The secret of Trump’s 1/3

Image result for make america ignorant again

.

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

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Normal people shake their heads in bewilderment when they see Donald Trump’s poll numbers. “How,” they ask, “could (approximately) 1/3 of Americans still approve of Trump’s minimal “accomplishments” and outrageous actions?

Ask a Trump follower this question and you will receive several answers, all of which seem to be a part of three basic answers.

1. The “whatabout” defense that excuses everything. Mention any of Trump’s misdeeds, no matter how awful, and his backers will say, “What about Hillary (or Obama, or Bill Clinton, or the Democrats)?

The idea is that unless the Democrats are 100% perfect, and other Democrats have not seemed to be sufficiently critical,  Trump is given leave to do anything, no matter how awful.

Attacking women is OK if Bill Clinton also attacked women. Lying is OK if Obama ever lied. Being a crook is OK if Hillary also did something questionable. The child’s excuse for being naughty is that some other child was naughty, too.

2. The “fake news” defense, which claims that any news critical of Trump is fake, and unless news comes from Brietbart or FOX, it has no credibility. No need to think or provide any facts. Merely close your eyes and shout “Fake News.”

3. The “He tells it like it is,” defense, which means Trump “mirrors his backers’ own hatreds — hatreds of blacks, browns, Mexicans, foreigners, Muslims, women, gays, and the poor. So long as Trump is tough on any hated group, all his actions are endorsed. Hitler taught this.

The “whatabout” defense is illogical because no amount of evil done by others should excuse the evil done by the President of the United States. (“Your honor, I killed him, but it’s OK because others have killed people.”)

The “fake news” defense is illogical because not everything negative can be fake news, though Trump claims it is. (“If it comes from CNN or the NY Times, it’s always a lie. If it comes from Breitbart or FOX it’s the truth.”)

The purpose of this post is to focus on the “He tells it like it is” defense. Does Trump really “tell it like it is,” or are his followers adding their own meanings to Trump’s ramblings.

Here is Trump’s famous answer to a question about the Iran nuclear deal, as reprinted in a This Week article (“The case for reading Trump”) by Bonnie Kristian:

“Look, having nuclear — my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, okay, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart — you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, okay, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I’m one of the smartest people anywhere in the world — it’s true! — but when you’re a conservative Republican they try — oh, do they do a number — that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune — you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged — but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me — it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are (nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what’s going to happen and he was right — who would have thought?), but when you look at what’s going on with the four prisoners — now it used to be three, now it’s four — but when it was three and even now, I would have said it’s all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don’t, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years — but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us.”

I suspect that no thinking person would consider that response to be “telling it like it is.” So what is going on, here?

Trump’s followers mentally edit what Trump actually says. They fill in the blanks so the context means what they want it to mean. For instance:

“Look, having nuclear. . . my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, okay, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart” – – –

This was random, rambling gobbledegook, having nothing to do with the Iranian nuclear agreement. But, to a Trump follower, it translates to: “I was born a very smart man who knows all about nuclear issues, so trust me.”

Then came:

” . . . you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, okay, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I’m one of the smartest people anywhere in the world — it’s true! — 

Here, he tells his audience he not only has smart genes, but he is one of the smartest people in the world.  Oh, really? No thinking person believes that, but thinking isn’t necessary. Thinking is discouraged. Belief is necessary.

He continues:

” . . . but when you’re a conservative Republican they try — oh, do they do a number — that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune — you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged. . . “

In his mind, and in the minds of his followers, “‘they’” (Democrats) don’t respect ‘our’  (your and my) intelligence so I have to brag to prove it to them.”

” . . . but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me — it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are (nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what’s going to happen and he was right — who would have thought?) . . . “

This last is incomprehensible. “Not as important as lives”? What does that mean?  And, imagine someone saying he knows nuclear is powerful because his uncle told him so, 35 years ago — and his uncle was right.  This bit of ignorance comes to you from “one of the smartest people in the whole world.”

But his followers understand it as great wisdom. They hear something like: “I have my uncle’s brains, and I am so smart I easily could have done a better deal.”

What is the better deal? How does Trump know what he claims? No need to answer. Just trust him.

” . . . but when you look at what’s going on with the four prisoners — now it used to be three, now it’s four — but when it was three and even now, I would have said it’s all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don’t, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years . . .”

“Used to be three, now it’s four . . . “ means, “Our people were so confused about details, they could not negotiate well.”

“. . . it’s all in the messenger . . .” probably implies that our people were weak, while Trump would have been strong.

“. . . the women are smarter right now than the men,” means that Muslims are backward, and so we should have been able to out-negotiate them, but . . .

” . . . but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us.”

His climax: You were let down by Obama because he let even these backward Muslims get the best of us.

Trump’s followers, having heard a con man’s double-talk, came away with the feeling that they had heard common sense wisdom from one of the smartest people in the world.

Like so many dictators, Trump is a great speechifier. He can harangue an audience with the best of them. His people don’t really care what he says so much as “what he means.” And “what he means” is what they mean, what they believe, and what they want.

Because what Trump actually says is rank nonsense, his White House handlers repeatedly feel the need to explain what Trump “really meant” in his last speech.

That also is why the “whatabout” defense and the “fake news” defense are used so often. It is almost impossible to defend what Trump says and does, so all one can do is attack imagined enemies. (“If he said something stupid, it’s because Hillary is crooked.”)

If you can meet every negative with variations on “What about Hillary,” and “That’s just fake news,” you don’t really need to think about facts.

This is the source of frustration for the 2/3 of Americans who recognize Trump’s massive failings. They wonder why the other 1/3 doesn’t get it. But the other 1/3 does get “it,” and the “it” they get is that: “Trump is great, and despite any defects you people claim he has, he is fighting against my enemies and for me.”

Image result for covering ears
I can’t hear you. I can’t hear you.

The “Whatabout” and “fake news” and “He tells it like it is,” defenses are impenetrable. They cannot be overcome with facts. Reality means nothing. Trump can do no wrong. All evil is excused.

The Trump defenses are a first cousin to covering your ears and screaming, “I can’t hear you. I can’t hear you.”

Think of it: Trump has cheated poor employees and students, cheated rich investors and lenders, cheated on his wives, cheated on his foundation and his taxes; he lies and brags incessantly, and does not attend any church — yet those of the so-called “religious” right — the righteous right who demand “law & order” for others —  they love him.

It’s perfect.

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-less.

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

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

Ten Steps To Prosperity:
1. ELIMINATE FICA (Ten Reasons to Eliminate FICA )
Although the article lists 10 reasons to eliminate FICA, there are two fundamental reasons:
*FICA is the most regressive tax in American history, widening the Gap by punishing the low and middle-income groups, while leaving the rich untouched, and
*The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, neither needs nor uses FICA to support Social Security and Medicare.
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

 

What is the single most important issue in the GOP tax bills?

Image result for make america ignorant again

.

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

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

First, we must acknowledge that there is not one GOP tax bill, nor are there even two GOP tax bills. There is a multitude of ever-evolving Senate and House tax bills, with features popping up, only to be knocked down, like “Wac-a-Mole” creatures.

Here then is a partial list of  possible issues, after which I’ll tell you the single, most important, all-encompassing issue.

POSSIBLE TAX BILL ISSUES:

  1. The federal deficit
  2. The federal debt
  3. Tax rate brackets
  4. Tax cuts for the rich
  5. Tax cuts for the middle
  6. Tax cuts for the poor
  7.  Business tax rate cuts
  8. Alternative minimum tax
  9. The standard deduction
  10. Child tax credit
  11. Personal exemptions
  12. Dependent exemptions
  13. Itemized deduction for state and local income and sales taxes
  14. Mortgage interest deduction
  15. Itemized deduction on property taxes
  16. Business interest deductions
  17. Excise tax on payments from U.S.-based multinational firms to their foreign affiliates.
  18. 529 Education Saving Plan contributions
  19. Alimony deductibles
  20. Political advocacy by churches
  21. Tax credits for adoption and for disabled and retired people
  22. Deduction of student loan interest by former students
  23. Inflation indexing of some provisions

Regarding the above list, there are two things of which I am sure:
*No one — not you, not me, not Congress, not the Congressional Budget Office, and especially not Donald Trump — can know the net financial implications of these issues

*Yet, to get you to accept the final bill, Trump and the GOP will assure you that it is good for you and not beneficial to the upper .1%. Those will be lies, but 35% of you will believe whatever they tell you.

There is one, most important fact not being discussed by the media, the politicians, or the economists::

The fact: The federal government has neither need for, nor use of, your tax dollars. 

Unlike state and local governments, the federal government is Monetarily Sovereign and so cannot run short of its own sovereign currency, the dollar. It uniquely creates brand new dollars, ad hoc, every time it pays a bill.

The U.S. dollar is backed solely by the asset: The full faith and credit of the federal government, an asset of which the federal government has an unlimited supply. It never can run short of full faith and credit; it never can run short of dollars.

Unlike state and local governments, the federal government needs no income. It doesn’t need or spend tax dollars.  It doesn’t need to borrow, and in fact, it doesn’t borrow. The federal government could collect $0 taxes, and issue zero T-securities, and still continue to spend, forever.

Thus, the entire tax bill is based on the false assumption that federal taxes are necessary, and not just necessary but in short supply.

False assumptions lead to false conclusions.  If for instance, you begin with the assumption that the earth is flat, then all the ideas about how not to fall off the edge are wrong. In its essence, the tax bill is an exercise in finding ways not to fall off the edge of a mythical world.

Not only do federal taxes not fund federal spending, but the very existence of federal taxes skews the economy:

*Without federal taxes, religions and other charities would receive far fewer contributions. Is a public purpose served when the government provides tacit financial support to religions? Is it even Constitutional?

*Most charities provide services and support the government itself should provide. Would the economy be more stimulated if the government added dollars to the economy by paying directly for activities now supported by charities?

*Homeowners can deduct property taxes, but renters cannot deduct rent (The owners deduct the taxes.) Is this bias toward ownership fair and economically beneficial?

*Long-term capital gains, short-term capital gains, salaries, and many other kinds of income all are taxed at different rates. This difference affects the activities in which businesses are willing to engage. For example, why should taxes related to Research & Development — not just R&D goals — determine the kind and extent of R&D?

*Business expenses, but not personal expenses, are partly funded by the federal tax deductions. Is this economically fair and beneficial?

*Some states collect income taxes; some do not. To the degree state and local taxes are deductible, they can be viewed as funded by the federal government.  Is this economically fair and beneficial?

Federal tax collections have grown massively. In 1967, the government collected $149 billion in taxes. In 2016, the government collected about $3.3 trillion, a massive amount of money taken from the private sector. Of that, about $1.07 trillion is FICA — more than triple the amount of income taxes paid by businesses.

To demonstrate how huge $3.3 trillion is, imagine the federal government tripling the budgets for Food & Agriculture, Transportation, Social Security, Unemployment, Science, Energy, Environment, International Affairs, Housing, Veterans Benefits, Medicare, Medicaid, Education, and operating the Government — and still having dollars left over from the $3.3 trillion.

That is how many dollars are taken from the economy and destroyed in a year.

Yes, destroyed, because once dollars reach the U.S. Treasury, they cease to exist as part of any money supply measure. (The reason is simple. Because the government creates infinite dollars by spending, it is meaningless to ask, “How many dollars does the federal government have?” It either has zero or infinite, depending on how you define, “have.” [Go ahead, try it.])

The entire discussion of federal taxes should devolve to just one, most important issue:

How much does the private sector need? 

It’s a complicated issue, involving human needs, economic needs, and politically calculated needs.  In any event, we should not debate federal deficits, federal debt, or federal taxes, but rather: How much money should the federal government spend on the myriad areas that benefit the people of America?

That is the most important, all-encompassing issue — the only issue, really. All else is political theater for your amusement and confusion.

The Ten Steps to Prosperity (below) mentions just a few of our many needs, all of which can be solved or at least ameliorated by federal money.

How much federal money? What is the limit to the federal government’s deficit spending? Functionally, there is no limit. The federal government has the unlimited ability to create dollars. It never can run short. It can “sustain” any deficit.

But there is an economic limit to federal deficit spending, and that is an inflation that can’t be controlled via interest rate control. Raising interest rates increases the value of the dollar, which is anti-inflationary, and is the method used by the Fed to control inflation.

We never have had such an uncontrollable inflation in our history, but that event — not false worries about “unsustainable” deficits — would mark the limits to federal deficit spending. If we were ever to reach that point, we would have to cut back on spending or impose new taxes.

Until then, we should grow our economy, and not hamstring ourselves with harmful limitations.

Bottom line: The fact that the government doesn’t fund an expenditure does not signify lack of affordability or the so-called “unsustainability” of federal debt or deficits. It merely means the government doesn’t want to fund that expenditure. It’s a political, not a fiscal, decision.

Keep that in mind as you watch Congress in its phony “struggle” with tax cuts. It’s all a Big Lie — a performance acted out just for you.

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-less.

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

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

Ten Steps To Prosperity:
1. ELIMINATE FICA (Ten Reasons to Eliminate FICA )
Although the article lists 10 reasons to eliminate FICA, there are two fundamental reasons:
*FICA is the most regressive tax in American history, widening the Gap by punishing the low and middle-income groups, while leaving the rich untouched, and
*The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, neither needs nor uses FICA to support Social Security and Medicare.
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

We are diminished, losing right before our eyes

Image result for make america ignorant again

.

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

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

In the unlikely possibility that President Trump has developed an international plan (other than to admire and wish to emulate dictators), his plan is to disparage other nations and to assume that cooperation is for wimps.

His bravado-laced declarations of “America first” will be unlikely to reassure dependent nations or to gain allies.

Thus, rather than America continuing as the leader, militarily, economically, and morally — a position we assumed during World War II —  Trump is thrusting us into the dark second-world backwaters. And we allow it to happen.

An absolutely wonderful article, describing our troubling future, was disseminated on 18 November 2017 by econintersect.com. Here are a few excerpts together with the link. I urge you to read it in its entirety:

The Rise Of A Not-So-New World Order
by Sarang Shidore

For decades the United States has sat atop a unipolar world, unrivaled in its influence over the rest of the globe. But now that may be changing as a new, informal alliance takes shape between China and Russia.

Russia and China are two of the dictatorships (along with North Korea and the Philippines) Trump most admires. It is unlikely they admire him, though they will continue to bedazzle his endless ego with flattery while they steal his underwear — and ours.

The two great powers have a mutual interest in overturning an international order that has long advantaged the West at their own expense.

And as the Earth’s sole superpower turns inward, they will seek to carve out bigger backyards for themselves.

Only the 35% of Americans, who confuse bluster and bigotry with strength, are happy to be led by a man who has no consistent position on anything, and who has demonstrated he cares nothing for anyone.

Foreign leaders are not as gullible. When they see weakness they are quick to fill the vacuum.

Russia and China have no obvious ideology to export, and variations of capitalism have won out worldwide. (But) they have acted virtually in lockstep on many major security issues.

Both were first neutral, then opposed to, NATO’s intervention in Libya in 2011. Both have taken nearly identical positions on the Syrian conflict and cyber governance at the United Nations.

Both have issued a joint proposal to resolve the crisis on the Korean Peninsula by freezing North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs in exchange for halting joint military exercises between South Korea and the United States.

Both are firmly opposed to undermining the Iranian nuclear deal. And both have lobbied against U.S. missile defenses in Central Europe and Asia, as well as the Western doctrine of intervention known as “responsibility to protect.”

Meanwhile China – a well-known defender of the principle of national sovereignty – has been noticeably silent on Russia’s intervention in Ukraine.

China and Russia are led by tough, brave, and experienced dictators, who have honed their realpolitik skills for many years. They have defeated all adversaries in the political trenches, where errors in judgment are rewarded with prison or death.

They hold their cards close and are not deluded by flattery or promises of short-term gains. They have learned how to plan and the patience to carry out the “long con.

Trump, by comparison, is inexperienced, easily charmed by bootlickers, and whose immediate need for satisfaction is revealed by his public musings. His thoughts go directly to his tongue and his Twitter rants.

He makes no long-term plans. Rather he grabs for what he can reach now.  He demeans any who do not display sufficient admiration for his greatness.

In the international contest of skill, courage, and power, he is a child set against men.

At the same time, Beijing and Moscow have symbolically demonstrated their compact in the realm of defense. They have conducted joint military exercises in unprecedented locales, including the Mediterranean Ocean and the Baltic Sea, as well as in disputed territories, such as the Sea of Japan and the South China Sea.

Weapons deals between them are likewise on the rise. Russian arms sales to China skyrocketed in 2002. Moscow agreed to sell its most sophisticated systems, the Su-35 aircraft and the S-400 surface-to-air missile systems, to its Asian neighbor.

Related image
Which side is the prison?

While Russia and China focus on expansion, Trump turns America protectionist and isolationist. We fearfully deport “dangerous” Central and South American children.

We build a cruel “Berlin” wall of shame and cowardice that is on a path to becoming our prison.  When America is completely surrounded by a wall, who will say which way is in, and which way is out?

The two great powers have signed several major energy deals of late, too. Russian oil has made up a steadily growing share of China’s energy portfolio for years, and in 2016 Russia became the country’s biggest oil supplier.

China has begun to substantially invest in Russia’s upstream industry while its state-run banks have heavily bankrolled pipelines connecting the two countries. Beijing, for instance, recently acquired a large stake in Russian oil giant Rosneft.

Russian exports of natural gas to China are climbing as well. These moves are rooted in a grand strategy: Russia and China are privileging each other in energy trade and investment to reduce their dependence on locations where the United States is dominant.

Like an infant, Trump has no grand strategy.  He reaches and grabs for women, dollars, and adulation, and also like an infant, he is unable to maintain a consistent direction. His beliefs, if one can call them that, change hourly.

He hires and fires — employees, wives — at whim. His inability to read or retain anything of length has become legendary.

China and Russia have also begun pushing for greater financial and monetary autonomy by distancing themselves from the dollar-dominated order of international trade and finance.

China has already partially seceded from the SWIFT system of global banking transactions by creating its own system, CIPS. Russia is following suit, and it too has started to build an alternative network.

Moreover, the Chinese yuan recently entered the International Monetary Fund’s Special Drawing Rights currency basket. Now most Asian currencies track far more closely with the yuan than the dollar in value.

China plans to introduce an oil futures contract in yuan that can be fully converted to gold as well. The seriousness of their effort indicates their determination to move away from a system ruled by the U.S. currency.

Trump’s response is to fire someone who may be the best Fed Chairperson in history — Janet Yellen — for no discernable reason other than Trump wanted his own person, who presumably will be more willing to grovel and flatter.

Meanwhile, he has left the State Department under-manned. Other departments also are under-manned or led by incompetents, or both.

China makes substantial investments into sunrise technologies such as renewable energy, biotechnology, and artificial intelligence.

The projection of power to every corner of the globe probably isn’t the immediate goal.

Rather, the two powers seem to be aiming for maximum autonomy and a proximate sphere of influence that encompasses Eastern Europe and parts of the Middle East and Asia.

Those may be Russia’s and China’slong-term goals. Trump has none. While China invests heavily in renewable energy, Trump denies the need for renewable energy. Rather, he claims global warming is a Chinese hoax, and he backs the burning of coal polluting and the building of leaky oil pipelines.

They also seek to overhaul international rule-making with the intention of gaining greater influence in multilateral institutions, securing vetoes over military interventions, increasing global governance of the internet (albeit for their own self-interest), ending U.S. pressure regarding democracy and human rights, dethroning the reigning dollar and accounting for their interests in the design of the global security order.

As for Trump, he has turned the military over to the generals whom he earlier had dismissed as knowing less about the military than him.

Even here in America, let alone overseas, Trump has no concern for democracy and human rights (other than in Cuba), and being an isolationist, he can’t even comprehend a “global security order.”

Over the years,  Russia has become the leading security guarantor in Central Asia by founding the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), a formal alliance with a mutual self-defense clause, and by building military bases in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan.  Russia has also integrated Kazakhstan into its air defense system.

China is rapidly emerging as the leading energy and infrastructure partner in the region. The country’s Belt and Road Initiative is well underway, and several oil and natural gas pipelines connecting China to its Central Asian neighbors are already functional.

Both powers have a stake in the region’s security and economic integration, as evidenced by the presence of the Russia-led Eurasian Economic Union and the China-led Shanghai Cooperation Organization there.

In contrast, “America first” Trump demands that other countries pay us for our assistance, a demand that not only is unnecessary financially (the U.S. doesn’t need their dollars), but is unwise politically (nations will drift toward the helping hand).

Russia seems to have largely accepted the reality of China’s rising power – an acceptance that is key to the formation of a compact between them.

Beijing, for its part, has tactfully walked back from its historical claims to Outer Manchuria, paving the way for the settlement of its long-standing border dispute with Moscow.

China has also worked to keep its economic competition with Russia from degenerating into political antagonism.

Trump, by contrast, has ruined what had been improving relations with Cuba, and repeatedly has insulted another neighbor and friend Mexico (Mexicans told they are criminals and rapists) and has angered Canada.

The “bull-in-a-china-shop,” despot approach has not frightened any enemies, as witness North Korea’s Kim Jon Un’s responses. It only has cost America prestige and moral leadership. Taking “the high road” does not seem to appear on Trump’s GPS.

Chinese investment in Iran has started to rise. And though Iran and Russia have their differences, they have closely coordinated their Syria air and ground operations.

China’s Belt and Road Initiative is partly intended to draw Pakistan, Myanmar, Bangladesh, Turkey, Sri Lanka and Thailand into its orbit. 

Meanwhile, all is not going as planned within the United States’ own bloc. Washington’s treaty ally, South Korea, staunchly opposes any U.S. military action against North Korea. The United States’ ties with another major partner, Turkey, are deteriorating.

The Philippines is trying to balance between the United States and China, as is Thailand. Australia is increasingly torn between its deep economic dependence on China and its commitments to the United States.

Wide rifts have opened between the United States and Europe over trade, climate action, and Iran. Hungary has moved closer to Russia as populist nationalism – in some cases laced with support for Russian President Vladimir Putin – rises across the Continent.

Then there is Germany, which the United States has long worried is less than fully committed to balancing against Russia.

On top of all this, a nationalist upswing in U.S. politics has made the superpower more hostile to trade agreements and foreign entanglements.

Trump’s xenophobic administration wants walls, not agreements, possibly because Trump’s history is one of repeatedly cheating on his own agreements, both business and personal.

The upshot of these changes is that bipolarity, though not inevitable, is likely a foundational feature of the future: Russia, China, probably Iran and plausibly Pakistan, on one side, and the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, probably Japan and plausibly India and Australia on the other.

Consider the irony of American dollars and lives spent to protect Pakistan from religious extremists. Japan has been told to “pay up” for U.S. military protection.

In a world in which many major powers are uncommitted and have large degrees of freedom, tools like open-ended military interventions, unilateral sanctions, and hostility to trade will likely yield diminishing returns.

Hmmm . . . “military interventions, unilateral sanctions, hostility to trade.” Sound familiar?

By comparison, incentivization, integration, innovation and adroit agenda-setting can be smarter and more effective options. The United States historically has been a pioneer of these approaches, and it may prove able to wield them persuasively once again.

Except the Trump administration has no idea how to do these things. Tweeting threats and insults is their modus operandi.

But perhaps most important, the American superpower will have to resolve its internal polarization if it hopes to position itself as a cohesive leader of the international community.

Only then will it once again become, as former U.S. President Ronald Reagan so eloquently put it, “a shining city upon a hill.”

While our President’s backers cheer his hate-filled, insult-laden, thoughtless tweeting, they do not understand the serious costs of dissembling, the failure to lead, to accept responsibility, to compromise, and to plan intelligently.  They cannot understand the dangers of an American President who is self-focused rather than world-focused.

As a result of Trump’s truth denials and isolationist bent, a once-great America is becoming more isolated. Our “thousand points of light have dimmed.

Traditional American compassion has been replaced by contempt. Mass murder has become more frequent. Guns are everywhere, as our leaders preach a “fear-and-hate” doctrine.

The Constitution is being attacked. A national election has been undermined by a foreign enemy, with the complicity of our political leaders. Emotional outbursts have become the standard replacement for thought.

We are diminished, externally and internally. Our poor are poorer. Our rich are richer. Our military is rudderless. Our Congress is polarized and inert. Our long-term planning is non-existent.  We are more divided as a nation than any time since the Civil War.

It is happening, right before our eyes.

What can save us? Only we can save us by electing a real leader, who can pursue a truly American all-encompassing direction and bring us together as a nation — not by bitter hatred, but by the compassionate belief that all people, not just the very rich, have value.

That belief, not the twitterings of a pathetic martinet, was what made America great and can make us great again.

Until then, we are losing, and will continue to lose . . . badly.

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

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

THOUGHTS

•All we have are partial solutions; the best we can do is try.

•Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.

•Any monetarily NON-sovereign government — be it city, county, state or nation — that runs an ongoing trade deficit, eventually will run out of money no matter how much it taxes its citizens.

•The more federal budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes..

•No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth.

•Cutting federal deficits to grow the economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia.

•A growing economy requires a growing supply of money (GDP = Federal Spending + Non-federal Spending + Net Exports)

•Deficit spending grows the supply of money

•The limit to federal deficit spending is an inflation that cannot be cured with interest rate control. The limit to non-federal deficit spending is the ability to borrow.

•Until the 99% understand the need for federal deficits, the upper 1% will rule.

•Progressives think the purpose of government is to protect the poor and powerless from the rich and powerful. Conservatives think the purpose of government is to protect the rich and powerful from the poor and powerless.

•The single most important problem in economics is the Gap between the rich and the rest.

•Austerity is the government’s method for widening the Gap between the rich and the rest.

•Everything in economics devolves to motive, and the motive is the Gap between the rich and the rest..

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

I want more $ for the military; less $ for you: Leon Panetta

Image result for make america ignorant again

.

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

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget published an article containing a letter written by (or for) Leon Panetta, co-chair of the CRFB.

The title is: Leon Panetta and Other Former Defense Secretaries: Debt-Increasing Tax Bill Threatens National Security

Here are some excerpts, together with my comments:

November 15, 2017

Dear Leader McConnell, Leader Schumer, Speaker Ryan, Leader Pelosi, Chairman McCain, Ranking Member Reed, Chairman Thornberry, and Ranking Member Smith:

As former Secretaries of Defense, we have witnessed the negative impact of arbitrary budget cuts in defense, diplomacy and intelligence since the passage of the Budget Control Act of 2011.

In particular, we have seen military readiness erode as a result of deep sequester cuts in funding for training, maintenance, force structure, flight missions, procurement and other key programs.

The result is the growing danger of a “hollowed out” military force that lacks the ability to sustain the intensive deployment requirements of our global defense mission.

The Navy’s recent report on the causes of the two destroyer collisions with civilian cargo ships that took the lives of 17 seamen confirms the lack of adequate training.

Panetta makes the strange claim that the ships crashed because there wasn’t enough money to train their sailors.

Yesterday, a Navy aircrew left an obscene (penis) condensed air trail in the sky. We wonder whether Panetta will claim that too was due to limited budgets

Contributing to this crisis is a broken budget process in Congress that relies heavily on temporary, short-term continuing resolutions on spending.

The consequence is increasing deficits and a mounting national debt that threatens the resources needed for our national security.

At this stage, you properly might wonder how “increasing deficits and mounting national debt” — which imply increased national spending — could “threaten resources” and  “hollow out” the military.

It can’t. The opposite is true.

Panetta apparently hopes you won’t think about it too closely. He also hopes you will not try to figure out what “hollowed out” means for the largest military budget in the world.

I should warn you that nowhere in Panetta’s letter will you find any data showing how much has been, is being, or will be spent by the military.

All you will be told is that it isn’t enough, whatever it is.

So, for your interest, here is what Panetta is complaining about:

The U.S. 2017 military budget is larger than the military budgets of the next 8 nations, combined.

Here is another view:

See the big blue area at the bottom?  That’s the U.S. spending. All the other colored areas are the rest of the world. The U.S. spends on defense about 2/3 of what the entire rest of the world spends.

Is this is why our military is “hollowed out”??? Is this is why two of our ships crashed and why navy airmen drew a penis in the sky?

It is difficult, if not impossible, to properly plan for future budget contingencies when there is a lack of certainty as to what budget resources will be provided for defense and other national security requirements in the next year.

This much is true, not only for the military but for all groups that rely on federal money. The annual (daily?) budget revisions make long-term planning impossible.

Many military applications require years of planning and execution. Many efforts have had to be abandoned midstream, resulting in mountains of wasted time and effort left behind.

But none of the above will be cured by transferring dollars from Medicaid to the military.

Now added to all of this uncertainty is a tax bill under consideration by Congress that is estimated to add anywhere from $1.5 to $2 trillion dollars to the national deficit over the next decade.

In the absence of a comprehensive budget that provides essential fiscal discipline on entitlement spending, and enforces a tough “pay-go” requirement that pays for both additional spending and tax relief, the burden of increased future debt will fall – as it always does – on the discretionary accounts of the federal budget, with the largest being defense and national security.

Let’s summarize what Panetta (aka the CRFB) is saying

  1. The debt and deficit are too high
  2. Taxes should be cut
  3. We need to spend more on the military

Now think about that. If the debt and deficit are too high, and taxes should be cut, the only way to reduce the debt and deficit would be to cut spending.

But the CRFB says we need to spend more on the military. So if we cut spending, from where will the additional military money come?

Panetta wants more spending for the military, but there should be “fiscal discipline on entitlement spending.” No “fiscal discipline” for the military, of course

We recognize the importance of providing tax relief to the American people. Our intent is not to criticize tax relief itself, but to raise the concern that tax relief without fiscal discipline will inevitably add to the national debt.

“Tax relief” = higher deficits.  “Fiscal discipline” = less spending. But Panetta says he wants lower deficits and more spending. 

That increase in the debt will, in the absence of a comprehensive budget that addresses both entitlements and revenues, force even deeper reductions in our national security capabilities.

Panetta wants to “address entitlements and revenues.” But tax cuts reduce revenues, so again, from where will the money come? And again, from “Entitlements.”

And what are “Entitlements”? Depending on various definitions, they may or may not include your Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, aids to education, anti-poverty, housing aids, aids to education, and all the other things the government of “the greatest nation on earth” should do for its citizens.

In short, the CRFB, America’s leading debt Henny Pennys, tell you our sky is falling, and that the only way to save us is to spend more on the military and less on Americans.

And to top it all off, Panetta finishes with phony patriotism. While you read the next two paragraphs, be sure to play the Star Spangled Banner on your iPad:

We are proud of the men and women in uniform who bravely serve our nation and recognize the sacrifices that so many others have made for their country.

Our goal is to make sure that those who volunteer to serve in our military will never have to experience the consequences of a “hollowed out” national defense system.

No, Leon, your goal is to cut spending for the poor and middle-income people and to give the money to the voracious,  never-satisfied (but supposedly “hollowed out”) military, the largest military the world has ever known — and we aren’t even in a war.  

Imagine Panetta’s demands if the U.S. were in an actual shooting war.

For these reasons, we respectfully ask Congress to adopt a tax bill that will be paid for and will not further contribute to the uncertainty of future budgets.

Sincerely,

Secretary Leon Panetta, Secretary Ash Carter, Secretary Chuck Hagel

But it isn’t only the CRFB that wants to spend more on the military and less on social programs. It’s the party-of-the-rich, the GOP:

Here’s What’s In The House Republican Budget

The House budget plan would slash spending by $5.4 trillion over 10 years, including more than $4 trillion in cuts to mandatory spending like Medicaid and Medicare, while ramping up defense spending.

The House budget would bump up defense spending by around $929 billion over the next decade and save on non-defense discretionary spending by $1.3 trillion.

It slashes safety net programs. The House budget would slash Medicaid — it says that via Medicaid cuts plus changes to Obamacare, it would save $1.5 trillion.

And the House budget would also impose work requirements on Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (known as welfare) and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (known as food stamps).

It also cuts Medicare. The House bill would cut Medicare by $487 billion over 10 years, while the president’s budget, as proposed, barely touched it.

In the face of inflation, all social programs need to be increased, not cut. But then, those programs “only” benefit the middle and the poor, so they are not considered necessary by the GOP.

What does the GOP say is necessary? Tax cuts for the rich. They are the ones who will benefit from the GOP’s budgets.

If you doubt it, ask yourself why our billionaire President (who refuses to disclose his tax returns) and the billionaires he has appointed to his cabinet, and all the billionaires supporting him, so ardently vote Republican and favor the GOP pro-rich budgets.

In summary:

The GOP rightly claims that federal tax cuts will stimulate economic growth. The reason: Tax cuts leave more dollars in the private sector. The GOP also rightly claims that federal spending increases will stimulate economic growth. Spending increases also put more dollars into the private sector.

The commonality is dollars in the private sector.

Gross Domestic Product growth parallels the growth of dollars in the private sector.

Federal deficit spending adds dollars to the private sector. But the GOP claims that tax plans should be “revenue neutral,” meaning the GOP strives for plans that will add no dollars to the private sector.

Considering inflation, a revenue-neutral (no deficit) tax plan will reduce economic growth by reducing real dollars in the economy.

Thus, we see the impossibility of tax reductions that “pay for themselves” without increasing the federal deficit and debt.

  1. If a tax rate reduction results in less total tax being collected, it will grow the economy, while generating higher federal deficits and debt.
  2. If a tax rate reduction results in more total tax being collected, it cannot add dollars to the private sector, and so cannot grow the economy.

The self-imposed limitations on the federal deficit and debt are what limit economic growth.

There is no evidence that increased federal deficits and federal debt have any adverse effect on economic growth. It mathematically is impossible to grow the economy while the money supply declines.

Reductions in federal deficits and debt lead to recessions, which are cured by increases in federal deficits and debt.


[Vertical gray bars are recessions.]

We can, and should, have tax cuts for the lower- and middle-income groups. We can, and should, increase spending for entitlements, to make life better for the 99% of Americans who will depend on entitlements — Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.

We even can spend more on the military, though the priority, when we aren’t in a real war, is questionable.

We can have all those things if we simply realize that the federal debt is no problem at all, and the federal deficit is too low.

The federal government is not like you and me. Its finances are not like ours. Unlike you and me, the federal government never can run short of its own sovereign currency, the dollar. The government creates dollars, ad hoc, by spending dollars.

The government is what is known as “Monetarily Sovereign.” It has the ability to spend an unlimited number of dollars, which it creates by pressing computer keys.

The only limit to federal spending is an inflation that cannot be controlled by raising interest rates. The U.S. never has had such an inflation.

The GOP’s tax plans are hideous giveaways to the rich. Panetta’s comments about the budgets are designed to impoverish the 99% under the guise of making us safer.

And it’s all based on the private sector’s ignorance of Monetary Sovereignty.

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

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
THOUGHTS

•Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.

•The more federal budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes..

•No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth.

•Cutting federal deficits to grow the economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia.

•A growing economy requires a growing supply of money (GDP = Federal Spending + Non-federal Spending + Net Exports)

•The limit to federal deficit spending is an inflation that cannot be cured with interest rate control. The limit to non-federal deficit spending is the ability to borrow.

•Until the 99% understand the need for federal deficits, the upper 1% will rule.

•Progressives think the purpose of government is to protect the poor and powerless from the rich and powerful. Conservatives think the purpose of government is to protect the rich and powerful from the poor and powerless.

•The single most important problem in economics is the Gap between the rich and the rest.

•Austerity is the government’s method for widening the Gap between the rich and the rest.

•Everything in economics devolves to motive, and the motive is the Gap between the rich and the rest..

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY