Author: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

MBA Northwestern, business turnaround expert, economist

More on why you believe what you believe: Sugar

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

================================================================================================================================================================

In a recent post, “Why do you believe what you believe” we said:

“Why do you know the sun causes skin cancer? You know it because years ago you read it in, or heard it from, a trusted source. Then you read and heard it often again, and the repetition caused you to believe it more and more until you know it.

The combination of “trusted source” and “repetition” inserts belief into our minds, and once there, it may be difficult to dislodge — unless we are exposed to a more trusted source plus repetition.

As you know, consuming saturated fat and cholesterol increases your risk of heart disease, while sugar does not. You have heard this from many trusted sources and it has been repeated endlessly in all forms of communication.

ScienceNews Magazine, October 15, 2016, Sugar industry sought to sugarcoat causes of heart disease
Payments revealed to authors of influential 1967 report touting fat and cholesterol as problems, by LAURA BEIL

Using records unearthed from library storage vaults, researchers recently revealed that the sugar industry paid nutrition experts from Harvard University to downplay studies linking sugar and heart disease.

Although the incident happened in the 1960s, it appears to have helped redirect the scientific narrative for decades.

Harvard University — what could be a more trusted source than Harvard University?

Note however, that Harvard University does not conduct research, nor does Harvard University verify the findings of research.

Research is done by people,  employees of Harvard, and being employees of Harvard gives those researchers no special insight or virtue.

Yet the mere association with the name “Harvard,” implies intelligence and academic trustworthiness.

The documents  show that the Sugar Research Foundation paid professors who wrote a two-part review in 1967 in the New England Journal of Medicine. That report was highly skeptical of the evidence linking sugar to cardiovascular problems but accepting of the role of fat.

The now-deceased professors’ overall conclusion left “no doubt” that reducing the risk of heart disease was a matter of reducing saturated fat and cholesterol, according to researchers from the University of California, San Francisco, who published their report online September 12 in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Now, we have the University of California, San Francisco, another trusted source, impugning the trusted Harvard results.

The sugar industry helped deflect the way the research was developing,” says study coauthor Cristin Kearns, a dentist at UCSF’s Institute for Health Policy Studies.

The belief in sugar’s innocence, and the sugar industry’s profit motive, were so powerful, it took a dentist, not a cardiologist to uncover apparently biased results from what ostensibly was a heart study.

Following the publication of the Harvard report, fat and cholesterol went on to hijack the scientific agenda for decades, and even led to a craze of low-fat foods that often added sugar.

It was only in 2015 that dietary guidelines finally made a strong statement to limit sugar. Researchers writing this year in Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases note that current studies estimate that diets high in added sugars carry a three times higher risk of death from cardiovascular disease.

(The Sugar Association says in a statement on its website that “the last several decades of research have concluded that sugar does not have a unique role in heart disease.”)

Is this an example of deception with a true statement?

Yes, unfortunately, the last several decades of research did absolve sugar from blame, and what does “unique role in heart disease” really mean?  If sugar causes heart disease, is that a “unique role”?

The Sugar Association’s statement acknowledged the secret deal occurred, but pointed out that “when the studies in question were published, funding disclosures and transparency standards were not the norm they are today.”

Translation: The research lied, but back then, we didn’t have to reveal the lie. So, it’s O.K.

Journals now require all authors to list conflicts of interest, especially funding from a source has a vested interest in the outcome.

While a modern researcher could not take corporate money, even for speaking fees, without disclosure, the influences may be more subtle, he says. “We’re not talking about making up data, but perhaps influencing how a research question is framed.”

Revealing the source of funding doesn’t eliminate bias. And, though one reasonably may conclude that a high percentage of private funding comes from sources with an ax to grind, that doesn’t necessarily mean the research results are misleading.

But, such funding leads to the question: “What happens to results that disagree with the benefactor’s purpose? 

If several, slightly different pieces of research show that sugar has an adverse effect on heart health, and one shows it doesn’t, what happens to all the negative research?

Andy Bellatti, cofounder and strategic director of Dietitians for Professional Integrity says that researchers don’t necessarily want to be cozy with industry, but sometimes turn to commercial sources because non-biased research money is lacking.

“The reason the food industry is able to do this is because there is such little public funding for nutrition and disease.”

Here is yet another example, among hundreds, of how cuts in federal deficit spending hurt America, though often benefitting big business.

And what does the need for an organization titled, “Dietitians for Professional Integrity” tell you about today’s food research?

The scientific community should not reject industry money wholesale, says John Sievenpiper, a physician and nutrition researcher at the University of Toronto.

He believes that any scientist who takes industry money should adhere to an even higher standard of openness, including releasing study protocols ahead of time so reviewers can make sure the research question was not changed midstream to favor a certain conclusion.

Bottom line:

  1. For many years, your belief in “benign sugar” was created by “trusted sources” and repetition.
  2. As with privately owned banks, the profit motive encourages unethical behavior.  Corporations do not fund research out of generosity. They consider research to be part of their marketing efforts. Negative results often are twisted or hidden.
  3. Researchers, whether employed by Harvard University, the University of California, a private organization, or working alone, all can be swayed, consciously or not, to tilt their interpretations in favor of the money supply.
  4. Cuts in federally funded Research & Development grants are misguided if the primary purpose is to “save the federal government money” or to “make government smaller” (a huge, often unacknowledged disadvantage of libertarianism).
  5. While the federal government has political motives, it does not have a profit motive, and that alone helps make it a more trusted source for food & drug research than is private industry.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

=======================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================

 

The single most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the rich and the rest.

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 afford better health care than 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 AN ANNUAL ECONOMIC BONUS TO EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA, AND/OR EVERY STATE, A PER CAPITA ECONOMIC BONUS (The JG (Jobs Guarantee) vs the GI (Guaranteed Income) vs the EB) 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 EVERYONEFive 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 benefiting 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 CORPORATE TAXES
Corporations themselves exist only as legalities. They don’t pay taxes or pay for anything else. They are dollar-transferring machines. They transfer dollars from customers to employees, suppliers, shareholders and the government (the later having no use for those dollars).
Any tax on corporations reduces the amount going to employees, suppliers and shareholders, which diminishes the economy. Ultimately, all corporate taxes come around and reappear as deductions from 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 corporate 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.

Mitchell’s laws:

•Those, who do not understand the differences between

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Why do Pete Peterson and Paul Volcker collude? There is a reason.

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

===================================================================================================================================================================

Why do Pete Peterson and Paul Volcker collude? There is a reason.

These two loyal guardians of the very rich recently posted an article. Here are some excerpts.

Volcker: Fed Can’t Raise Rates Because of Rapidly Growing Debt
An op-ed posted by Paul Volcker and Peter Peterson, From Tyler Durden, Wall Street Journal: 

Immediately, from the title, you know the article is going to spread the manure thick and wide. The “Fed can’t raise rates”? Utter nonsense.

“. . . because of rapidly growing debt”? Even more nonsensical.

The main issue that troubles the two financial titans, is the lack of any practical discussion of the soaring US debt during the entire bizarre campaign – the one issue both agree is the biggest challenge facing the US economy today:

The biggest challenge facing the U.S. economy is the size of deposits in T-security accounts at the Federal Reserve Bank??

Really?? That is our biggest economic challenge??

Not the wide and widening Gap between the rich and the rest? Not millions of people doing without health care? Not the obscene student debt? Not our crumbling infrastructure? Not the ecology and global warming? Not the mid-east wars?

Yes, this country can handle the nearly $600 billion federal deficit estimated for 2016. But the deficit has grown sharply this year, and will keep the national debt at about 75 percent of the gross domestic product, a ratio not seen since 1950, after the budget ballooned during World War II.

Long-term, that continued growth, driven by our tax and spending policies, will create the most significant fiscal challenge facing our country.

Can anyone explain the significance of the debt/GDP ratio? I really would love to hear from Peterson and Volcker followers why a ratio of 75% or even 750% presents a “fiscal challenge.”

The federal debt (i.e. deposits in T-security accounts) is not serviced by GDP. The misnamed “debt” is paid off by funds already existing in those bank accounts, and the interest is paid by the unlimited dollars the federal government creates every day. The U.S. never can run short of dollars.

Volcker and Peterson know this. So why do they pretend otherwise?  There is a reason.

Back to the Volcker-Peterson lament, in which the two point out that “unfortunately, despite a brief discussion during the final presidential debate, neither candidate has put forward a convincing plan to restrain the growth of the national debt in the decades to come.”

Translation: Neither candidate has put forward a plan to increase FICA collections from the 99% non-rich, or to reduce Social Security and Medicare benefits for the 99% non-rich — either of which would widen the Gap between the rich and the rest.

Whoever wins,the new president will eventually face fiscal realities that force him or her to develop strategies for decreasing the national debt as a share of the economy over the long term.

The only reality is the money the rich are spending to bribe politicians to enact laws that would widen the Gap.

Our current debt may be manageable at a time of unprecedentedly low interest rates. But if we let our debt grow, and interest rates normalize, the interest burden alone would choke our budget and squeeze out other essential spending.

There would be no room for the infrastructure programs and the defense rebuilding that today have wide support.

Even with the interest “burden” ten times its current size, the federal government could continue spending on infrastructure and defense, forever. Why does the Peterson/Volcker cabal pretend the federal government can run short of its own sovereign currency, something that never has happened and cannot happen?

There is a reason.

And there you have it: with debt continuing to soar, growing by the third highest amount on record in fiscal 2016, all that would take for US interest expense to spiral out of control is a spike in debt servicing costs, i.e., interest.

But that’s not all: US government debt is just a tiny fraction of total US liabilities and future obligations. How tiny? It is less than 10% of the massive stack of US obligations that amount to well over 1,100% of GDP!

Think about it.  Why does the Peterson/Volcker cabal tell you the debt, at 75% of GDP, is too high, but total U.S. obligations are “well over 1,100% of GDP” —  which the U.S. has had no difficulty servicing?

There is a reason.

It’s not just federal spending that would be squeezed. The projected rise in federal deficits would compete for funds in our capital markets and far outrun the private sector’s capacity to save, to finance industry and home purchases, and to invest abroad.

Federal deficits occur when the government pumps more dollars into the economy via spending than it removes from the economy via taxing.

How does an increase in the money supply “compete for funds” and “outrun the private sector’s capacity to save”?  It doesn’t.

An increase in the money supply adds funds to capital markets and increases the private sector’s capacity to save.

The Peterson/Volcker cabal knows this, of course.

Instead, we’d be dependent on foreign investors’ acquiring most of our debt — making the government dependent on the “kindness of strangers” who may not be so kind as the I.O.U.s mount up.

The U.S. government, being Monetarily Sovereign and so having the unlimited ability to create U.S. dollars, is not dependent on anyone else to supply it with its own sovereign currency.

Contrary to popular myth, the federal government does not borrow.  It accepts deposits in T-security accounts.

Even if all T-securities were eliminated, the federal government could continue deficit spending, forever.

And now come the widen-the-Gap “solutions,” good for the rich, bad for the rest of us:

Are the any solutions? Well, according to the authors, “the solutions are clear enough” – they are just unpleasant.

We should make gradual adjustments to the Social Security system that still maintain present benefit levels for those at or near retirement, with particular attention to those most in need.

Our health care systems can be made more efficient, with better approaches toward cost control. Since health care represents 70 percent of the growth of our major entitlement programs over the next 30 years, bending the cost curve is essential to the long-term well-being of our economy.

Yes, indeed, these so-called “solutions” are “unpleasant.” The rich would be richer and the rest of us would be poorer.

Translation:  “Gradual adjustments” and “maintain present benefit levels for those at or near retirement” means:

1. No inflation adjustment,
2. Increases in FICA
3. Cuts to our children’s and grandchildren’s benefits.

“Bending the cost curve” means: Cut payments to doctors and hospitals, which will reduce the availability of doctors and hospital service.

Why these unnecessary cuts to our lifestyles?  There is a reason.

Tax reform could provide better incentives for economic growth, while raising more revenue, even as the code is simplified.

Translation: Cut taxes on the “makers” (i.e. the rich) while reducing benefits to the “takers”) i.e. the rest of us.

And any scheme that “raises more revenue” will take money from the private sector,  a disincentive for economic growth.

As for Volcker and Peterson, they personally have nothing to worry about: “At our age, neither of us will personally suffer from a failure to act. It is those with long lives ahead — grandchildren and great-grandchildren — who deserve the benefit of prospering in a nation with sound finances.

“Take some advice from two observers who have been around for a while: The long term gets here before you know it.”

Yes, yes, how benevolent Peterson and Volcker are. Except, they are rich; their families are rich; their friends are rich, and the people whose opinions they care about are rich.

And all of them want the Gap widened between the rich and the rest.

The Gap is what makes them rich. Without the Gap, no one would be rich. (We all would be the same.) The wider the Gap, the richer they are.

The ultimate goal of the rich is to widen the Gap, and there are only two ways to do that:

1. Increase their own income, wealth, and power
and/or
2. Decrease your income, wealth, and power.

The rich tell you the Big Lie — the (misnamed) “debt” and “deficits” are too high and “unsustainable.” The rich tell you the only way to get the “debt” and “deficits” “under control” is to attack the social programs that benefit the rest of us.

The rich want to, and already have, cut Social Security, cut Medicare, cut Medicaid, cut other aids to the middle and the poor. They want to, and already have, increased regressive taxes like FICA and sales taxes, while cutting taxes on the rich.

And here are some of their methods:

1. Misname bank deposits “debt.”
2. Misname economic income “deficits,” so you’ll be fooled into thinking federal spending should be reduced and your taxes increased.
3. Bribe the media (via ownership and advertising) to tell The Big Lie.
4. Bribe the politicians (via campaign contributions and promises of lucrative jobs) to vote for Gap-widening initiatives
5. Bribe the economists (via university endowments and employment in “think tanks”) to brainwash students with, and to provide credibility for, the Big Lie.
6. Pretend Federal (Monetarily Sovereign) financing is like personal (monetarily non-sovereign) financing, so you will find their “debt-reduction” ideas reasonable. (After all, who doesn’t want to reduce debt?)

Back in 1940, the rich referred to the deficit as a “ticking time bomb,” that was about to explode. That was 76 years ago, and that “bomb” still is ticking, the federal government still is paying its bills, and the economy still is growing.

We only can pray that after hearing 76 years of “wolf-cries,” the public finally begins to catch on, and demand the Ten Steps to Prosperity (below).

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

The single most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the rich and the rest.

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 afford better health care than 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 AN ANNUAL ECONOMIC BONUS TO EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA, AND/OR EVERY STATE, A PER CAPITA ECONOMIC BONUS (The JG (Jobs Guarantee) vs the GI (Guaranteed Income) vs the EB) 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 EVERYONEFive 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 benefiting 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 CORPORATE TAXES
Corporations themselves exist only as legalities. They don’t pay taxes or pay for anything else. They are dollar-transferring machines. They transfer dollars from customers to employees, suppliers, shareholders and the government (the later having no use for those dollars).
Any tax on corporations reduces the amount going to employees, suppliers and shareholders, which diminishes the economy. Ultimately, all corporate taxes come around and reappear as deductions from 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 corporate 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

Why do you believe what you believe? “It’s not my fault.”

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

==============================================================================================================================================

Why do you believe what you believe? “It’s not my fault.”

You know millions, billions, even trillions of things. You know humans are causing global warming — or not. You know the sun causes skin cancer. You know you will die before the age of 110. You know God is good — or bad, or doesn’t exist.

You know a butterfly is yellow, because you see it. It looks a certain color, and you have come to know that color as “yellow.”

Except the butterfly isn’t yellow. Rather, gray scales on the butterfly’s wings affect light waves that you interpret as yellow.)

You know Donald . . . or uh, wait, Hillary . . . is the greatest thing since the P&J sandwich.

Why do you know these things?

Why do you know the sun causes skin cancer? You know it because years ago you read it in a trusted source. Then you heard it often again, and the repetition  caused you to believe it more and more until you know it.

But how does a source become trusted? 

Steve Benen, Rachel Maddow blog: A reality-based observer might note, for example, that the unemployment rate has dropped sharply under President Obama.

And the budget deficit has shrunk. And government spending has leveled off.  And murder rates are down.

And border security has tightened as the number of undocumented immigrants entering the United States has declined.

And voter fraud hardly ever happens anywhere in the United States.

Many rank-and-file conservatives will, with great sincerity, insist that each of these claims is wrong.

Independent news organizations, citing official data, will routinely tell the public about important developments surrounding, say, job creation.

But for much of the right, independent media outlets are corrupt and untrustworthy; official figures from the government are extensions of some kind of conspiracy to mislead the public; and they know in their guts that job creation is collapsing, evidence be damned.

Are Steve Benen’s statements true? Are he and Rachel Maddow trusted sources? Why or why not?

Here are the results of a Gallup survey:

The military is trusted far more than Congress and the President, though the military does exactly what Congress and the President authorize.

Religion is more trusted than Newspapers and Television news, though religion deals in unproven, unscientific myths, while Newspapers and TV are where we receive much of our fact-based news.

Banks are trusted more than Organized labor, though it was Banks that primarily were responsible for, and profited from, the “Great Recession,” while labor merely suffered.

Why? What is the source of our trust?

The Truth Is Out There in 2016. Way Out There.

Allan Thiel knows that President Barack Obama is a foreign-born Muslim who cheated his way into the presidency in order to promote a globalist “utopia.”

Thiel waits on the floor of the Greenville, N.C., convention center for Donald Trump to take the stage, holding up his phone so others can see the latest headline he had just read: “Obama Announces Plans for a Third Term Presidential Run.”

He believes that climate change is a hoax, that Islam is being promoted in American schools and that the government has been bought out by drug cartels.

“Our country has never had any problems for the last 200 years,” he says, shaking his head. “We’ve never had a problem with guns or racism until the last eight years.”

No racial problems for 200 years, oh, except for little things like slavery, segregation, lynchings, and the Ku Klux Klan.

Theil is what is known as a True Believer. True Believers idealize the past and glorify the future. The present world is denigrated: “The radical and the reactionary loath the present.”

“Make America great, again” is designed to appeal to True Believers. In Trump’s world, the past was wonderful, and he will make the future wonderful again.  It’s just the present that is awful.

Thiel’s beliefs show up in double digits in national polls and belong to a reality shared by many Trump supporters.

Roxanne Noble, explains why she can’t ever vote Clinton: Vince Foster, a onetime White House aide, was murdered to hide the Clintons’ secrets.

Five official investigations–by U.S. Park Police, the Justice Department, House Republicans, Senate Democrats and special prosecutor Kenneth Starr–ruled Foster’s death a suicide. But there are thousands of web pages that describe fanciful Foster murder-plot conspiracies.

More crucially, Donald Trump, the GOP presidential nominee, has spent years regularly encouraging his followers to doubt much of what is known to be true: that the earth is warming, that Obama was born in the U.S.

Back in May, Trump agreed with Noble, declaring that Foster’s death was “very fishy.”“I will say there are people who continue to bring it up because they think it was absolutely a murder,” Trump said.

This is classic Trump, attributing conspiracies and lies to “many people.” Who are these “many people“? We never are told.

For Trump, casting doubt on what is demonstrably real and lending credence to what is not has become a core appeal of his campaign.

Trump’s central argument is that faith has been lost, and he is the only solution.

When Trump talks about a rigged system, (he is) talking about the institutions that facilitate democracy: Election Day poll workers; the Federal Reserve, which he has accused of favoring Obama; the debate moderators, who he has falsely accused of being Democrats; and the rest of the national press, which he claims function as agents of the established elite.

Reality, he argued under oath in a 2007 deposition, could be up to him. “My net worth fluctuates, and it goes up and down with markets and with attitudes and with feelings, even my own feelings.”

Though Trump (finally) admits the truth of Obama’s birth, polls have consistently shown that 20% of Americans refuse to accept that Obama was born in the U.S.

It’s a problem of quantity as much as quality: there is simply too much information for the public to accurately metabolize.

Phony conspiracy theories are often mixed in with accurate journalism and history. People look to their social networks for information, and social networks are where conspiracy theories thrive best.

Passed from Facebook to Facebook, retweeted by thousands of anonymous accounts, ideas can spread quickly without verification or context.

People tend to share content that gets the most extreme reactions, which means a terrifying but untrue story will be shared more widely than a mildly alarming but accurate one.

Sitting at a bar in Wilmington, N.C., Gary Wilson explains (how he figures out) what to trust. “If I hear it from several different sources, I tend to believe it. Let me think about that myself, let me see if I can find that one conspiracy even slightly believable.”

The popular New World Order theory passed that litmus test: Wilson believes that global elites are conspiring with the U.N. to create a world government that will act like Big Brother to ordinary people, and that trade pacts are the first step in the process.

(The U.N. is not involved in the enforcement of trade deals, which are signed as agreements between participating nations.)

“I just believe it,” he says. “Where did I find my sources? Alex Jones is a good one.” Jones is the host of a radio show that is an entertaining mixture of outrage and conspiracy theory.

Jones has claimed that the government has poisoned juice boxes to make citizens gay, that the Bush Administration was complicit in the Sept. 11 attacks and even that Trump was a secret agent working for Clinton by sinking Republican chances of winning the White House.

“Your reputation is amazing,” Trump said on Jones’ show in December. “I will not let you down.”

Wilson says he began to notice four or five years ago that 9/11 had been an inside job after “a friend of mine turned me on to a couple websites.”

He says that if it comes down to it, he’ll have to vote for Trump. “A lot of what he says is the truth. He doesn’t bullsh-t,” Wilson says.

Repetition is important. The more you hear or read something, the more believable you will find it.

I spent my life in advertising, and I can tell you this: Advertising is based on frequency. Advertising is based on frequency. Advertising is based on frequency.

But there is a far more important factor:

Students at the University of Cape Town in South Africa think science as it is currently understood must be abolished.

“I have a question for all the science people. There is a place in KZN called Umhlab’uyalingana. They believe that through the magic’ you call it black magic’ they call it witchcraft’ you are able to send lightening to strike someone. Can you explain that scientifically because it’s something that happens?”

Many people laughed at this remark because, well, witchcraft is not something that happens. But according to the student, witchcraft is like Isaac Newton’s theory of gravity—it’s just one way of explaining the world, among many.

You may be reminded of the Evolution deniers, who say that Evolution is just one theory among many, and that the biblical version is preferable. They want schools to teach both, just as the Cape Town students want their schools to teach witchcraft.

The “fallist” rejection of science and Trump’s rejection of fact have the same underpinnings.

For many people, the facts of their life are too much to bear.  They feel life has been unfair.  And most importantly, they believe it is not their fault.

So they will accept anything, no matter how preposterous, that supports their belief that their misfortune is someone else’s fault.

Africa long has been the “poor man” of the world, a place of scientific ignorance and lack of scientific progress — but “it’s not their fault.” It’s the fault of Eurocentric science. Rather than try to lift themselves, they Cape Town students find it easier to blame science.

Unemployment, poverty, loss of status — Trump’s followers believe none of these is their own fault.

Instead, the fault lies with dishonest media, dishonest scientists, job-stealing and criminal immigrants, world trade pacts, lying and murderous Clintons, rigged elections, and an illegal, foreign-born President.

The fundamental “logic” of today’s True Believer is: “Everything ‘they’ tell me is a lie. ‘They’ lie to make my life miserable.  I don’t believe anything ‘they’ say, because ‘they’ are the devil.

“So, I will believe anything and trust anyone who claims ‘they’ are evil liars whose sole goal is to push me down, and who tells me it’s not my fault.”

Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Castro, Mao Zedong, Robert Mugabe, Pol Pot — all followed the same script: “Your lives are bad. It’s not your fault. It’s the fault of [scapegoats]. Only I can save you.“

Any time someone tells you, “It’s not your fault;” it’s the fault of [scapegoats], and “Only I can save you,” know this: You are about to be enslaved. And it will be your fault.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

============================================================================================================================================================

LAWS

•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.

•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.

•Liberals 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 rich and the rest.

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

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

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

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

All you ever wanted to (but wish you didn’t need to) know about Donald Trump

This is it: All you ever wanted to (but wish you didn’t need to) know about Donald Trump:

‘Bury Trump in a Landslide’:

Daily News goes nuclear on GOP

nominee

Colin Campbell October 21, 2016

This says it all.

Well, almost all. There also is this: http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/perils-of-eroded-civic-knowledge-forewarned-790540867791?cid=eml_mra_20161021

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

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

The Laws:

•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.

•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.

•Liberals 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 rich and the rest.

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

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

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

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY