Actions matter. How America is losing.

Image result for breaking chains

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

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

Actions matter.

Arriving home from college one day, I was met at the train station by a high school pal, who said, “Do me a favor. My girlfriend only will double-date with me. Will you go out with her friend?”

I said, “Yes,” and as a result, I met and have been married to the greatest woman on earth for 61 years, and now have 2 daughters and 5 grandsons, and none of it would have happened had not my pal become a so amorously aggressive with his girlfriend that she wanted guards.

Actions matter in ways we never can predict. Those far-reaching effects can emanate even from the trivial, everyday actions by us regular folks.Image result for arctic melt

Now consider the vastly more influential, long-term effects of the actions by a powerful person, say the most powerful person on earth, the President of the United States.

President Donald Trump has claimed that human-caused global warming (or “climate change,” take your pick) is a Chinese hoax, and he has taken repeated actions to demonstrate his disbelief in the science of meteorology, not the least of which was his withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement.

Some take refuge in the notion that “American will survive Donald Trump,” but it isn’t true. Cancer begins with a single cell. The damage spreads forever.

I was reminded of this by an article in the 9/16/17 edition of NewScientist, titled “Can China save the world. Here are a few excerpts.

Why China’s green ambitions will make it The Next World Leader

As the US under Donald Trump turns its back on climate change, China’s globalisation agenda could catalyse a green revolution that will make it a superpower

Renewable energy is having its moment in the Chinese sun. The country’s investment in solar, wind and other clean energy technology has soared from $8 billion in 2005 to $103 billion in 2015.

China now spends more on developing renewable energy than the US and Europe combined.

Leaders lead. The U.S., which has been the world leader in science, now is relinquishing that leadership to China, at least in the development of non-carbon-based fuels.

(China has stepped) into the climate leadership void left by the US under President Donald Trump.

As Trump pursues an “America First” strategy and sings the praises of “beautiful, clean coal”, China is looking for ways to collaborate with other countries on tackling climate change.

Trump has demonstrated interest and curiosity about only two things: His money and what is said or written about him.

His policies, in reality, are not America first.  They are “Trump first.” They are based not on what is best for America, but what is best for Trump.

China’s president Xi Jinping said, “Some countries have become more inward-looking, and their desire to participate in global development cooperation has decreased.”

Translation for Americans: “Inward-looking” means, “hiding behind a wall, erecting trade barriers, antagonism to non-whites and gays, barring foreigners, and evicting non-citizens.” It is a less advanced version of the North Korean, hermit strategy.

To strengthen relations with other nations, China has begun one of the largest-ever trade initiatives, known as the Belt and Road. This links it to 68 countries in Asia, the Middle East, Europe and Africa along the historic Silk Road trade routes.

That will be 68 nations who look first to China rather than to the U.S. as we close our doors to the rest of the world.

China’s enormous manufacturing capacity means it can churn out millions of cheap solar panels and tens of thousands of wind turbines each year.

The country now owns five out of six of the world’s biggest solar panel manufacturers and half of the 10 largest wind turbine manufacturers.

This capacity has allowed Chinese companies to shift their focus to the international energy market in recent years. Chinese firms have recently won tenders to build solar farms in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Pakistan, Egypt, Ethiopia, Bulgaria, Jordan, Iran, Oman, Romania, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.

They are also building wind farms in South Africa, Kazakhstan and Ukraine, and hydropower plants in Indonesia, Myanmar, Nepal and Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Last year, China started talks with Russia, Japan and South Korea about building a supersized clean power grid. This would allow the four nations to share their solar, wind and hydro energy and balance out each other’s supplies.

“America first” is, in reality, an “America never” strategy. We aren’t aggressively pursuing renewable energy because we are told it’s not necessary.

We are told to believe coal and oil don’t pollute, don’t cause the world to warm, and will last forever.

Beyond obvious financial rewards, China seeks to extend its political influence by globalising its clean energy tech.

The Chinese government has put a strategic emphasis on investing in renewable energy because it sees it as the next industrial revolution – one which it wants to lead.

Tim Buckley at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis in Sydney, Australia, agrees.

“China wants to dominate industries of the future while the governments of the US and Australia want to dominate industries of the past.”

America’s leadership has told the people “globalization” is a dirty word, costing jobs and corporate profits.

The Chinese know globalization already exists, no matter what Donald Trump says, and unlike America, the Chinese want to be the leaders.

There are several reasons why China’s clean energy sector will ultimately beat its fossil fuel competitors.

First, the rapidly declining cost of Chinese renewables will make them highly attractive to other countries.

Chinese firm JinkoSolar, for instance, is constructing a solar farm in the UAE that produces electricity for 2.4 US cents per kilowatt-hour. In comparison, the US average is 5 cents per kilowatt hour for solar and 6 cents per kilowatt-hour for unsubsidised coal.

This is key, because at the end of the day, economics drives most decisions.

More accurately, ignorance of economics drives most decisions. The belief the Monetarily Sovereign U.S. federal government “can’t afford” to pursue renewable energy has crippled our ability to develop and thus to lead in renewable energy.

Speed is another advantage – a solar or wind farm can be built in six months, compared with five to 10 years for a coal-fired plant.

In a world where time is money, opting for a slow coal or nuclear plant rather than a fast, renewable energy plant, provides another example of economic ignorance driving decisions.

Many Belt and Road countries are also introducing environmental policies to limit fossil fuel use. India, which was previously the top destination in the partnership for Chinese coal investment, is now heavily backing solar energy and is aiming to get 57 per cent of its energy from renewables by 2027.

The U.S. has no comparable initiative. Our leaders tell us it’s not prudent.

Finally, clean energy projects are more likely to win investors. The World Bank no longer finances overseas coal projects. The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank has ruled out financing coal power and promised to be “lean, green and clean”.

Chinese banks have become the world leaders in issuing green bonds to finance environmental projects.

The U.S., being Monetarily Sovereign, easily could, and certainly should, finance investment in renewables. It’s what a leader would do.

The fastest uptake of clean energy could come from China and the countries along the new Silk Road.

Rich nations like the US may be the only ones left clinging to their “beautiful” coal.

And for evidence of our shortsightedness, there’s the following article:

Trump’s clean energy budget cuts would ‘devastate’ an emerging economic sector
Budget plan calls for elimination of ARPA-E, major cuts to renewables research. By: Mark Hand, May 23, 2017

President Donald Trump’s 2018 budget would make huge cuts in renewable energy research and eliminate agencies within the Department of Energy that fund energy technology projects.

The decision was “in line with administration policies,” according to the budget request.

Clean energy research took another major hit with the administration’s proposal to reduce the budget of the Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) to $636 million, about $1.4 billion, or 70 percent, below the FY16 enacted level for the office.

“It reflects an increased reliance on the private sector to fund later-stage research, development, and commercialization of energy technologies and focuses resources toward early-stage research and development.”

Translation: “Increased reliance on the private sector” means: “The government will do less, and if you people want to carry the ball, go ahead.”

Democrats warn Trump’s Energy Department against ‘unlawful’ withholding of funds. Already-approved grants are being reviewed for consistency with Trump administration priorities, DOE says.

Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA), ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said, “His budget proposals would devastate an emerging sector of our economy by killing thousands of clean-energy jobs all over the country — all in a misguided effort to hold onto the past at the expense of our future.”

President Trump talks and talks and talks about “making America great, again.”

But his ignorance-based decisions move us from leadership toward backward-looking, second-class status — a mean-spirited, small-thinking, once-great nation, hiding in fear behind a wall, while squabbling amongst ourselves to determine whether the rich and the whites will continue to divide what’s left.

Even the most trivial-seeming actions have long-term effects. But the outrageous actions of an inward-facing, ego-centric, leader can force centuries of ill-effect, not just to us but to our distant descendants.

One day people may ask each other, “Remember the time when the United States of America was a world leader?” That may seem unlikely now, but so was the blind date that gave me my wife of 61 years.

Actions matter. Some win.

America is losing.

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

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

The single 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

 

Three facts about the GOP tax “reform” package

Image result for freedom from chains

.

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

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

Let’s begin by stating that despite all the commentary, no one —  no one in the Senate, no one in the House, not you, not me, and especially not President Trump — no one knows what the GOP tax “reform” package is or will be.

The current tax code is thousands of pages containing innumerable details. So far, the GOP “proposal” is a one-page “wish list.”

Though Trump predictably will describe each ever-changing iteration as the greatest tax proposal in the history of humankind, you can be sure he knows as much about the latest GOP plan as he knew about the multitude of GOP health care plans he praised to the sky, i.e. nothing.

Fortunately for all our sanity, America has no “Obamatax” to Repeal and Replace, so there is a (remote) possibility that whatever the proposal is, it would be evaluated on its merits. (I did say “remote,” didn’t I?)

So, if no one knows what is in the proposal, how can I give you any facts about it? Easy. I may not know what the proposal is, but I know who is proposing it — the GOP — and really, that’s all you and I need to know.

Fact #1: The proposal will be nothing like what Donald Trump says it is.

The man is uncanny in his ability to lie, misstate, deceive and otherwise not know what he is talking about.  If you go to No, it isn’t “the economy, stupid.” It’s another issue, and you know what it is, you will see half way down, a section titled, “141 Stances Trump Took During His White House Bid.” 

The title doesn’t fully explain that those are mutually exclusive stances, aka “flip-flops,” 141 flip-flops, any one of which might have doomed a politician with a sane, intelligent following, but simply bounced off Trump’s followers. Trump changes his mind — a lot.

Ignore all statistics Trump gives you; they are wrong. Ignore any other details he reveals; he came up with them from thin air, and he will change his mind twice by tomorrow.

Ignore the words “reform,” “simplify,” “fairness,” and “make America more competitive.” They are lies. The new plan will not “reform” anything, lest you believe that somehow “reform” is a synonym for “improve.”Image result for rich get richer

That plan will not be an improvement, nor will it be simpler or fairer, and it will not make America more competitive, except in the most minor ways.

Fact #2. The plan will be designed to make Trump and his rich pals richer, and it will make the rest of us relatively poorer. 

A handful of you in the lower “99%” may benefit, but that will be a mathematical accident. The vast majority of you will see the Gap between the rich and the rest of you widened.

“Rich” and “poor” are relative terms.  A person who earns only $1,000 a year is rich if everyone else on the planet earns only $1. Thus, it is the Gap, not the sheer number of dollars, that determines how rich or poor you are. 

The rich will get richer, not only by grabbing more money for themselves, but more importantly, by widening the Gap, i.e. by making you poorer.

A widening Gap acts like inflation in that even when you have a few more dollars, you actually can be poorer.

Pay no attention to the claim that by cutting taxes on the rich, money will trickle down to you in the middle-classes and the poor. “Trickle-down” economics didn’t work under President Reagan, and it didn’t work under President Bush II. It simply doesn’t work.

All that will happen is a giant river of money will flow to the rich, while the rest of you will swim mightily against the current, and you will be fortunate if you simply can stay in the same place.

How about eliminating taxes on the middle-classes and the poor, and allowing the benefits to “trickle up“? You never hear that option, do you? No, the rich don’t like that idea, because they know the “trickle” idea doesn’t’ work in either direction.

Fact #3. Tax rate cuts on corporations are a good idea, but not for the reasons Trump claims.

Trump’s spiel is: When corporate taxes rates are cut:
–corporations will be more profitable,
–which will make them grow,
–which will make them bid more for employees,
–which will increase your wages and
–increase the number of higher paying jobs.

Utter poppycock.

Here is what really will happen when corporate tax rates are cut:
–for the biggest corporations, nothing will happen; they already use so-called “loopholes” to cut their tax rates
–for the vast majority of businesses, the extra money will be used to cut prices, or to
–increase share prices, or to
–increase executive pay and perks, or to
–do more Research & Development on product improvements, or to
mechanize so they can reduce payroll.

You office workers, factory workers, manual laborers, and unemployed will see comparatively little from those corporate tax-rate cuts. Some even will lose their jobs to machines.

So, why do I say that cutting tax rates on corporations is a good idea? Because, every dollar in federal taxes paid, is a dollar lost to the economy.

Gross Domestic Product = Federal Spending + Non-federal Spending + Net Exports.

The federal government creates new dollars, ad hoc, every time it spends — so any tax dollars are lost. Note the word “Spending” in the above formula. Federal taxes decrease spending. Any federal tax cuts increase the amount of money in the economy, and so, increase spending which increases GDP.

(Aside: This isn’t true of state and local tax dollars, which remain in the economy.)

Increasing GDP should be good for everyone, but not if the government directs the benefits to the rich, which is exactly what the GOP plan will do.

How do I know? It’s the GOP, the party of the rich. It’s what they have been paid to do.

Bottom line: The single most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the “have-mores” and the “have-lesses.”  And any tax proposal put forth by Trump and his rich pals, absolutely, positively will widen the Gap between the rich and you.

The GOP tax program, no matter what the details, will make you relatively poorer, even in those cases where you will come out with a few more dollars. 

You can take that to the bank.

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

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

The single 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

No, it isn’t “the economy, stupid.” It’s another issue, and you know what it is

Image result for freedom

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

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

Bill Clinton famously said, “It’s the economy, stupid,” meaning that ultimately, Americans will vote their wallets, with all other issues being secondary.

He was wrong.  There is another, more important, though less logical, issue, and if you think about it, you know what it is.

Toward the end of the 1800’s, the Democrats came to control the Southern states, and it wasn’t pretty.

White Democrats began to use strategies you’ll find eerily familiar today. They made the entire voting process much more difficult for poor blacks, including the passage of poll taxes. Though poor whites fell into the same trap, the poll tax was aimed at the blacks.

Poll taxes were “necessary,” because someone had to pay for the cost of elections, right?

And then there were the literacy tests, which were “necessary,” because if you can’t read and write, how can you cast an intelligent vote, right?

And strict, complex residency tests were “necessary,” because if you weren’t a long-time resident, you shouldn’t be telling residents what to do, right? Today, those residency tests have morphed into citizenship tests, the primary purpose of which is as before: To deny anyone of color, the right to vote.

Blacks even were denied the right to be jurors, because they weren’t “qualified,” so every facet of Southern law was tilted against them.

As blacks were denied the vote, they also were denied representation, so all the national Southern votes went to the then dominant party, the Democrats. In the South, there virtually were no Republican Senators, Representatives, Governors, Mayors, Sheriffs, Judges — it was all Democrats all the time. It was known as the “solid South.”

Because Democrats seldom lost Southern elections, the incumbents controlled the gerrymandering that solidified their positions. This gave them seniority, not only in local and state politics, but in the national arena, where Chairmanships of important Congressional committees were held largely by Southerners.

And all of this enormous political power had its beginnings, and its ongoing expansion, with wall-to-wall racial bigotry.

Then, in the late 1940’s, the Democrats began to adopt some measure of morality, and morality would prove to be their undoing in the South.

President Truman desegregated the Army and the Dixiecrat party was formed, the sole purpose of which was to retain segregation and Jim Crow laws. The Dixiecrats nominated Strom Thurman for president, and he won in South Carolina, Alabama,  Louisiana, and Mississippi.

After Democrat Lyndon Johnson passed many civil rights laws, Thurman became a Republican.

And then came Richard Nixon and the “Southern Strategy,” as cynical a political strategy as ever has been devised. Here is the summary of the strategy, in the words of the man who popularized the term, political advisor, Kevin Phillips:

“From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don’t need any more than that…but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act.

“The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans.”

“That’s where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.”

To appeal to Southern whites, Nixon pushed two philosophies, “law and order” and “states rights,” which remain popular excuses, today.

“Law and order” were the code words that brought into existence the notorious Southern Sheriffs, in the Joe Arpaio mold. The sole purpose had nothing to do with “law” or with “order,” but rather was to keep the blacks frightened and powerless.

“States rights” were the code words used by the Southern states to tell the federal government, “Don’t interfere with our version of bigoted “law and order.”

After Nixon, no Northerner has won the Presidency . . . until our first 1/2 black President, Barack Obama.

And that is the 2nd part of our story.

ElectoralCollege2012.svg
2012 Presidential Election of Obama

In his first Presidential election, Obama won 68% of the electoral votes. In his second election, Obama won 62% of the electoral votes.

Both were resounding victories, yet in neither case did he win in any Southern state, except Florida.

Remember the description of the Southern Strategy:

“The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That’s where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.”

Obama proved to be the ultimate “prodding from the blacks.” His black face created terror in the minds of whites who already were predisposed to hate or fear blacks.

Though Obama won his second election (by a much smaller margin than the first), he was a special case of a charismatic, only 1/2 black, great speaker with a terrific election committee, and uncharismatic opponents.

And he was unable to extend his election success to the rest of the Democratic party.

The Democratic Party suffered huge losses at every level during Obama’s West Wing tenure. The grand total: a net loss of 1,042 state and federal Democratic posts, including congressional and state legislative seats. Democratic governorships also became a rarity during this eight-year period, slipping from 28 to 16.

Then came Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump: This essentially was a fact-free election, based solely on emotions.

She, an uncharismatic female, a poor speaker and a with a seemingly clueless election committee. He, a charismatic, male TV star and an excellent speaker who used mass meetings as his “election committee.”

Clinton campaigned on intellectual ideas and on herself: HER experience and HER being able to make history as the first female President and HER inheriting the Obama legacy.

But while the man, Obama, was much loved, at least in most quarters, his legacy was minimal. Ask people today what he accomplished and they might say, “Obamacare,” (to which, in truth, he contributed little. The Democratic Congress did all the work).

Others might include the recovery from the “Great Recession,” and the “worst” ones (from the standpoint of the “Southern Strategy) were the rights he gave to gays and immigrants. These latter, along with his skin color, energized the unfortunately-large bigot community of America. 

Trump campaigned on viscerals and you: YOUR fears and YOUR hatreds.

Trump said, “I’m going to protect YOU from blacks, browns, gays, foreigners, Muslims and people who will take away the guns YOU need for your protection.”

Today, the Republicans continue to rely on the “Southern Strategy,” nationally. And it works on a public made frightened.

There was a time when the phrase, “It’s the economy, stupid,” was considered the holy script to election success. But no more.  Now, “It’s beware of THEM, and kill THEM,” with “them” including all those who are not white, straight, and citizens.

He is a compulsive liar who has changed his positions on dozens of issues.

Once, being a “flip-flopper” was the formula for public ridicule and political defeat.  By that history, Trump should have zero followers.  He is a compulsive liar, and there were at least 141 Stances Trump Took During His White House Bid) :

–19 contradictory positions on immigration and his wall,
–4 contradictory positions on undocumented children of immigrants,
–16 positions on banning Muslims,
–5 different positions on H1-B visas (for highly skilled workers),
–4 different positions on border control,
–9 different positions on how to defeat ISIS,
–7 separate positions on gun-free zones,
–2 opposing positions on nuclear first-strike,
–8 different positions on minimum wage,
–7 contradictory positions on tax reduction,
–4 opposing positions on climate change,
–8 different opinions about what to do with the national debt,
–4 opposing opinions about abortion,
–9 different comments about Obama’s citizenship,
–2 opposing comments about voting for the Iraqi war,
–5 different opinions about the Libya intervention,
–2 opposing positions on whether Japan should have nukes
–3 opposing positions about accepting political donations
–3 different opinions about military torture
–3 different comments about his relationship with David Duke
–2 opposing positions regarding the Iran nuclear deal
–5 opposing positions regarding Obamacare (also his vow to sign any R&R law)
–8 different positions about whether the election was “rigged”
–3 different promises about accepting the results of the election

And then there’s this:

Over the course of just one day, President Trump declared different positions than he took during the campaign on four issues.

In an interview with The Wall Street Journal and at a press conference on Wednesday, President Trump declared that China is not a currency manipulator, entertained the possibility of re-appointing Janet Yellen as chair of the Federal Reserve, asserted that NATO is a relevant alliance and expressed a favorable view of the Export-Import Bank.

None of it matters.

The GOP spent seven years and 50+ votes trying to “Repeal & Replace” ACA, without even having a replacement plan, and then in the 8th year, they proposed several replacement plans that would have disenfranchised millions. In years past, this alone would logically have destroyed them as a party. It did not.

In years past, this incompetence alone would have destroyed them as a party. It did not.

Now, the GOP is proposing tax “reform,” that despite denials, undoubtedly will benefit the rich far more than it helps the rest of us. In all likelihood, this disparity will not cost them any seats in Congress.

To the electorate, it’s not the most important issue.

Having no consistent position, and especially no position that benefits 99% of the electorate, logically would prevent the people from aligning themselves with Trump and/or the GOP.

But the electorate is not moved by logic. The GOP politics of fear and hatred, and the adoption of bigotry and a prime directive, has remained consistent. And that is the real GOP power.

For much of the rest of the country, race is a top-three importance issue. For the South, it is the only issue.

Fear and hatred, our hottest emotions, defeat cold truth and logic. Every dictator in history has known this.

No, President Clinton, it isn’t “the economy, stupid.”

It’s fear hatred, stupid.

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

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

The single 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

How applying leeches cures anemia and other Libertarian myths.

Image result for breaking chains

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

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

We divert your attention from Donald Trump’s angry focus on kneeling vs. standing, while less important things like Puerto Rico’s suffering, the ridiculous GOP “no-health-care” bill, and threats of war with North Korea are left unattended.

Recently I saw an article in Reason.com that had me shaking my head:

Why We Need To Shrink the National Debt, And Fast!
Too much debt slows economic growth and reduces living standards.
Nick Gillespie & Mark McDaniel | September 25, 2017

It was big news when our national debt recently passed the $20 trillion mark. What’s less understood is exactly why having such a massive debt is a bad thing. The short answer is that too much debt slows economic growth, reducing living standards.

The sheer size of the existing debt is deeply worrying to economists on both the left and the right, who agree that when debt reaches 90 percent of GDP for five years in a row it means painfully slow growth, creating what’s called a “debt overhang.” 

A group of progressive economists affiliated with the University of Massachusetts predicted in 2013 that a debt burden at that level would result in an annual growth rate of just 2.2 percent, which means economic stagnation and anemic job growth.

(Earlier this year, one of those researchers co-authored a paper walking back that claim).

Pause for a moment to consider what you just have read: Three paragraphs telling you how “deeply worrying” the federal debt is, and the “painfully slow growth” it will cause, followed by one little parenthetical sentence taking it all back.  Huh?

The paper that took it all back said this:

“We provide a comprehensive assessment of the relationship between public debt and GDP growth in the postwar advanced economies.

“We use the timing of changes in public debt and growth to account for endogeneity, and find little evidence of a negative relationship.

“Semi-parametric estimates do not indicate any threshold effects. Finally, we reconcile our results with four recent, influential papers that found a substantial negative relationship, especially when public debt exceeds 90 percent of GDP.

“These earlier results appear to derive mostly from peculiar parametric specifications of nonlinearities, or use of small samples which amplify the influence of outliers.

Said in English, the paper from which Nick Gillespie & Mark McDaniel took their information was wrong; the author later admitted it was wrong, and Gillespie and McDaniel knew it was wrong, and still, they published their article referencing the wrong information.

Why did they do it? Because in their hearts they believe that something called “debt” must be bad; it simply must. After all, it’s debt, isn’t it, and debt always is bad, right?

That is what passes for economics these days.

Messrs. Gillespie & McDaniel compounded the crime by quoting none other than Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff, whose infamous 2010 research paper “Growth in a Time of Debt” was found to contain an embarrassing mathematical error negating their silly conclusion that austerity aids economic growth.

Well duh, you mean taking money out of an economy doesn’t grow the economy? Who’da thunk?

Oh, but it gets worse:

Countries like New Zealand, Canada, and Germany have demonstrated that when governments reduce debt good things happen.

Uh, I hate to remind Messrs. Gillespie & McDaniel, but as the graph (below) shows, none of the three have reduced debt over the past decade.

Also, Germany should not be mentioned together with Canada and New Zealand; their finances are completely different.

Canada and New Zealand are Monetarily Sovereign, while Germany is monetarily NON-sovereign. The former is not burdened by national debt, while the latter is.

People who don’t understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty should not write articles about economics.

Barack Obama, and George W. Bush were leaders who lacked the integrity to do what’s best for the country by keeping spending and debt in line. President Donald Trump also shows no interest in explaining to the public how runaway debt chokes off the future.

That’s a failure which we’ll all be paying for for a very long time to come.

Under Obama, the “runaway debt” has “choked off the future” by giving us a powerful, nine-year expansion. If that is choking off the future, please give us more of it.

Bottom line: Reason.com is a Libertarian website wanting you to believe that federal tax increases and spending decreases somehow grow an economy.

Since both tax increases and spending decreases take dollars out of the economy, the Libertarians hope you will believe the incredibly foolish argument that the fewer dollars in the economy, the more the economy will grow.

The formula for economic growth is:

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

So, by what magic of mathematics can GDP grow with less money in the economy?

The example we like to give is applying leeches to cure anemia. It simply cannot work.

Addendum: Reason.com, just today, had the gall to re-publish the following article from 2012:

To Revive the Economy, Cut Federal Spending
Obama and Boehner are both big spenders. That’s the problem.
Nick Gillespie & Veronique de Rugy

In a paper released this year, economists Carmen M. Reinhart, Vincent R. Reinhart, and Kenneth Rogoff said that periods of “debt overhang” – when accumulated gross debt exceeds 90 percent of a country’s total economic activity for five or more consecutive years – reduce annual economic growth by more than one percentage point for decades.

Can you believe it? Back in 2012 they wanted spending cuts to “revive” an economy that had been growing for four years.

Now, it’s 2017. Spending has continued to grow; the economy also has continued to grow — for nine years — and Reason.com publishes the same article that was wrong in 2012 and remains wrong in 2017.

Whew, talk about not learning from your errors!

Anyway, what’s the use? Economic reality means nothing to Libertarians. “We believe what we believe and please don’t confuse us with facts.”

It is ever thus.

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