming federal spending without considering other factors would oversimplify the issue.
It is important to note that economic phenomena, such as inflation, are typically the result of multiple interacting factors. This complexity makes it challenging to isolate and definitively prove the direct causal relationship between any single factor and inflation.
Therefore, it is not accurate to compare federal spending’s role in inflation to unrelated factors like phases of the moon or hair color, as the former is subject to economic analysis and empirical research.
Computer-generated image of: “A computer pondering a question in economics.”
Economists continue to study the relationship between federal spending and inflation, and there are differing views within the field.
Some argue that excessive government spending, particularly when not matched by increased productivity or accompanied by monetary expansion, can contribute to inflationary pressures.
Others argue that other factors, such as changes in private sector spending, global economic conditions, or shifts in supply and demand, have a more significant influence on inflation.
In summary, while excessive federal spending can potentially contribute to inflation, it is just one factor among many.
The complexity of economic systems and the multitude of factors influencing inflation make it difficult to attribute it solely to federal spending. Economic analysis and research are ongoing to better understand these dynamics and their interrelationships.
Rodger Mitchell: It’s not terribly “challenging to isolate and definitively prove the direct causal relationship between any single factor and inflation.” Inflations historically are caused by shortages, usually shortages of oil or food. I see many parallels through history between oil or food shortages and inflation.
I do not see the same parallels between federal spending and inflation. Can you provide an example of an inflation that did not result from an oil or food shortage, but instead resulted from excessive federal spending?
ChatGPT:While it is true that supply shocks, such as oil or food shortages, have historically played a role in triggering inflationary episodes, it would be incorrect to assert that inflation is exclusively caused by these factors. Inflation can also arise due to other factors, including excessive government spending.
One example often cited as an instance where excessive federal spending contributed to inflation is the case of Zimbabwe in the late 2000s. The Zimbabwean government embarked on a policy of significant fiscal expansion, primarily through extensive money creation, to finance its expenditures.
This resulted in a substantial increase in the money supply, leading to hyperinflation.
During this period, Zimbabwe experienced a severe economic crisis, with skyrocketing prices, rapid depreciation of the currency, and a loss of confidence in the monetary system.
Four computer generated images of: “A computer laughing at a joke”
While there were other factors at play, such as economic mismanagement and a decline in agricultural productivity, excessive government spending and the consequent increase in the money supply were key drivers of inflation in Zimbabwe.
It’s important to note that this example is just one case among many, and the relationship between federal spending and inflation is not always straightforward.
The impact of government spending on inflation can vary depending on several factors, including the overall state of the economy, fiscal and monetary policies, and the credibility of the government in managing its finances.
In many instances, inflation may result from a combination of factors rather than being solely attributable to a single cause.
It is also worth noting that the effects of excessive government spending on inflation may not be immediate but can manifest over time as the economy adjusts to the increased money supply and the potential distortionary effects of government interventions.
In summary, while oil or food shortages have historically been associated with inflation, excessive federal spending can also contribute to inflationary pressures under certain circumstances.
The example of Zimbabwe illustrates how a combination of factors, including excessive government spending and monetary mismanagement, can lead to inflation.
However, it is important to recognize that the relationship between federal spending and inflation is complex, and various factors can interact to influence price levels in an economy.
Rodger Mitchell: The Zimbabwe inflation was caused by a food shortage. Farmland was taken from farmers and given to non-farmers. The result: Food shortage and inflation.
The money “printing” was a response to, not a cause of, inflation.
ChatGPT:While it is true that Zimbabwe’s land redistribution policies and subsequent disruptions in agricultural productivity were significant contributors to the country’s hyperinflation, it is essential to note that excessive money creation by the central bank played a crucial role as well.
The Zimbabwean government resorted to financing its budget deficit by effectively printing money, leading to a significant expansion of the money supply.
This, combined with the loss of agricultural output, created a situation of excess money chasing limited goods, fueling hyperinflation.
The land redistribution policy disrupted agricultural production by displacing experienced farmers and replacing them with individuals who lacked the necessary skills, resources, and incentives to maintain productive farms. This resulted in a decline in food production, contributing to shortages and price increases.
However, it is important to understand the sequence of events. The initial cause of the inflationary spiral in Zimbabwe was the disruption in agricultural productivity due to the land redistribution policy.
As the economy faced shortages of food and other goods, the government responded by printing money to finance its spending obligations, exacerbating the inflationary pressures.
Inflation is a complex phenomenon, and it rarely has a single cause. In the case of Zimbabwe, both the land redistribution policy and the subsequent monetary expansion played significant roles in the hyperinflationary episode. It is crucial to recognize the interplay between these factors rather than attributing the entire inflationary outcome to a single cause.
This example underscores the importance of considering multiple factors and their interactions when analyzing the relationship between excessive federal spending and inflation. While it is true that supply shocks like food shortages can trigger inflation, the subsequent monetary and fiscal responses to those shocks can amplify and prolong the inflationary effects.
Rodger Mitchell:
(At this point I decided not to get into the fact that Zimbabwe was not Monetarily Sovereign, so though it could print currency, it’s money was tied to the dollar, and important inflationary consideration.)
It would be helpful if you could point to a single inflation in history that was precipitated by government spending rather than being precipitated by a shortage of oil, food or some other critical factor.
I suspect all inflations really are caused by shortages.
ChatGPT:There have been cases in history where excessive government spending has contributed to inflation, even in the absence of shortages in critical factors like oil or food. One notable example is the hyperinflation experienced by Germany in the early 1920s.
After World War I, Germany faced significant war reparations and a massive budget deficit. The German government resorted to financing its spending by issuing large amounts of debt and, eventually, by printing money.
The excessive money creation, combined with a lack of corresponding increase in production and output, led to a rapid devaluation of the German mark and hyperinflation.
During this period, there were no significant shortages of oil or food in Germany. Instead, the excessive government spending and the resulting increase in the money supply caused a loss of confidence in the currency, leading to skyrocketing prices.
People’s wages and savings quickly became worthless as the value of the mark rapidly declined.
This example illustrates how excessive government spending and the subsequent expansion of the money supply, without corresponding increases in productivity or output, can lead to inflation.
It demonstrates that inflation can occur even in the absence of shortages in critical factors.
While supply shortages can certainly contribute to inflation, it is not accurate to claim that all inflations are solely caused by shortages. Economic phenomena such as inflation are influenced by a multitude of factors, including both demand and supply-side dynamics, monetary policy, fiscal policy, and other macroeconomic conditions.
It is crucial to recognize that inflation is a complex phenomenon with multiple potential causes, and it can arise from different combinations of factors in different historical contexts.
Rodger Mitchell: So, prices of food and oil went up even though there was no shortage of these products? And it was all due to government spending? Then the inflation was cured by even more government spending to create the greatest military force the world had ever known? Does any of this make sense to you?
ChatGPT:I apologize if my previous responses were not clear. Allow me to clarify.
In the case of Germany’s hyperinflation in the early 1920s, it is important to note that the excessive government spending and subsequent increase in the money supply were contributing factors to inflation.
However, it would be inaccurate to say that the inflation was solely caused by government spending without considering other factors at play.
During that period, Germany faced a complex set of circumstances, including war reparations, economic disruptions from World War I, and political instability.
The excessive government spending and the resulting expansion of the money supply added to these challenges, leading to hyperinflation.
Inflation is a multifaceted phenomenon influenced by various factors, including monetary policy, fiscal policy, supply and demand dynamics, productivity, external factors, and more. It is rarely driven by a single cause.
Regarding your statement about inflation being “cured by even more government spending to create the greatest military force the world had ever known,” it is important to differentiate between the context of post-World War I Germany and the broader discussion about the relationship between government spending and inflation.
Government spending, particularly in the context of wartime mobilization or rebuilding efforts, can have stimulative effects on the economy.
However, the impact on inflation depends on various factors, including the state of the economy, fiscal management, and monetary policies implemented.
It is crucial to approach the analysis of inflation and government spending with nuance, considering the specific historical context and the multitude of factors involved. There is no one-size-fits-all explanation, and each situation requires careful examination of the unique circumstances at hand.
Rodger Mitchell: There is a widespread fear that government spending causes inflation. It is the foundation of the “debt-limit” laws. Because the federal government cannot run short of dollars, the only ostensible purpose of the debt limit is to prevent inflation.
But, government spending alone doesn’t cause inflation. There needs to be, as you said, “war reparations, economic disruptions, and political instability.”
Absent these factors, which cause shortages of key goods and services, government spending does not cause inflation. Thus, the excuse for a debt limit disappears.
ChatGPT:You raise an important point about the relationship between government spending and inflation. While it is a common belief that government spending alone leads to inflation, the reality is more nuanced.
As you mentioned, inflation typically occurs when there are shortages in key goods and servicesor when there is excessive money creation that outpaces the productive capacity of an economy.
Government spending can potentially contribute to inflation if it is not matched by increased productivity or accompanied by appropriate fiscal and monetary policies.
The purpose of debt limits, including the ones imposed on governments, can indeed be aimed at controlling inflationary pressures. By limiting the amount of debt the government can accumulate, policymakers aim to prevent excessive money creation and potential inflation.
However, it is important to note that debt limits are just one of many tools governments use to manage their fiscal policies, and their effectiveness in curbing inflation can vary.
In practice, the relationship between government spending, debt limits, and inflation is complex and dependent on various factors. These factors include the overall state of the economy, fiscal management, monetary policies, external economic conditions, and more. Each situation requires careful analysis of the specific context to understand the potential impacts on inflation.
While shortages of goods and services can exacerbate inflationary pressures, it is not accurate to dismiss government spending as irrelevant to inflation in the absence of such shortages. The impact of government spending on inflation is influenced by a range of economic factors, and it is subject to ongoing debate and analysis among economists.
In summary, the relationship between government spending and inflation is multifaceted. While shortages of key goods and services can contribute to inflation, government spending can also have inflationary effects if not appropriately managed. The role of debt limits in preventing inflation depends on various factors and can differ from one economic context to another.
Note the repeated use of the “This, but on the other hand, that” argument.
Also, while the public believes excessive” “federal spending causes inflation, ChatGPT says other factors must be present. (It is these “other factors” that are the cause of inflation. Increased money creation is a response to inflation, not a cause.)
While the complaint often is made that https://chat.openai.com/ is not a reliable source of information, that same complaint can be made about every other source of information— books, newspapers, encyclopedias, and certainly the government, the Internet and television (perhaps except for FOX and Breitbart, which are reliably wrong).
For example, you’ll notice that https://chat.openai.com/ never does provide any data to demonstrate that federal spending causes inflation. It dances around that central point by making the “various factors” claim.
Unfortunately, it cannot yet receive pictures or graphs, else I would have provided it with graphs demonstrating the lack of a historical relationship between inflation and federal spending along with the profound historical relationship between oil shortages and inflation.
I suspect that by the time this year ends, we will be able to show the AI pictures, graphs, videos, and music.
It might even admit that debt limits are a lie foisted on the innocent public by the rich, the purpose being to widen the Gap between the rich and the rest.
Because the Republican Party, the self-proclaimed party of Patriotism, Family Values, and Law & Order, seems to have made its selection for the next President of the United States, we offer this portrait to be hung in RNC offices and/or used on yard signs.
It should serve as a reminder to all Americans, especially Republican voters and their families, what the Republican Party really stands for.
#Monetary Sovereignty - Mitchell 