Great News! Wells Fargo to pay $1B penalty . . . uh, wait . . .

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.”

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

Image result for street robbery
My name is Wells Fargo. If I’m caught, I’ll return a few dollars, and no jail time.

 

Wells Fargo will pay a $1 Billion penalty for its outright thievery in creating fake accounts and related scams. Isn’t that great news?

Uh, wait a min. Is that really good?

Read this article and the associated comments:

Where the $1 Billion From the Wells Fargo Settlement Goes
Tobie Stanger ,Consumer Reports•April 20, 2018

Wells Fargo bank will pay $1 billion in civil penalties and compensate hundreds of thousands of victims of its abusive lending practices, according to settlements announced Friday by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency .

The $1 billion penalty will be split evenly between the CFPB’s civil penalty fund and the Treasury Department. But how much the victims themselves get hasn’t been determined.

In a departure from how the CFPB worked under its former director, Richard Cordray, the consent order issued by the bureau doesn’t say how much Wells Fargo has to give back to consumers allegedly harmed by the bank’s activities.

The billion dollars will go to two agencies of the federal government, the CFPB’s civil penalty fund and the Treasury Department.

But the federal government is Monetarily Sovereign. It has the unlimited ability to create its sovereign currency, the U.S. dollar.

It has no need for, nor use of, that billion dollars, which simply will disappear from the economy. In short, the U.S. economy will be penalized $1 billion.

Just as a tax cut stimulates economic growth by adding dollars to the economy, this transfer of $1 billion will depress economic growth by taking dollars out of the economy.

Wells Fargo has to submit a compensation plan to both regulators within 30 days. Consumers will then be notified by the bank about how much money they will receive. Under the settlement, Wells Fargo neither admits nor denies wrongdoing

That’s the penalty? The criminals are allowed to pay a fine without having to admit they are criminals? No jail time for the top executives of Well Fargo? No loss of salary? Nothing?

Would a bank robber be treated with the same kindness?

Some observers were critical of the arrangement.

“This case is silent on how much restitution is being provided to the customers,” says Christopher Peterson, a law professor at the University of Utah and former senior counsel for enforcement policy and strategy at the CFPB under Cordray. “It says Wells Fargo can give money back to customers as they choose and CFPB can object after the fact. And my suspicion is, there won’t be objections.”

Defrauded consumers stand to receive only a pittance, and this administration’s CFPD has not indicated that it even cares. The rich Wells Fargo executives are laughing. The rich Trump executives are laughing.

The poor cheated people are left crying.

In the years in which Cordray led the CFPB, about $12 billion was returned directly to consumers by companies found to have defrauded them.

The CFPD had two, far better actions available to them:

  1. Criminally charge the top brass at Wells Fargo, not only as proper punishment, but as a deterrent to other banks.
  2. Rather than levying a fine, the money for which goes to the federal government, Wells Fargo and its executives should have been required to make every victim whole, and additionally paid them for time and suffering. This would not have penalized the economy.

According to the consent orders, Wells Fargo charged thousands of auto-loan borrowers for auto insurance they didn’t need.

The bank also unfairly failed to follow the mortgage-interest-rate-lock process that it explained to prospective customers. Many home-loan borrowers were improperly told that they had to pay fees to extend interest-rate locks on their pending mortgages.

The bank’s auto finance practices over recent years led to an estimated 800,000 consumers pushed into auto insurance they did not need, according to the Center for Responsible Lending, a not-for-profit organization based in Washington, D.C.

An estimated 274,000 customers ended up in delinquency, and an estimated 25,000 cars were wrongfully repossessed as a result, the organization asserts.

Wells Fargo identified both issues independently and began providing restitution in late August 2017, according to Wells Fargo spokesperson Kate Pulley.

To date, the bank has issued 235,000 checks totaling $11.7 million. The company has estimated that it will pay a total $182 million to customers, Pulley says.

If Wells Fargo’s figures are to be trusted, the average defrauded customer received $49.79. Some received less, some more. But does $49.79 compensate for buying insurance you don’t need, having your credit rating destroyed, and losing your car to repossession?

Would you accept $49.79 for that financial and emotional disaster?

Wells Fargo said an estimated $98 million in unnecessary rate-lock fees was paid by 110,000 customers, though it estimates the actual amount to be refunded could be lower.

It began issuing refunds to consumers late last year.

 

Wells Fargo won’t even return the amount it stole, let alone any dollars in punishment. In short, Wells Fargo will make a profit on its crime.

It’s like a robber who steals $1,000 and when caught, is required to return $200, and no jail time. That is how the Trump administration punishes high-level criminality.

Consumer groups hailed Friday’s announcement, the first enforcement action completed since November, when President Donald Trump appointed Mick Mulvaney the CFPB’s interim director.

Mulvaney, a longtime critic of the bureau he now heads, has announced that under his leadership the CFPB will follow through on enforcement investigations already in progress but will initiate no new ones.

As bad as the Obama administration was, in punishing criminal bankers, the Trump administration is far worse. Mulvaney has given bankers an open invitation: “Steal as much as you can, and at worst you will be given a soft tap on the wrist.”

Pamela Banks, senior policy counsel for Consumers Union, warned: “You can’t stop lawbreakers if you aren’t looking for them. The CFPB’s future ability to uncover and stop financial rip-offs is being seriously compromised by Mulvaney’s push to ease investigations of the financial industry.”

Consumers beware. The Trump administration cares nothing for you. It encourages theft.

The $500 million the CFPB will collect from the settlement will go into its civil penalty fund. The fund provides direct compensation to consumers harmed by companies that go bankrupt or don’t have enough money to make these customers whole. Money that is left over goes toward consumer education.

Just like the Social Security “trust fund,” and the Medicare “trust fund,” there is no “CFPB civil penalty fund.” It is an accounting fiction.

Because the U.S. federal government never can run short of U.S. dollars, and in fact, creates dollars at will, it neither needs nor has any sort of trust funds.

Ben Bernanke, former Chair of the Federal Reserve: “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.”

In summary, the $1 billion fine is a disgrace:

  1. It takes $1 billion from the economy
  2. It does nothing to compensate the millions of Wells Fargo’s victims
  3. It does nothing to punish the top executives of Wells Fargo, who perpetrated the crime.
  4. It does nothing to dissuade future criminality.

It is Donald Trump’s invitation to bankers: “The more you cheat, the more money you will make.”
(No surprise from the man who created the scam known as Trump University. He too, got away with a fine.)

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

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

The most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the have-mores and the have-lesses.

Wide Gaps negatively affect poverty, health and longevity, education, housing, law and crime, war, leadership, ownership, bigotry, supply and demand, taxation, GDP, international relations, scientific advancement, the environment, human motivation and well-being, and virtually every other issue in economics.

Implementation of The Ten Steps To Prosperity can narrow the Gaps:

Ten Steps To Prosperity:
1. ELIMINATE FICA (Ten Reasons to Eliminate FICA )
Although the article lists 10 reasons to eliminate FICA, there are two fundamental reasons:
*FICA is the most regressive tax in American history, widening the Gap by punishing the low and middle-income groups, while leaving the rich untouched, and
*The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, neither needs nor uses FICA to support Social Security and Medicare.
2. FEDERALLY FUNDED MEDICARE — PARTS A, B & D, PLUS LONG TERM CARE — FOR EVERYONE (H.R. 676, Medicare for All )
This article addresses the questions:
*Does the economy benefit when the rich can afford better health care than can the rest of Americans?
*Aside from improved health care, what are the other economic effects of “Medicare for everyone?”
*How much would it cost taxpayers?
*Who opposes it?”
3. PROVIDE A MONTHLY ECONOMIC BONUS TO EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA (similar to Social Security for All) (The JG (Jobs Guarantee) vs the GI (Guaranteed Income) vs the EB (Economic Bonus)) Or institute a reverse income tax.
This article is the fifth in a series about direct financial assistance to Americans:

Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Employer of Last Resort is a bad idea. Sunday, Jan 1 2012
MMT’s Job Guarantee (JG) — “Another crazy, rightwing, Austrian nutjob?” Thursday, Jan 12 2012
Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Jobs Guarantee is like the EU’s euro: A beloved solution to the wrong problem. Tuesday, May 29 2012
“You can’t fire me. I’m on JG” Saturday, Jun 2 2012

Economic growth should include the “bottom” 99.9%, not just the .1%, the only question being, how best to accomplish that. Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) favors giving everyone a job. Monetary Sovereignty (MS) favors giving everyone money. The five articles describe the pros and cons of each approach.
4. FREE EDUCATION (INCLUDING POST-GRAD) FOR EVERYONE Five reasons why we should eliminate school loans
Monetarily non-sovereign State and local governments, despite their limited finances, support grades K-12. That level of education may have been sufficient for a largely agrarian economy, but not for our currently more technical economy that demands greater numbers of highly educated workers.
Because state and local funding is so limited, grades K-12 receive short shrift, especially those schools whose populations come from the lowest economic groups. And college is too costly for most families.
An educated populace benefits a nation, and benefitting the nation is the purpose of the federal government, which has the unlimited ability to pay for K-16 and beyond.
5. SALARY FOR ATTENDING SCHOOL
Even were schooling to be completely free, many young people cannot attend, because they and their families cannot afford to support non-workers. In a foundering boat, everyone needs to bail, and no one can take time off for study.
If a young person’s “job” is to learn and be productive, he/she should be paid to do that job, especially since that job is one of America’s most important.
6. ELIMINATE FEDERAL TAXES ON BUSINESS
Businesses are dollar-transferring machines. They transfer dollars from customers to employees, suppliers, shareholders and the federal government (the later having no use for those dollars). Any tax on businesses reduces the amount going to employees, suppliers and shareholders, which diminishes the economy. Ultimately, all business taxes reduce your personal income.
7. INCREASE THE STANDARD INCOME TAX DEDUCTION, ANNUALLY. (Refer to this.) Federal taxes punish taxpayers and harm the economy. The federal government has no need for those punishing and harmful tax dollars. There are several ways to reduce taxes, and we should evaluate and choose the most progressive approaches.
Cutting FICA and business taxes would be a good early step, as both dramatically affect the 99%. Annual increases in the standard income tax deduction, and a reverse income tax also would provide benefits from the bottom up. Both would narrow the Gap.
8. TAX THE VERY RICH (THE “.1%) MORE, WITH HIGHER PROGRESSIVE TAX RATES ON ALL FORMS OF INCOME. (TROPHIC CASCADE)
There was a time when I argued against increasing anyone’s federal taxes. After all, the federal government has no need for tax dollars, and all taxes reduce Gross Domestic Product, thereby negatively affecting the entire economy, including the 99.9%.
But I have come to realize that narrowing the Gap requires trimming the top. It simply would not be possible to provide the 99.9% with enough benefits to narrow the Gap in any meaningful way. Bill Gates reportedly owns $70 billion. To get to that level, he must have been earning $10 billion a year. Pick any acceptable Gap (1000 to 1?), and the lowest paid American would have to receive $10 million a year. Unreasonable.
9. FEDERAL OWNERSHIP OF ALL BANKS (Click The end of private banking and How should America decide “who-gets-money”?)
Banks have created all the dollars that exist. Even dollars created at the direction of the federal government, actually come into being when banks increase the numbers in checking accounts. This gives the banks enormous financial power, and as we all know, power corrupts — especially when multiplied by a profit motive.
Although the federal government also is powerful and corrupted, it does not suffer from a profit motive, the world’s most corrupting influence.
10. INCREASE FEDERAL SPENDING ON THE MYRIAD INITIATIVES THAT BENEFIT AMERICA’S 99.9% (Federal agencies)Browse the agencies. See how many agencies benefit the lower- and middle-income/wealth/ power groups, by adding dollars to the economy and/or by actions more beneficial to the 99.9% than to the .1%.
Save this reference as your primer to current economics. Sadly, much of the material is not being taught in American schools, which is all the more reason for you to use it.

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

———————————————————————————————————————


MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

When should a nation buy or sell gold?

Image result for ben bernanke using a computer
“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.” Ben Bernanke, former Chairman of the Federal Reserve

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

When should a nation buy or sell gold? Here is an article that gives the “The Daily Bell” answer to that question. (Spoiler alert: The Daily Bell is gold-bug paradise.)

How the poster boy for bad financial management lost shareholders $25 billion
By Simon Black – April 19, 2018

In January 1980, the price of gold hit a record high of $850 per ounce. Then it began a nearly two-decade slide. By the summer of 1999, gold hit $250 per ounce– a level not seen since the 1970s.

So naturally it was at this point that the British government made the infamously stupid decision to sell the bulk of their gold reserves.

They began dumping their gold on July 6, 1999. And it took more than two and a half years to auction all 395 metric tons. Gold prices remained depressed during the auctions. The Brits received about $275 per ounce on average.

Almost immediately after the sale, the price of gold started to rise. By the summer of 2002, gold was over $300 per ounce. It was over $400 in 2003… then $500 in 2005. Gold cracked $1,000 in 2009. And it’s $1,350 today.

The British government literally sold most of its gold reserves at the bottom of the market.

In retrospect, the decision looked completely short-sighted and idiotic. And taxpayers were rightfully furious.

Now, let’s get back to the title question: “When should a nation buy or sell gold?”Image result for buried in gold

This is not meant to be a market-timing question like, “Is now the time to buy gold or to sell gold?” Instead, it means, “Should a nation ever buy or sell gold?”

The answer is: It depends upon whether the nation is Monetarily Sovereign, and whether its currency is widely traded on foreign exchange markets.

The above article specifically describes the UK, which is Monetarily Sovereign and whose currency is widely traded. The article claims that the UK was “completely short-sighted and idiotic,” because it should have been able to predict that gold prices would rise.

If the British government were not so “short-sighted and idiotic” it could have received more British pounds for its gold.

I suggest that the article itself is “completely short-sighted and idiotic.” Examine the premise: That the British government should have waited until gold prices were higher.

But why? If they had waited until prices were higher, they would have received more British pounds.

But, being Monetarily Sovereign, the British government has the unlimited ability to create its sovereign currency, the British pound.

Having that unlimited ability, the British government has no need for, and obtains no benefit from, receiving pounds from any source. Even if the Monetarily Sovereign British government levied zero taxes, it still never could run short of pounds.

Visualize that you own a special computer; it allows you to add unlimited pounds to your checking account. You just press a couple keys and (poof!), your checking account has a few billion additional pounds.

You also own a bicycle, that two people wish to buy from you. One offers you ten British pounds and one offers you a million British pounds. To whom would you sell?

The answer: Clearly, it makes no difference. 

You don’t need the pounds; you create them at will. And if your goal simply is to get rid of the bicycle, you can give it to either person, or to anyone else.

The result would be the same. You would be rid of the bicycle, and you would have access to exactly the same number of pounds — i.e. infinite.

Does the British government need to own gold? No. If ever it wishes to make a new crown for the queen or to fill a prince’s teeth, it can get all the gold it needs simply by creating some British pounds, and exchanging them for gold on the open market.

Back to the question: “Should a nation ever buy or sell gold?” This time, let us consider a monetarily non-sovereign entity, like London or France, or you, or me. None of us uses our own sovereign currency. We don’t have one.

Cities, people, and businesses, even those in Monetarily Sovereign nations, need income, so they may have reason to trade — buy or sell — gold, silver, copper or any other commodity or product.

Being monetarily non-sovereign, we do not have the unlimited ability to create a sovereign currency. So we need income to fund our spending. London and France need taxes; you and I need salaries or some other form of income.

There may come times when you have a greater need for whatever currency you use than for gold, and those would be good times for you to sell gold.

There may be other times when you prefer to own a little-used product of limited functional value, that pays you no interest or dividends, costs you money to store and ship, and even more money to insure, and subjects you to more risk than does owning shares in an S&P index fund.

When that time comes, you can trade your currency for gold.

One other question should be answered: If net exports grow an economy, why don’t net exports of gold grow the economy?

Net exports are, in fact, imports of currency, and are part of the equation for Gross Domestic Product:

GDP = Government Spending + Non-government Spending + Net Exports

However, there is a vast difference between imports of currency to a Monetarily Sovereign government and imports of currency to the monetarily non-sovereign economy.

The former, having the unlimited ability to create its sovereign currency, does not benefit from imports of that sovereign currency. The latter grows because of currency imports, as the above equation demonstrates.

If a Monetarily Sovereign government exports gold, the currency goes to the government, where it is destroyed. If a person or business sells gold to another nation, the money goes into the economy, and is stimulative.

In summary, Monetarily Sovereign nations, whose currency is freely traded on foreign exchange markets, never need to sell anything to obtain more of their own sovereign currency. These governments need no income.

Yes, the Daily Bell article was “completely short-sighted and idiotic,” from the standpoint of financial advice, but it made perfect sense for a gold-bug web site.

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

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

The most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the have-mores and the have-lesses.

Wide Gaps negatively affect poverty, health and longevity, education, housing, law and crime, war, leadership, ownership, bigotry, supply and demand, taxation, GDP, international relations, scientific advancement, the environment, human motivation and well-being, and virtually every other issue in economics.

Implementation of The Ten Steps To Prosperity can narrow the Gaps:

Ten Steps To Prosperity:
1. ELIMINATE FICA (Ten Reasons to Eliminate FICA )
Although the article lists 10 reasons to eliminate FICA, there are two fundamental reasons:
*FICA is the most regressive tax in American history, widening the Gap by punishing the low and middle-income groups, while leaving the rich untouched, and
*The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, neither needs nor uses FICA to support Social Security and Medicare.
2. FEDERALLY FUNDED MEDICARE — PARTS A, B & D, PLUS LONG TERM CARE — FOR EVERYONE (H.R. 676, Medicare for All )
This article addresses the questions:
*Does the economy benefit when the rich can afford better health care than can the rest of Americans?
*Aside from improved health care, what are the other economic effects of “Medicare for everyone?”
*How much would it cost taxpayers?
*Who opposes it?”
3. PROVIDE A MONTHLY ECONOMIC BONUS TO EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA (similar to Social Security for All) (The JG (Jobs Guarantee) vs the GI (Guaranteed Income) vs the EB (Economic Bonus)) Or institute a reverse income tax.
This article is the fifth in a series about direct financial assistance to Americans:

Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Employer of Last Resort is a bad idea. Sunday, Jan 1 2012
MMT’s Job Guarantee (JG) — “Another crazy, rightwing, Austrian nutjob?” Thursday, Jan 12 2012
Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Jobs Guarantee is like the EU’s euro: A beloved solution to the wrong problem. Tuesday, May 29 2012
“You can’t fire me. I’m on JG” Saturday, Jun 2 2012

Economic growth should include the “bottom” 99.9%, not just the .1%, the only question being, how best to accomplish that. Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) favors giving everyone a job. Monetary Sovereignty (MS) favors giving everyone money. The five articles describe the pros and cons of each approach.
4. FREE EDUCATION (INCLUDING POST-GRAD) FOR EVERYONE Five reasons why we should eliminate school loans
Monetarily non-sovereign State and local governments, despite their limited finances, support grades K-12. That level of education may have been sufficient for a largely agrarian economy, but not for our currently more technical economy that demands greater numbers of highly educated workers.
Because state and local funding is so limited, grades K-12 receive short shrift, especially those schools whose populations come from the lowest economic groups. And college is too costly for most families.
An educated populace benefits a nation, and benefitting the nation is the purpose of the federal government, which has the unlimited ability to pay for K-16 and beyond.
5. SALARY FOR ATTENDING SCHOOL
Even were schooling to be completely free, many young people cannot attend, because they and their families cannot afford to support non-workers. In a foundering boat, everyone needs to bail, and no one can take time off for study.
If a young person’s “job” is to learn and be productive, he/she should be paid to do that job, especially since that job is one of America’s most important.
6. ELIMINATE FEDERAL TAXES ON BUSINESS
Businesses are dollar-transferring machines. They transfer dollars from customers to employees, suppliers, shareholders and the federal government (the later having no use for those dollars). Any tax on businesses reduces the amount going to employees, suppliers and shareholders, which diminishes the economy. Ultimately, all business taxes reduce your personal income.
7. INCREASE THE STANDARD INCOME TAX DEDUCTION, ANNUALLY. (Refer to this.) Federal taxes punish taxpayers and harm the economy. The federal government has no need for those punishing and harmful tax dollars. There are several ways to reduce taxes, and we should evaluate and choose the most progressive approaches.
Cutting FICA and business taxes would be a good early step, as both dramatically affect the 99%. Annual increases in the standard income tax deduction, and a reverse income tax also would provide benefits from the bottom up. Both would narrow the Gap.
8. TAX THE VERY RICH (THE “.1%) MORE, WITH HIGHER PROGRESSIVE TAX RATES ON ALL FORMS OF INCOME. (TROPHIC CASCADE)
There was a time when I argued against increasing anyone’s federal taxes. After all, the federal government has no need for tax dollars, and all taxes reduce Gross Domestic Product, thereby negatively affecting the entire economy, including the 99.9%.
But I have come to realize that narrowing the Gap requires trimming the top. It simply would not be possible to provide the 99.9% with enough benefits to narrow the Gap in any meaningful way. Bill Gates reportedly owns $70 billion. To get to that level, he must have been earning $10 billion a year. Pick any acceptable Gap (1000 to 1?), and the lowest paid American would have to receive $10 million a year. Unreasonable.
9. FEDERAL OWNERSHIP OF ALL BANKS (Click The end of private banking and How should America decide “who-gets-money”?)
Banks have created all the dollars that exist. Even dollars created at the direction of the federal government, actually come into being when banks increase the numbers in checking accounts. This gives the banks enormous financial power, and as we all know, power corrupts — especially when multiplied by a profit motive.
Although the federal government also is powerful and corrupted, it does not suffer from a profit motive, the world’s most corrupting influence.
10. INCREASE FEDERAL SPENDING ON THE MYRIAD INITIATIVES THAT BENEFIT AMERICA’S 99.9% (Federal agencies)Browse the agencies. See how many agencies benefit the lower- and middle-income/wealth/ power groups, by adding dollars to the economy and/or by actions more beneficial to the 99.9% than to the .1%.
Save this reference as your primer to current economics. Sadly, much of the material is not being taught in American schools, which is all the more reason for you to use it.

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

———————————————————————————————————————


MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Lie with the pig. Embrace the pig. Muddy like the pig.

It takes only two things to keep people in chains:
The ignorance of the oppressed
And the treachery of their leaders

…………………………………………………………………………

If you lie with the pig –if you embrace the pig — you will become muddy like the pig.

That is what I think about when I read articles like this one that appeared in the 4/18/18 Chicago Tribune and other papers:

Donald Trump is contagious. He turned James Comey into Donald Trump.
By Karen Tumulty

Donald Trump is contagious. He turns everyone he touches into Donald Trump. Now he has done it to James B. Comey.

The former FBI director has a book to sell, one that knits a compelling and credible story about his experiences with a president who built “a cocoon of alternative reality that he was busily wrapping around all of us.”

If only Comey had stayed focused on what is important. But instead, he stooped, revealing a pettiness, insecurity, and need for affirmation that are among the hallmarks of Trump’s own character.

He noted that the president’s hands were not as large as his own, and we know what that means. Comey, who is 6-foot-8, observed that Trump is shorter than he appears to be on television, that his face is “slightly orange, with bright white half-moons under his eyes where I assumed he placed small tanning goggles.”

The former FBI director also wanted us to know that President Barack Obama respected his integrity and his ability, even after Comey’s handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation contributed to her 2016 defeat.

He tells us that a tearful Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) sympathized with his “impossible position.” As he blasts the president for being driven by ego, Comey reveals that his own stays in high gear as well.

Another case in point: White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly. Comey writes that after he was fired by the president, Kelly — then homeland security secretary — called him to say that he wanted to resign, rather than work for “dishonorable people who would treat someone like me in such a manner.”

Less than a year later, Kelly would show that he was capable of calling a top staffer accused of spousal abuse “a man of true integrity and honor.”

Nor could he resist humiliating former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on the way out, making sure that reporters were informed that Tillerson was on the toilet when Kelly delivered the news of his dismissal.

In big ways and small, everyone around him ends up being Trump.

And then there’s this article from The Week

GOP strategist Steve Schmidt has some advice for Nikki Haley: Run
By: Catherine Garcia

Steve Schmidt, a Republican strategist who has worked on campaigns for George W. Bush and John McCain, is doling out free advice to Nikki Haley, and President Trump’s not going to like it.

Haley, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said on Sunday that the Trump administration was planning to impose new sanctions against Russia on Monday, which ended up not happening.

Trump’s top economic adviser, Larry Kudlow, said on Tuesday that Haley had “momentary confusion,” to which Haley responded, “With all due respect, I don’t get confused.”

Schmidt thinks Haley must step down. “Trump has shattered Nikki Haley’s credibility as irrevocably as he obliterated his moral authority after Charlottesville,” he tweeted Tuesday night.

“Trump has humiliated her and she is at a fork in the road. Her choice is either to resign or take on the permanent stench of one more tainted factotum.” The “first person to resign from this cancerous administration on principle will look back on that day the same way Powerball winners look back on the moment they bought their golden ticket.”

Should Haley remain part of the administration, he added, “it will be at the cost of her dignity.”

James Comey, John Kelly, Nikki Haley, Larry Kudlow — once respected, they all had their times of lying with the pig, and all now are muddied.

Never mind the Michael Cohens, the Sean Hannitys, the Steve Bannons, the Anthony Scaramuccis. They began with dirty reputations that merely became dirtier from their association with Trump.

But what of Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the daughter of hyper-religious Mike Huckabee, the woman who is forced, every day, to lie on behalf of Donald Trump? Her press conference responses have become a running joke. What will be her reputation and legacy after lying with (for) the pig?

What of Kellyanne Conway, a bright woman whose attempts to explain what cannot be explained, are even more humorous than those of Sarah Sanders. Will she be remembered for anything other than her outrageous misstatements?

And then there’s Defense Secretary Jim Mattis:

Mattis Wanted Congressional Approval Before Striking Syria. He Was Overruled. It marked the second public divergence of views between Mr. Trump and Mr. Mattis over Syria in the past two weeks. (The 105 missiles did not hit Syrian military units believed to be responsible for carrying out an April 7 suspected chemical weapons attack on Douma.)

Part of Mattis’s legacy will be as the general who fired 105 million-dollar missiles that hit nothing.

What of Ethics Office Director Walter Shaub (Donald Trump has an ethics office???) How will Shaub be remembered. The New York Times offers an opinion on that:

“Departing Ethics Chief: U.S. Is ‘Close to a Laughingstock’

Mr. Shaub called for nearly a dozen legal changes to strengthen the federal ethics system: changes that, in many cases, he had not considered necessary before Mr. Trump’s election. Every other president since the 1970s, Republican or Democrat, worked closely with the ethics office, he said.

A White House official dismissed the criticism, saying on Sunday that Mr. Shaub was simply promoting himself and had failed to do his job properly.

“Mr. Schaub’s penchant for raising concerns on matters well outside his scope with the media before ever raising them with the White House — which happens to be his actual day job — is rather telling,” Lindsay E. Walters, a White House spokeswoman, said in a statement that misspelled Mr. Shaub’s name.

“The truth is, Mr. Schaub is not interested in advising the executive branch on ethics. He’s interested in grandstanding and lobbying for more expansive powers in the office he holds.”

And let us not forget elfin Jeff Sessions as described in this article:

“In Trump’s latest move to make Sessions look like an idiot, he has sided with states that have legalized marijuana.”

Sessions thought he was going to be a Trump guy, coming out early in support of Trump for president. He thought he was in for sure when Trump put him up for the U.S. attorney general job.

Poor, stupid Sessions. When he recused himself from the Russia investigation, he should have known old Donnie was a fair-weather friend.

Then, dare we mention Trump’s daughter, Ivanka? Remember her? She was supposed to modify Trump’s erratic behavior, essentially being the adult in the room. Having failed, she has disappeared along with her revealed-to-be-crooked husband, Jared,  and her revealed-to-be-idiot brother, Don Jr.  Three reputations, besmirched.

Donald Trump is the tar baby of American politics. You cannot touch him and come away clean.

Let us not forget the so-called religious-right, nee “moral majority,” which so long as they can own guns, deport dark-skinned people, and prevent poor girls from getting abortions (Rich girls have no problem with that), they are willing to overlook the immorality of a multiple adulterer, assaulter of women, compulsive liar, and cheater of employees, students, and creditors.

In short, the religious right, faux Christians have sold their souls to the devil, and that is how history and perhaps even their Lord will remember them.

In that same vein, consider the Republican Party. Traditionally, it had been the party of “law-and-order,” the party of honor and morality, the party of family values.

But its leaders — Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn, Orrin Hatch, Paul Ryan, Kevin McCarthy, Steve Scalise — felt that political expedience was more important than law, honor, morality and family values.

So, they defended and embraced an unlawful, immoral man, a man most distant from family values.

Political expedience is proving not to be so expedient, as the nation now moves away from the Republicans in disgust, and I expect this will be reflected in coming elections.

And finally, and most importantly, think about the reputation of the United States of America, being led by the least qualified President in your lifetime, perhaps ever.

Trump’s First Year: Everyone Hates Us Now
A damning new Gallup poll shows how the perception of the United States has changed under Trump.

In 2016, 48 percent of the world’s citizens approved of the United States from a leadership perspective. By 2017, just 30 percent did.

What changed, of course, was the leader. President Donald Trump has overseen a destructive period for America’s reputation abroad since he took the reins from Barack Obama a year ago.

Thus, does Trump “make America great, again.” If you lie with the pig –if you embrace the pig — you will become muddy like the pig.

Trump has muddied us all. Many years will be required for us to cleanse ourselves.

Pray.

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


MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

 

A perfect example of deception — by ignorance or by intent?

It takes only two things to keep people in chains:
The ignorance of the oppressed
And the treachery of their leaders

…………………………………………………………………………

I do not understand quantum chromodynamics. Therefore, I do not pretend to understand quantum chromodynamics, and I do not write about the subject.

Would that all the people, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, abstained from writing about the subject. Unfortunately, many (most?) articles about federal finance reveal the authors’ abysmal understanding.

The U.S. government and others (Canada, Japan, the UK, Australia, et al) are Monetarily Sovereign. They create their own sovereign currency and pay their debts using that sovereign currency.

By contrast, cities, counties, states, euro nations, businesses, you, and I are monetarily non-sovereign. We do not have a sovereign currency with which to pay our debts. Unlike the U.S. government, you and I and the other non-sovereign entities can run short of whatever currency we use for bill-paying.

Writers, who do not account for the difference, wrongly seem to believe U.S. government finances are similar to monetarily non-sovereign entities.

Consider President Barack Obama:

“Government has to start living within its means, just like families do. We have to cut the spending we can’t afford so we can put the economy on sounder footing, and give our businesses the confidence they need to grow and create jobs.” —President Barack Obama, weekly radio address, July 2, 2011

He was wrong. The U.S. government is not “just like families.” Federal finances are nothing like family finances. The President spoke out of ignorance or deceit, I don’t know which. Many speakers and writers do the same.

John Steele Gordon is one such writer.

Here are excerpts from his article that appeared in Commentary.

Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistical Deficits
The other last refuge.
By John Steele Gordon
April 17, 2018

John Steele Gordon is an economic historian and the author of, among other works, An Empire of Wealth:The Epic History of American Economic Power. He was educated at Millbrook School and Vanderbilt University, graduating with a B.A. in history in 1966. 

debt
The famous “debt clock” that wrongly implies you owe the federal debt.

Someone in the 19th century said that there are three forms of lying: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

If you would like a beautiful example of the last category of mendacity, check out David Leonhardt’s April 15th column in the New York Times, entitled (try not to laugh) “The Democrats Are the Party of Fiscal Responsibility.”

As you will see, Mr. Gordon will provide excellent examples either of his own mendacity or his pure ignorance of the subject.

In our previous post, The CRFB myth machine keeps on rolling, I assumed the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) was deliberately deceptive. In today’s post, I wonder whether Mr. Gordon, a Bachelor of Arts in history, simply never learned about federal finance.

Including that notorious and misleading debt clock as a lead to his article, is only the beginning of his article’s wrongheadedness.

He continues:

In it, he compared the deficits run up by each Democratic and Republican administration from Jimmy Carter on to the present with the GDP of that time.

We have written at length about why high Debt/GDP and the Deficit/GDP ratios constitute no threat to a Monetarily Sovereign entity, the U .S. government.

These ratios are presented with the implications that a) the federal government can’t afford to service some level of deficit or debt, and b) that taxpayers will have to bear the burden.

In fact, the U.S. federal government can afford anything, and taxpayers do not pay for federal obligations. To quote some real experts:

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.”

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.

As Greenspan, Bernanke, and the StL Fed say, the federal government can pay any bills by “printing” dollars, not by collecting taxes. Clearly, you taxpayers and your grandchildren will not be burdened (as some pundits claim).

The article continues:

Whatever his methodology, Leonhardt was comparing apples and oranges.

Ah, the irony of the apples/oranges analogy, since there can be a no better example of that fruit salad than Debt and GDP, two unrelated, completely non-comparable figures.

“Debt” equals the deficit total over many years. GDP is a one-year measure of spending in America — federal, non-federal and foreign. A high Debt (or Deficit) / GDP ratio merely implies the financial contribution the federal government makes to our economy. The ratio says nothing about affordability, the need for taxes, economic growth or any other important measure.

Gordon wrote:

It was not Bill Clinton who slew the deficit dragon in the 1990’s but the Congress, which the public transferred to Republican control in 1994 for the first time in 40 years following an outcry over Democratic profligacy.

Gordon refers to the deficit as a “dragon,” not realizing that federal deficits add dollars to the economy, and that without federal deficits it mathematically is impossible for the economy to grow:

GDP = Federal Spending + Non-federal Spending + Net Exports

Federal Spending and Non-federal Spending both rely on the dollars created via federal deficit spending.

Gordon also demonstrates he does not understand the difference between “Total Federal Debt” and “Federal Debt Held By The Public,” when he writes:

 The Republican Congress increased spending by a mere 18 percent between 1995 and 2000, while the roaring economy increased tax revenues by 51 percent.

Nor did Leonhardt take into account the phony accounting the federal government uses to obscure reality. Officially, we ran surpluses (meaning, by definition, that income exceeded outgo) in 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001.

But the national debt went up, not down, in each of those four years.

This graph demonstrates the difference:

The blue line (Total Debt) includes internal debt (dollars federal agencies owe to each other). The red line is the total of T-securities owned by the U.S. and other economies.

The national “debt” went up only if one includes the internal debt that federal agencies owe each other — i.e. what the right pocket owes the left pocket.

Surpluses however, refer only to external debt — dollars flowing from the federal government into the economy. The real federal debt went down from 1997 through 2000.

Predictably, the surpluses beginning in 1997 led to the recession of 2001, which was cured by deficit spending.

(As an aside, every depression in U.S. history, including the “Great Depression,” was introduced by years of federal surpluses, which sucked dollars out of the economy,)

Then comes perhaps the funniest or saddest paragraph in Gordon’s entire article:

Nor did Leonhardt take into account the fact that recessions cause government spending to go up and government revenues to go down—something quite beyond the control of Congress or the President.

Recessions don’t “cause” government spending to go up. Deficit spending, which pumps dollars into the economy, is the primary method governments use to cure recessions.

And to say that government deficit spending is “quite beyond the control of Congress or the President,” goes well beyond ordinary ignorance, into the land of the blind.

Gordon ends his screed, with this misleading, self-defeating conclusion:

But in the last forty years, the only time the federal government made a serious, sustained effort to rein in the deficit was when a Republican Congress was writing the checks.

In fact, Democrat Bill Clinton was President, and though Clinton often boasts about his surpluses, “reining in the deficit” caused a recession, which was cured by deficit spending.

In summary, I don’t know John Steele Gordon. I don’t know whether his wholly wrong article was designed to mislead or merely was written out of ignorance.

Either way, the effect is the same: Deception. A public that already does not understand Monetary Sovereignty and federal finances, is further vaccinated by complete misunderstanding.

And that always has negative consequences.

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

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

The most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the have-mores and the have-lesses.

Wide Gaps negatively affect poverty, health and longevity, education, housing, law and crime, war, leadership, ownership, bigotry, supply and demand, taxation, GDP, international relations, scientific advancement, the environment, human motivation and well-being, and virtually every other issue in economics.

Implementation of The Ten Steps To Prosperity can narrow the Gaps:

Ten Steps To Prosperity:
1. ELIMINATE FICA (Ten Reasons to Eliminate FICA )
Although the article lists 10 reasons to eliminate FICA, there are two fundamental reasons:
*FICA is the most regressive tax in American history, widening the Gap by punishing the low and middle-income groups, while leaving the rich untouched, and
*The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, neither needs nor uses FICA to support Social Security and Medicare.
2. FEDERALLY FUNDED MEDICARE — PARTS A, B & D, PLUS LONG TERM CARE — FOR EVERYONE (H.R. 676, Medicare for All )
This article addresses the questions:
*Does the economy benefit when the rich can afford better health care than can the rest of Americans?
*Aside from improved health care, what are the other economic effects of “Medicare for everyone?”
*How much would it cost taxpayers?
*Who opposes it?”
3. PROVIDE A MONTHLY ECONOMIC BONUS TO EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA (similar to Social Security for All) (The JG (Jobs Guarantee) vs the GI (Guaranteed Income) vs the EB (Economic Bonus)) Or institute a reverse income tax.
This article is the fifth in a series about direct financial assistance to Americans:

Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Employer of Last Resort is a bad idea. Sunday, Jan 1 2012
MMT’s Job Guarantee (JG) — “Another crazy, rightwing, Austrian nutjob?” Thursday, Jan 12 2012
Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Jobs Guarantee is like the EU’s euro: A beloved solution to the wrong problem. Tuesday, May 29 2012
“You can’t fire me. I’m on JG” Saturday, Jun 2 2012

Economic growth should include the “bottom” 99.9%, not just the .1%, the only question being, how best to accomplish that. Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) favors giving everyone a job. Monetary Sovereignty (MS) favors giving everyone money. The five articles describe the pros and cons of each approach.
4. FREE EDUCATION (INCLUDING POST-GRAD) FOR EVERYONE Five reasons why we should eliminate school loans
Monetarily non-sovereign State and local governments, despite their limited finances, support grades K-12. That level of education may have been sufficient for a largely agrarian economy, but not for our currently more technical economy that demands greater numbers of highly educated workers.
Because state and local funding is so limited, grades K-12 receive short shrift, especially those schools whose populations come from the lowest economic groups. And college is too costly for most families.
An educated populace benefits a nation, and benefitting the nation is the purpose of the federal government, which has the unlimited ability to pay for K-16 and beyond.
5. SALARY FOR ATTENDING SCHOOL
Even were schooling to be completely free, many young people cannot attend, because they and their families cannot afford to support non-workers. In a foundering boat, everyone needs to bail, and no one can take time off for study.
If a young person’s “job” is to learn and be productive, he/she should be paid to do that job, especially since that job is one of America’s most important.
6. ELIMINATE FEDERAL TAXES ON BUSINESS
Businesses are dollar-transferring machines. They transfer dollars from customers to employees, suppliers, shareholders and the federal government (the later having no use for those dollars). Any tax on businesses reduces the amount going to employees, suppliers and shareholders, which diminishes the economy. Ultimately, all business taxes reduce your personal income.
7. INCREASE THE STANDARD INCOME TAX DEDUCTION, ANNUALLY. (Refer to this.) Federal taxes punish taxpayers and harm the economy. The federal government has no need for those punishing and harmful tax dollars. There are several ways to reduce taxes, and we should evaluate and choose the most progressive approaches.
Cutting FICA and business taxes would be a good early step, as both dramatically affect the 99%. Annual increases in the standard income tax deduction, and a reverse income tax also would provide benefits from the bottom up. Both would narrow the Gap.
8. TAX THE VERY RICH (THE “.1%) MORE, WITH HIGHER PROGRESSIVE TAX RATES ON ALL FORMS OF INCOME. (TROPHIC CASCADE)
There was a time when I argued against increasing anyone’s federal taxes. After all, the federal government has no need for tax dollars, and all taxes reduce Gross Domestic Product, thereby negatively affecting the entire economy, including the 99.9%.
But I have come to realize that narrowing the Gap requires trimming the top. It simply would not be possible to provide the 99.9% with enough benefits to narrow the Gap in any meaningful way. Bill Gates reportedly owns $70 billion. To get to that level, he must have been earning $10 billion a year. Pick any acceptable Gap (1000 to 1?), and the lowest paid American would have to receive $10 million a year. Unreasonable.
9. FEDERAL OWNERSHIP OF ALL BANKS (Click The end of private banking and How should America decide “who-gets-money”?)
Banks have created all the dollars that exist. Even dollars created at the direction of the federal government, actually come into being when banks increase the numbers in checking accounts. This gives the banks enormous financial power, and as we all know, power corrupts — especially when multiplied by a profit motive.
Although the federal government also is powerful and corrupted, it does not suffer from a profit motive, the world’s most corrupting influence.
10. INCREASE FEDERAL SPENDING ON THE MYRIAD INITIATIVES THAT BENEFIT AMERICA’S 99.9% (Federal agencies)Browse the agencies. See how many agencies benefit the lower- and middle-income/wealth/ power groups, by adding dollars to the economy and/or by actions more beneficial to the 99.9% than to the .1%.
Save this reference as your primer to current economics. Sadly, much of the material is not being taught in American schools, which is all the more reason for you to use it.

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

———————————————————————————————————————


MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY