The biggest problem facing Americans: Airline seat reclining

We American’s find the future of our nation just too, too boring.

So we have become immune to the impeachment hearings along with hourly news about bribery, violation of campaign laws, perjury, conspiracy, contempt of Congress, violation of the emoluments clause, obstruction of justice, abuse of power, bank fraud, tax fraud, misappropriation of funds, extortion, adultery, coercion for personal benefit, cheating workers, abusing children, and fundamentally being a rotten human being. (See this list.)

And we find the future of our children and indeed the entire human species to be just too, too boring.

So we pay no attention to warnings about what we are doing to the world, including climate change and toxins in the air, water and earth. We accept the Washington freak show featuring the removal of anti-pollution, anti-carbon, and anti-corruption rules.

Image result for crowded airplane
Next step: No seats or aisles.

But if there is one thing that gains our attention is our butts, and the comfort thereof, as evidenced by these takes from an article in the December 13, 2019 THE WEEK Magazine.

Air travel: Should you recline your seat?
The Week (US)13 Dec 2019

As millions of Americans take to the skies this holiday season, allow me to settle one of the longest-standing debates associated with air travel, said Christopher Elliott in USA Today.

You may have the ability to recline your seat on an airplane, but you shouldn’t. “It’s rude—and it’s wrong.” That’s because passengers are “officially out of space.”

Decades ago, many economy-class seats offered “a generous 36 inches of ‘pitch,’” which is a rough measure of the space between seats.

But over the years, “greedy airlines” have whittled us down to “as little as 28 inches” so that they can pack passengers into the cabin “like cargo.” This means that should you recline your seat, “you’ll end up in someone’s lap.” So please stop. It’s irritating, self-indulgent, and even immoral.

Nonsense, said Stacey Lastoe in CNN.com. Reclining your seat “is a right,” since airlines equip seats with a recline button. Besides, how else is one expected to sleep on an airplane? While sitting erect? No.

In the end, “I recline, you recline, we all recline for increased comfort.” Agreed, said Ben Lucky in OneMileAtATime .com, although reclining works best “when everyone is on the same page” and eager to sleep, as is usually the case on a red-eye.

Yes, but sometimes strong measures are demanded, said Josh Ocampo in LifeHacker.com. Let’s say, for instance, that the very tall person in front of you has committed the unforgivable sin of reclining during meal service, forcing your tray into your chest. Then no one could blame you if you turned up the air conditioner located directly above your seat to full blast and angled it directly upon the recliner’s forehead, forcing him or her “to endure the wrath of your freezing-cold airplane air.” If that doesn’t work, I might suggest a sudden bout of restless legs syndrome that compels you to kick the seat back—hard—every few minutes. That “might earn you an extra inch or two.”

Here’s what I think. Don’t punish the person in front of you for using his/her seat in exactly the way it was designed by the airlines, to be used.

Punish the airlines who care so little about your comfort they created a situation guaranteed to make passengers uncomfortable and angry.

The person ahead of you is uncomfortable, because realizing that reclining his seat might make you uncomfortable, he doesn’t recline.

Or if he does, he wonders what you’re thinking about him and are you going to be in a “seat-battle” with him. And anyway, the scant 2 inch recline isn’t enough to make anyone relax.

You are uncomfortable, because the person ahead of you has reclined, so you can’t even reach the barf bag if needed, and his dandruff is falling into your drink. And you yourself, either will or will not recline, and either way, you lose.

So don’t blame the passengers who are sharing with you a claustrophobic space created by the designers of Auschwitz or the children’s cages at our southern border.

Blame the rotten airline for putting you all in this position.

NO. Don’t blame the airline.

Blame yourself for going to Travelocity or Kayak, and booking on “El Cheapo Airlines and Stormdoor Company,” so you can save a few bucks while enduring several hours of inhumane conditions, relieved only by standing in line to use the one working, smelly toilet, while praying the “take-your-seat, NOW!” sign doesn’t go on.

It is you, yes YOU, Mr. Bargain Basement, who trained the airlines that you would rather save a few bucks than receive human comfort.

So the next time you are racing through the airport, with your pants falling down, because you forgot your belt and wallet at security, and you hear the announcement, “All passengers must rwjqelor dfqwoper 349 asas, IMMEDIATELY, or else,” and then you sit in the middle of two huge, fat guys with bad breath, one of whom says, “Would you mind holding my emotional support bee hive,” remember this:

There once were airlines that served real food, had real bathrooms, the seats were two abreast, not ten, only humans flew, and the there was plenty of room to lie back and enjoy.

But that was before cheaptickets.com.

And you have only yourself to blame.

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

OMG! Would you think the editor of the Wall Street Journal understood finance?

Yes, I’m talking about the great Wall Street Journal, the veritable bible of the finance class, the paper that money-dealers read before breakfast, quote at lunch, then rely on during the day as they invest billions — that Wall Street Journal.

Matt Murray, Editor in Chief

And I’m talking about an editor, not just a reporter or copy boy — an editor!

Well, if you think the editor, whoever he/she may be, understands finance, you can disabuse yourself of that belief. The following was reprinted in THE WEEK Magazine, December 13, 2019.

How Europe pays for its welfare state
Editorial, The Wall Street Journal

Some Democratic presidential candidates “insist that America could afford a European-style welfare state if only it taxed the rich more heavily,” said The Wall Street Journal.

But a close look at Europe’s taxation policies shows that countries have “learned the hard way that the rich aren’t rich enough to pay for their entitlements,” and balance their budgets by heavily dunning the middle class.

Germany, for example, imposes a 42 percent rate on married households earning $124,000, whereas in the U.S., such a couple pays 22 percent.

Sweden’s top rate of 55 percent kicks in with individual earnings as low as $47,000, and in the U.K., taxpayers earning just $64,000 pay a 40 percent rate.

Governments also slap workers with hefty payroll taxes they call “social insurance contributions” that are far higher than America’s Social Security and Medicare deductions, and impose a Value Added Tax of 21 percent on all consumer purchases, regardless of a buyer’s income.

As a result, Europe’s tax system takes more than half of most people’s wages and is far less progressive than the U.S.’s.

Beware politicians who claim they can finance free college, day care, and health care for all by taxing billionaires. “The middle class will pay, because that’s where the real money is.”

Oh, dear lord, where does one begin to address such ignorance?

The headline, “How Europe pays for its welfare state,” is thoroughly misleading. “Europe” does not pay for anything. Individual nations pay for different things under different circumstances.

And Europe is not a “welfare state.” It is not even a state. But the WSJ uses the term “welfare state” for its pejorative effect. It’s a not-so-subtle attempt to tell you, “Don’t ask for anything from the government. Only the rich are entitled to benefits.”

The Wall Street Journal editor clearly does not understand, or does not want to understand, the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty.

Germany is monetarily non-sovereign. It has no sovereign currency. It uses the euro, which is the sovereign currency of the European Union (EU).

Germany voluntarily surrendered its most valuable asset — its Monetary Sovereignty — in exchange for . . . what? Financial submission to the non-elected bureaucrats of the EU? Permanent austerity for its people?

Being monetarily non-sovereign, Germany’s government resembles the U.S. state and local governments, and you, and me, all of which also a monetarily non-sovereign.

Not having a sovereign currency, all we monetarily non-sovereign types cannot create our own currencies, and so we can run short of whatever currency we use.

You and I, and our cities, counties, and states all can run short of dollars. Germany can run short of euros.

We all need income in order to spend. That is not true of such Monetarily Sovereign entities like the U.S., Sweden, and the UK, which have the unlimited ability to create their own sovereign currencies.

“But wait,” you might object. “If the U.S., Sweden, and the UK have the unlimited ability to create their own currencies, why do they levy taxes on their citizens? And especially Sweden and the UK — why do they levy such high taxes?”

For Monetarily Sovereign entities, taxes do not fund spending, but taxes do have other purposes.

  1. Taxes help a government control the economy by taxing things the government wishes to discourage and by giving tax breaks to things it wishes to encourage. For example, U.S. homeowners receive tax breaks that renters do not receive. For whatever reason, the federal government wishes to encourage homeownership.
  2. Because the very rich run America, they receive tax breaks that the middle- and lower-income people do not receive. These breaks help widen the Gap between the rich and the rest. (It is the Gap that makes the rich rich.
  3. Levying taxes provides the illusion that federal taxes are necessary to fund federal spending. This illusion helps prevent the populace from demanding more federal benefits.
  4. Mandatory tax collections add to the demand for a currency.

Point #3 is exemplified by the controversy over Medicare-for-All. What sane person would not want free, no deductible medical services for life? Yet nearly half of Americans object to receiving this marvelous benefit, because of the false belief that taxes will have to pay for it.

Sweden and the UK, which easily could pay for their healthcare without levying taxes, constitute a combination of monetary ignorance and wilfulness — items #3 and #4, above.

Apparently, Sweden and the UK want to hide this fact from their citizens. And speaking of Sweden, glance at this article from Wikipedia:

Sweden and the euro
According to the 1995 accession treaty, Sweden is required to join the eurozone and therefore must convert to the euro once the convergence criteria are met.

Notwithstanding this, on 14 September 2003, a consultative Swedish referendum was held on the euro, in which 56% of voters were opposed to the adoption of the currency, out of an overall turnout of 82.6%.

Some of Sweden’s major parties continue to believe it would be in the national interest to join, but all parties have pledged to abide by the results of the referendum, and none have shown any interest in raising the issue again.

As of 2014, support for Swedish membership of the euro among the general population is low. In September 2013, support fell as low as 9%. The only party in the Riksdag that supports Swedish entry in the euro (as of 2015) is the centrist Liberal Party.

For whatever good reasons, the people of Sweden have chosen not to surrender their Monetary Sovereignty. Despite paying high taxes, at least they control their money.Image result for same wall street journal story different headlines

The editors of the Wall Street Journal surely must know all this. They simply must.

But the very rich want to widen the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and the rest, and they find the tax code a convenient way to accomplish their goal.

So they support wrong-headed articles that dissuade the populace from demanding healthcare and other social benefits.

As a result, millions of Americans cannot afford healthcare, millions of Americans suffer needlessly, and millions of Americans die too young.

It is a national disgrace, exceeded only by the misinformation campaign being conducted by America’s media, politicians, and economists.

Shame on you, Wall Street Journal. You should know better and if you do, shame on you even more.

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

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

The most important problems in economics involve:

  1. Monetary Sovereignty describes money creation and destruction.
  2. 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:

1. Eliminate FICA

2. Federally funded Medicare — parts A, B & D, plus long-term care — for everyone

3. Provide a monthly economic bonus to every man, woman and child in America (similar to social security for all)

4. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone

5. Salary for attending school

6. Eliminate federal taxes on business

7. Increase the standard income tax deduction, annually. 

8. Tax the very rich (the “.1%”) more, with higher progressive tax rates on all forms of income.

9. Federal ownership of all banks

10. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99.9% 

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

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

The trade war of ignorance

THE TRADE WAR

Image result for suicide by gun
America: “Take that, China”
Image result for suicide by gun
China: “Take that America”

.

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

Imagine this: You own a large fresh-water lake and all the land around the lake. You live in a house on the shore, and you alone freely can draw endless fresh water from the lake to meet all your needs.

Image result for lovely lake
Imagine that you own this lake and all the land around it.

Your children, who do not live on the lake, grow crops and do some manufacturing. They sell their crops and their manufactured goods to your neighbors, and in payment they receive . . .

. . . Water!

That’s right. In return for your children’s labor and expenses, they receive water, which you can obtain from your own lake, and simply give to your children, at virtually no cost.

Crazy, isn’t it? But wait, it gets crazier.

Since you have unlimited water, and your neighbors need water, you are able to buy food, clothing and manufactured goods from them, and pay your neighbors in the endless water you can draw from your lake.

One day, you become angry at one of your neighbors for not buying enough of your children’s crops and manufactured goods. You want him to buy more from them and to give your children even more water — the same water you could give them at no cost.

Image result for pouring water into a lakeSo to punish your neighbor for not buying enough of your children’s labor, and sending them more water, you take some of the water he gives your children, and you pour it back into the lake!

That’ll show him!

You may think this story is insanity, but what I just have described is the U.S. trade war with China.

The U.S. government, unlike state and local governments, unlike the euro nations, and unlike you and me, is Monetarily Sovereign.

That means the U.S. government has the unlimited ability to create infinite U.S. dollars at the touch of a computer key.

In the above parable, U.S. dollars correspond to the unlimited water you freely can draw from your lake.

China pays for our exports with U.S. dollars, which to the U.S. government are nothing more than water. But the Trump administration is angry at China for not buying enough of our products and sending us more dollars (water).

So the Trump administration decides to “punish” China by levying an import duty on Chinese goods, which is exactly like pouring our children’s water back into your lake.

For every export, there must be an import. When the U.S. exports goods and services, it imports the dollars that pay for the export.

The U.S. does not need to import dollars. 

Remember the above parable as you read excerpts from a story that appeared in THE WEEK Magazine:

China is getting Trumpy
By Jeff Spross

President Trump rails against Chinese manufacturing for stealing U.S. jobs.

In retaliation, he’s used tariffs to cut down on the goods Americans import from China — and, by extension, bulk up the “Made in America” goods they buy.

Translation: Trump is angry at the Chinese for not buying enough of your children’s products (in exchange for water).

So he takes some of your children’s dollars (water) in tariffs (pours it back into your lake).

Meanwhile, Trump’s critics paint this as an absurd and destructive quest; they assert that our economic entanglement with China is good for the United States.

It’s good for the United States because we receive valuable goods, made by the sweat of Chinese labor and valuable assets, and all we give them is the dollars that cost us nothing to produce.

Ironically enough, unlike Trump’s U.S. critics and despite what it says abroad, China’s government has its own downright Trumpian plan to get Chinese consumers to buy more Chinese-made products.

Quite literally, the plan is called “Made in China 2025.” The Chinese government — whose economic policy is a weird hybrid of market liberalization and communist-style state ownership and central planning — announced the plan back in 2015.

Basically, it’s a 10-year industrial strategy to increase China’s ability to manufacture high-tech products like superconductors, computer chips, and airplanes.

China wants to consolidate those supply chains within its own borders, so its consumers can buy more of those types of goods from domestic producers. Sound familiar?

Yes, very familiar.

Like the U.S. government, China’s government is Monetarily Sovereign. It has the unlimited ability to create the Chinese renminbi. It never can run short of renminbi.

It can pay millions of Chinese workers billions of renminbi to manufacture everything locally. It has the financial ability to consolidate all supply chains locally.

And/or, it can use the foreign exchange markets to obtain unlimited dollars, and buy whatever it wants to buy from the U.S.

China is caught in the “middle income trap.”

Most of what it exports to the world is low-cost manufactured goods — think clothes, shoes, or consumer electronics — which are low cost because the workers who make them aren’t paid a lot.

Meanwhile, it imports a lot of  high-tech products, which are much more expensive.

Quite often, this setup traps middle-income countries in perpetual trade deficits.  (They’re exporting cheap stuff and importing expensive stuff.)

The word “deficit” and the word “debt,” are the most misunderstood words in all of economics. Both have pejorative implications.

Consider “deficit.” No one likes to run a deficit. Everyone prefers a surplus. But, a federal deficit is an economic surplus. Money flows from the federal government to the economy.

Which is better? For the federal government, which already has infinite dollars, to run a dollar surplus, or for the economy, which can run short of dollars, to run a dollar surplus?

Similarly, a trade deficit can be viewed as a trade surplus: Goods flow from nation “A” to nation “B,” and money flows from nation “B’ to nation “A.”

So which nation runs the “deficit,” and which nation runs the “surplus”? If you are nation “A,” and you receive valuable goods in exchange for the water you freely take from your lake, are you running a surplus or a deficit?

Every day, you run a “deficit” with your grocer, your neighborhood restaurant, your pharmacist, your clothing store, etc. What if you could pay for all these “deficits” with the free water from your lake? Are you bothered by those deficits?

For a Monetarily Sovereign entity, there is absolutely nothing wrong with “perpetual trade deficits.” In fact, they are beneficial.

You receive valuable goods and services, created by the labor and assets of other nations, and you pay with a commodity that has no cost to you: Your own sovereign currency.

That trap drives them into exchange rate crises every so often.

For a Monetarily Sovereign nation,  there are no “exchange rate crises. They have absolute control over every facet of their currency, including the value of that currency. They are sovereign over the currency.

China’s largely managed to run a trade surplus with the rest of the world despite all this, albeit with the occasional dip into trade deficit.

Which is a testament to the intelligence and aggressiveness of Beijing’s macroeconomic and trade strategies.

Translation: China largely managed to use its valuable labor and resources to obtain renminbi, which it could have created without using any of its labor or resources.

That is no testament to “intelligence” and aggressiveness.”

But now the Chinese government would like to get the country out of the middle-income trap entirely.

They are in a trap created by ignorance, not by reality. Like the U.S., they easily could support “perpetual trade deficits,” i.e. buy endless goods in exchange for their endless sovereign currency.

Ironically, here in America, the Made in China 2025 plan isn’t the kind of thing that Trumpian critics of free trade or establishment champions of free trade want to see.

Critics of free trade want America to close its own trade deficit by selling more stuff to China, which is obviously in tension with China’s desire to produce more domestically.

And neither camp likes the idea of China providing more direct subsidies to its domestic companies, or continuing to grab technological know-how and intellectual property from the rest of the world.

The Trump administration actually released a report in 2018 concluding that aspects of Made in China 2025 were “unreasonable and discriminatory.” And other European countries have complained about it as well.

The only people who should complain about China’s “Made in China” efforts are the euro nations — nations like France, Germany, Italy, Portugal, et al, who do not have a sovereign currency.

They use the euro, which is the sovereign currency of the European Union (EU), not of any individual nations.

Euro nations do not have the unlimited ability to produce euros. They can, and often do, run short of euros, and they depend on the “charity” of the EU for survival.

Like you and me, the euro nations are monetarily non-sovereign. They need to export enough goods and services (i.e., import enough euros) to cover their shortfall of euros.

Similarly, all U.S. cities, counties, and states are monetarily non-sovereign. They use the U.S. dollar, which is the sovereign currency of the federal government. They can, and often do, run short of dollars, a problem that never can happen to the federal government.

As payback for Trump’s tariffs on Chinese exports, China jacked up tariffs on American exports.

Translation: To punish America, China raised taxes on its own people,the same thing Trump did to Americans to punish China.

Not surprisingly, China’s imports from the U.S. have fallen since 2018.

But China’s imports from the rest of the world fell by a comparable amount over the same period. It’s not that Chinese demand for foreign goods shifted from American producers to other countries — it’s that the demand just fell, period.

China is producing and paying for more goods and services internally, which being Monetarily Sovereign, it can do endlessly — as can America.

Both the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund have noted the shift, while France’s central bank came right out and said “the recent trade deceleration is closely linked to the shift of China’s production towards domestic demand.”

Yes, European euro nations should be worried. They cannot control their own finances. They are slaves, not only to the EU, but to the rest of the world, and it all was so predictable.

Because of the Euro, no euro nation can control its own money supply. The Euro is the worst economic idea since the recession-era, Smoot-Hawley Tariff. The economies of European nations are doomed by the euro.” The Meteorology of Economics,” 2005

The austerity and free-market policies of the modern global trade order create a permanent shortfall in global demand, thus driving a race to the bottom as every country tries to outwit its neighbor and grab more of the demand that remains.

Rather than attempt to change that game, both Trump’s and China’s protectionism are just attempts to be the player who comes out on top.

Austerity is merely the attempt by the very rich to widen the income/wealth/power gap and to squeeze more dollars out of the middle and the poor.

No people in human history (other than the rich) have benefited from their nation adopting austerity.

By contrast, protectionism by a Monetarily Sovereign nation can be quite beneficial to that nation’s populace.

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

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

The most important problems in economics involve:

  1. Monetary Sovereignty describes money creation and destruction.
  2. 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:

1. Eliminate FICA

2. Federally funded Medicare — parts A, B & D, plus long-term care — for everyone

3. Provide a monthly economic bonus to every man, woman and child in America (similar to social security for all)

4. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone

5. Salary for attending school

6. Eliminate federal taxes on business

7. Increase the standard income tax deduction, annually. 

8. Tax the very rich (the “.1%”) more, with higher progressive tax rates on all forms of income.

9. Federal ownership of all banks

10. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99.9% 

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

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Do you believe fortune tellers, Nigerian princes, and people who say the federal debt is a “ticking time bomb”?

Do you believe fortune-tellers, Nigerian princes, and assorted other snake oil salesmen? Do you accept phone calls from strangers offering you free time-shares and cruise vacations?Image result for crystal ball

No, fortunately, you are too smart to fall for those scams perpetrated by liars and fools.

But somebody must be deceived because those frauds have been around for a long time. If they didn’t work they would have died out by now.

In this world where presumably we have graduated from the dark ages, actual facts are easy to obtain from legitimate sources. But, many of us still accept the words of Tarot card readers, crystal ball gazers,  and other mass deceivers. Trump University is one proof of that.

Even today, you continue to be barraged with sad phone calls from non-existent grandchildren and claims by fake IRS employees, telling you urgently to send money, now, now, now.

It never ends.

And that is why you continue to experience the “federal-debt-is-a-ticking-time-bomb” scam, one of the most subtle, yet long-lived scams in history.

It is subtle and long-lived for three reasons:

  1. The speaker (or writer) does not directly ask you for money. No, he/she asks for something even more valuable: Your vote. He wants you to vote against your own best interests.
  2. It sounds so logical, so every-day reasonable, so innocent, so prudent — far more logical, reasonable, innocent, and prudent than that $5 million you will receive from Nigeria.
  3. It isn’t immediately clear to you who exactly benefits from the scam, but there are beneficiaries, big beneficiaries, and later in this article, I’ll tell you who they are.

As recently as August of this year, we added yet another example to the list of ticking-time-bomb scams that goes back to 1940, when the federal debt was only $40 billion. (It’s above $20 trillion today, and that ole time-bomb still’s a’tickin’.)

And here’s yet another one: Same wording to the same lies.  It even includes that same ridiculous “debt clock” currently parked in a Manhatten alleyway.Image result for debt clock

Our national ticking time bomb
By Bill Yeargin, SPECIAL TO THE SUN SENTINEL |
SEP 12, 2019

The U.S. has a big problem that, if not corrected soon, will have a significant negative impact on our country, including Florida.

Our growing national debt has resulted in a debt-to-GDP ratio that is over 100 percent, one of the world’s worst.

See the scam language. Something has to be done “soon”. (Even though the federal debt has grown more than 50,000% over the past 70 years, and the U.S. economy is the strongest in the world, something must be done, SOON. Don’t think. Just act, soon!)

And that meaningless debt-to-GDP ratio, which is one of the world’s “worst.” For the U.S., it’s a bit above 100%.  Don’t you wish it was more like Russia’s (14%) or Zimbabwe’s (21%)? Or does Mr. Yeargin prefer Guatemala’s ratio of 25% or Nigeria’s ratio of 30%?

Or how about Japan’s ratio of 238%? Which economy and which inflation would you prefer, Japan’s or Zimbabwe’s?

Here is a list of national debt/GDP ratios for countries. See if you can see a relationship between that useless ratio and the strength of a nation’s economy. Save your effort. There is no relationship. As we said, it is a useless ratio.

Mr. Yeargin’s article continues:

In retrospect, it is hard to believe in the late 90s, the U.S. was running budget surpluses and on track to have no national debt by 2006.

Uh, excuse me, Mr. Yeargin, but the Clinton surpluses of 1998-2001 led directly to the recession of 2001. We actually were lucky then, because surpluses, which remove dollars from the economy, often have a worse result than a recession:

1804-1812: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 48%. Depression began 1807.
1817-1821: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 29%. Depression began 1819.
1823-1836: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 99%. Depression began 1837.
1852-1857: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 59%. Depression began 1857.
1867-1873: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 27%. Depression began 1873.
1880-1893: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 57%. Depression began 1893.
1920-1930: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 36%. Depression began 1929.

Ah, those pesky facts.

And the ignorance becomes laughable:

Now, we have a national debt approaching $23 trillion dollars — about $68,000 per citizen — and it’s still growing fast.

The past two years the federal deficit has exploded to over a trillion dollars a year (yep, a trillion.) It is endangering our country and state’s future. We need our leaders to deal with this problem now.

The “per citizen” line is supposed to make you think you owe the federal debt, or your taxes will be taken to pay it off. Neither is true.

The so-called federal debt is not like your debt or my debt. The federal debt is nothing more than the total of deposits into Treasury security accounts, which are paid off every day simply by returning the dollars in those accounts to the account holders. Neither you nor your taxes are involved.

The federal government does not use those dollars. They remain in the T-security accounts until maturity, at which time they are returned.

Even if the federal government did not collect a single penny in taxes, it could pay off the entire federal debt today, simply by closing all those accounts and sending the dollars back.

And then there’s the line that includes the words, “and states.” The false implications seem to be either that state financing is like federal financing, or that somehow states are liable for federal debt.  Mr. Yeargin isn’t clear about what he means, but either meaning is wrong.

And now we come to the really, really ignorant part (Yes, amazingly even less knowledgeable than the preceding).

So, how did we get here?

After World War 2, the U.S. had a huge national debt, but a growing economy and fiscal discipline (at least more than we have now) reduced it to manageable levels.

Here is the “fiscal discipline” Mr. Yeargin claims we had, but no longer have: Beginning in 1945, we had 5 recessions in only 15 years. That is his version of “fiscal discipline.”

By contrast, our “undisciplined,” debt-based economy has not had a single recession in 11 years, and is not even close to one now.

But it gets even worse:

By the late 90s, the president and Congress had worked to generate national surpluses and were heading toward a debt-free U.S.

If the federal debt is, as Mr. Yeargin warns, “approaching $23 trillion,” to have a “debt-free U.S.” would require us to have a combination of spending cuts and tax increases totaling $23 trillion!

Can you imagine what taking $23 trillion out of the U.S. economy would do? It would be a financial disaster unparalleled in U.S. history.

The Great Depression was caused by a removal of only 36% of the debt; Mr. Yeargin wants to remove 100%. It boggles.

And it continues:

Then, in the early 2000s, the combination of tax cuts, increased Medicare benefits for the elderly, and waging two wars on a credit card resulted in the return of national deficits and we lost our opportunity to be debt-free.

The financial crisis in 2008 resulted in huge government spending to avert a depression.

Mr. Yeargin manages to confuse even his own confusion. He claims correctly that huge government spending averted a recession, but he already has claimed that huge government spending is a danger, a “ticking time-bomb.”

Federal spending pumps dollars into the economy, which grows the economy. Federal surpluses take dollars from the economy, which causes depressions and recessions.

So which is it Mr. Yeargin? Did huge spending endanger us or save us? You can’t have it both ways. Or, if you know nothing about economics, perhaps you can have it both ways — in your imagination.

After we got through the Great Recession, our deficit was high but dropping. The past three years has seen increased spending and tax cuts, which have exploded the annual deficit to over $1 trillion.

(Meaning that the federal government, which never can run short of dollars, will add $1 trillion to the economy, which needs dollars to grow. And this is a bad thing?)

And then, just when you hope it could not possibly be dumber, yes, it gets even dumber.

So, why is it a problem?

At some point investors will become concerned about lending to a debt-riddled U.S., which will result in having to offer higher interest rates to attract the money.

Even with rates low today, interest expense is the federal government’s third highest expenditure following the elderly and military.

The U.S. already borrows all the money it uses to pay its interest expense, sort of like a Ponzi scheme. Lack of investor confidence will only make this problem worse.

Because the U.S. federal government has the unlimited ability to create its own sovereign currency the U.S. dollar, it has no need to borrow dollars from anyone.

And indeed, despite the misleading use of the words “debt” and “borrow,” the U.S. government does not borrow. It provides T-security accounts, into which investors can deposit dollars.

Why does it provide these accounts if it doesn’t touch the dollars in them? Two primary reasons:

  1. To provide a safe “parking place” for unused dollars, which helps stabilize the dollar, and
  2. To assist the Federal Reserve in setting interest rates.

No, Mr. Yeargin, the federal government is not like state and local governments; it is not like businesses; it is not like you and me. It doesn’t borrow. It doesn’t need or use borrowed money.

St. Louis Federal Reserve: “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.

The federal government uniquely is Monetarily Sovereign, a term Mr. Yeagin clearly does not understand. The government creates dollars by passing laws, at the press of a computer key.

The article drones on, sliding ever downhill from a low beginning:

Additionally, we have lost two of our most powerful tools to pull out of a future recession.

From Economics 101, recall that deficit spending and low interest rates are tools used to end a recession. But we are now using them in a good economy, which is sort of like eating your seed corn.

Except that the federal government has the unlimited ability to deficit spend, and contrary to popular perception, low interest rates are not stimulative. They help control inflation, but do not add growth dollars to the economy.

So, why do we accept this?

It feels good to spend. Just like anyone who borrows to buy something they cannot afford, the U.S. finds it to easy to use its credit card (deficit spending).

In the short run, this spending makes politicians look like geniuses because it fuels the economy and drives votes.

In the long run, the politicians will be out of office when the problems occur. When the economy is doing well — even when artificially propped up with huge deficit spending — people feel like things are going well and don’t worry about those huge credit card bills (national debt) piling up.

Well, golly, the so-called “credit card bills (national debt)” has been “piling up” for 70 years, and here we are, stronger than ever. Again, those pesky facts.

So, what’s the solution?

We need leaders who have the will, character and courage to tackle this problem like any business leader would for their organization.

More ignorance. He still doesn’t understand the differences between federal (Monetarily Sovereign) financing and business (monetarily non-sovereign) financing.

If we want low taxes, then we must decide how to cut expenses. The challenge with federal expenses is that most of the money goes to the elderly, through Social Security and Medicare, and the military.

Unlike state and local governments, which being monetarily non-sovereign and so use tax dollars to pay for spending, the Monetarily Sovereign federal government does not use tax dollars.

So why does the federal government collect taxes?

  1. To control the economy by taxing things it wishes to discourage and by giving tax breaks to things it wishes to encourage
  2. To help the rich, who run America, widen the Gap by giving them tax breaks not available to the non-rich.
  3. To convince the public that benefits must be rationed or taxes increased. The rich, who run America, fear that if you, the public, knew the truth, you would demand more benefits, thereby narrowing the Gap. (Think of Medicare for All and Social Security for all, etc.)

And finally, we get to the heart of it. Mr. Yeargin suggests the need to cut Social Security and Medicare which mostly benefit the middle-classes and the poor.

Gap Psychology tells us that the rich promulgate lies about federal financing, in order to widen the Gap between the rich and the rest.

It is the Gap that makes them rich (Without the Gap no one would be rich; we all would be the same.) And the wider the Gap, the richer they are.

One easy way to widen the Gap is to cut benefits to the non-rich.

The “federal-debt-is-a-ticking-time-bomb” scam benefits the rich because it widens the Gap between the rich and the rest.

I apologize if I seem to pick on Mr. Yeargin this way. He may be a very nice, honest gentleman, but clearly, he is not an economist. Perhaps, all the errors in his article are innocent and without any malicious intent.

But he writes about economics, which is typical of what you read, day after day: Writings by people who do not understand that federal finances are nothing like personal finances, though you are led to believe they are alike.

Your intuition and incorrect information combine to fool you.

I don’t know Mr. Yeargin, but according to his web site:

“Bill Yeargin is CEO of Correct Craft, a boat-building business based in Orlando. He’s also on the board of the University of Central Florida.”

Someone please, please assure me that Mr. Yeargin has nothing to do with the teaching of economics at the University of Central Florida.  Please.