How not to run a Brexit

Some facts:

1. The Value of a currency is based on the Supply and Demand for the currency vs. the Supply and Demand for goods and services.
2. The Demand for a currency is based on Risk and Reward.
3. The Reward for owning a currency is interest.

That is why, to fight U.S. inflation (i.e. increase the value of the dollar) the Fed increases the Reward for owning dollars (i.e. increases interest rates), which increases the Demand for dollars.

4. A growing economy requires a growing supply of money.

That is why, to stimulate the economy, Congress and the President increase deficit spending, which pumps more dollars into the economy.

Carefully balancing the creation of dollars with interest rates stimulates the economy without inflation.

Keep those 4 points in mind as you read the following excerpts from an article in CNN Money:

Brexit rescue: Bank of England slashes interest rates
by Mark Thompson

The Bank of England has cut interest rates for the first time in seven years, and will revive a broader economic stimulus program to try to limit the damage from June’s Brexit vote.

Rates were cut to a record low of 0.25%, which should reduce mortgage rates for some homeowners and make it cheaper for companies to borrow.

Savers, pension funds and banks, on the other hand, are likely to suffer.

“Following the United Kingdom’s vote to leave the European Union, the exchange rate has fallen and the outlook for growth in the short to medium term has weakened markedly,” the bank said Thursday. “

The Bank’s concern is: The exchange rate has fallen. So what does the Bank do? It reduces the reward for owning pounds, thereby guaranteeing a further decline in the exchange rate. Counter-productive and non-sensical.

The bank also said it would pump £70 billion ($92 billion) into the economy by printing money to buy bonds issued by the British government and companies.

The bank’s program of quantitative easing — already worth £375 billion — has been on hold since July 2012.

Bonds issued by the British government were purchased by the public. The money used to purchase those bonds did not disappear.  It was deposited in bond accounts owned by the public.

These bond accounts are very much like bank savings accounts. Just as money continues to exist when it’s deposited in a savings account, money also continues to exist when it’s deposited in a government bond account.

When the bank of England buys those bonds from the public, it merely transfers existing pounds from the public’s bond accounts back to the public’s checking accounts. No new money is “printed.”

By purchasing those bonds from the public, the government reduces the amount of interest money it would have pumped into the economy.

Contrary to what the Bank of England (and the Fed) claim, “Quantitative Easing” is anti-stimulus. It moves money around without adding any, and in fact, reduces the stimulus that government interest payments provide.

Recent surveys of business activity, confidence and optimism suggest that the United Kingdom is likely to see little growth in GDP in the second half of this year.”

There’s a 50% chance of a recession over the next 18 months, according to the National Institute for Social and Economic Research.

Based solely on the BOE’s efforts, there is a 100% chance of recession, and it may come sooner than 18 months.

Rather than uselessly buying its own bonds, and adding nothing to the economy, the government should cut taxes and increase spending, according to some version of the Ten Steps to Prosperity (below).

The Monetarily Sovereign British never can run short of its own sovereign currency, the pound. In theory, this should provide a huge advantage over the euro nations, which are monetarily non-sovereign, and cannot control their money supplies.

Sadly though, the British government promotes the false notion that its debt is unsustainable, and austerity (deficit reduction) is the path to economic growth.

Taking money from an economy, in an effort to grow that economy, is like applying leeches to cure anemia.

One only can pity the British people, who are forced to live under such misguided rule. Of course, we Americans are exposed to the same Big Lie from our leaders.

Pity us.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

===================================================================================
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 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-tranferring 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 an 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

Trump’s stupid comments of the day

Almost every day, Donald Trump makes stupid and hateful comments, so many, the mind reels. You may find it impossible to keep track of them all.

So it might be helpful to memorialize a few of the most recent ones as they occur.

Trump Said He’d Throw Orlando Shooter’s Dad, A US Citizen, Out Of Country
“What do we do when we find somebody that has extreme views?” Hannity asked in a town hall. “Do we throw them the hell out?

“I’d throw him out,” Trump said of Seddique Mateen, a naturalized citizen, who has criticized the U.S. “If you look at him, I’d throw him out.”

In Trump world, a U.S. citizen who has “extreme views” and who criticizes the U.S. will be deported. Welcome to China. Be careful what you say. Don’t have “extreme views” (like for instance, Trump’s extreme views??)

[This isn’t a stupid Trump quote. It’s a stupid quote from a Trump advisor, and comes soon after Trump implied Clinton should be shot, then denied that was what he meant.)

On Tuesday, Trump adviser Al Baldasaro told MassLive.com that his own comments in July about putting Clinton “in the firing line” and shooting her “for treason” were totally misinterpreted:

“The liberal media took what I said and went against the law and the Constitution and ran with it, and they said that I wanted her assassinated, which I never did. I said I spoke as a veteran, and she should be shot in a firing squad for treason.”

Right. Well, glad that’s cleared up. When asked if Baldasaro has considered the consequences of his statements (you know, like people will actually get violent), he responded that “Americans are better than that.”

We don’t have a problem with gun violence, either!

Donald Trump and Al Baldasaro. One is reminded of the (sort of)old saying, “Stupids of a feather flock together.”

8/17/16
“We reject the bigotry of Hillary Clinton”

Ah, the old “blame your opponent for your own faults”con. The anti-gay, anti-Latino, anti-Mexican, anti-Muslim bigot rejects bigotry.

8/14/16
“Their (the NY Times’s) stories about me always quote non-existent unnamed sources. Very dishonest!”

Ultimate irony. The above comment was made by the man who quotes unnamed sources so often, the derisive hashtag “#ManyPeopleSay” was created just for him.

8/10/16
“If she gets to pick her judges – nothing you can do, folks. Although, the second Amendment people. Maybe there is. I don’t know.”

When would “she” (Clinton) get to “pick her judges”? After she’s in office. So, after she’s in office, what could the “Second Amendment people do”? Hmmm . . . let’s see. What could they do? What could they do . . . other than shoot the President of the United States? This must rank as one of Trumps most stupid comments.

As of 8/10/16
“Many people are saying that the Iranians killed the scientist who helped the U.S. because of Hillary Clinton’s hacked emails.”

Ah, the old “many people are saying” line. When Trump says “many people are saying” or “thousands of people have told me” or other similar lines, it always means: “I just made something up, and I know you are stupid enough to believe it.” (See: #ManyPeopleAreSaying)

As of 8/5/16
a) Trump claimed he saw a video of the $400 million payment the United States made to Iran as it arrived in Iran. He later admitted he didn’t see the video.

b) Trump continues to claim thousands of Muslim-Americans in New Jersey celebrated 9/11, despite being confronted with lack of evidence he’s correct. “I’ve heard Jersey City. I’ve heard Paterson. It was 14 years ago. But I saw it on television, I saw clips, and so did many other people — and many people saw it in person. I’ve had hundreds of phone calls to the Trump organization saying, ‘We saw it. There was dancing in the streets.’ ”

No such video ever was found.

Apparently, Donald Trump suffers delusions while watching TV.

As of 8/4/16
Trump’s tone-deaf defense of his waving his arms crazily to mock disabled reporter, Serge Kovaleski: “I’ve spent millions on buildings for people with disabilities. I spend millions of dollars on ramps, on all sorts of things in buildings.”

Of course, he would have been sued for even more millions if he had not installed “ramps and all sorts of things.”

As of 8/3/16
After receiving a gift of a purple heart medal from Lt. Col. Louis Dorfman, Trump said, “Man, that’s like big stuff. I always wanted to get the Purple Heart. This was much easier.”

Yes, the purple heart is “like big stuff.” Trump, who avoided service because of a “bone spur” that mysteriously has healed all by itself, loved getting a purple heart the “easy” way. Now he has a medal to prove he has sacrificed for his country, just as he claimed.

And speaking of that spur:

“Sure, I got deferments. But, would you really want a president who was dumb enough to let himself get drafted? I mean, it wasn’t hard to get out of it, believe me. My doctor said I had a bump on my heel or something, I don’t know. I don’t even think he was a doctor, frankly. The government is just very, very stupid, OK? Which is why only I can fix it.”

Now those were the words of a real patriot.

As of 8/2/16
Trump, during a speech. “Don’t worry about that baby. I love babies. I hear that baby crying. It’s all right. Don’t worry about it. What a beautiful baby.

“Actually, get that baby out of here. I think she really believed me that I like a baby crying while I’m speaking. People don’t understand.”

Most politicians kiss babies to show how compassionate they are. Trump tried compassion, but it was alien to him, so he kicked the baby out. And no, Donald, no one believed you. And yes Donald, we do understand.

As of 8/1/16
Trump suggested that November’s general election may not be on the up-and-up.

“I’m afraid the election is going to be rigged,” the Republican nominee told a town hall crowd in Columbus.

That’s known as “Preparing your excuses well in advance.”

Prior to 7/30/16
Trump: “It’s too bad some of the people killed over the weekend (at Pulse nightclub) didn’t have guns attached to their hips, where bullets could have thrown in the opposite direction. Had people been able to fire back, it would have been a much different outcome.”

Chris Cox, the executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action: “No one thinks that people should go into a nightclub drinking and carrying firearms. That defies common sense. It also defies the law.”

If even the NRA says someone promoting guns lacks commons sense, that’s extreme.

Trump: “He (Putin) is not going into Ukraine, just so you understand. He’s not going to go to Ukraine.

George Stephanopoulos: “Well, he’s already there, isn’t he?”

Trump: “Well, he’s there in a certain way, but I’m not there.

You have Obama there. And frankly that part of the world is mess, under Obama. With all the strength that you’re talking about, and with all the power of NATO, and all of this, in the mean time, [Putin] takes Crimea.  You know the people of Crimea, from what I’ve heard, would rather be with Russia than where they were, and you have to look at that also.”

See it’s like this: Putin is not going into Crimea. But he is there “in a certain way,” because he “took Crimea.”

But Trump isn’t there. And Obama is there.

And NATO is powerful but Obama is weak, so he didn’t prevent Putin from going into Crimea even though the Crimeans want Russia in there.

And the world is a mess because of Obama.

Got it?

Trump complained about a fire marshal’s refusal to let more people into the Colorado Springs auditorium, which had a capacity of 1,500. Trump said into a microphone: “They won’t let them in, and the reason they won’t let them in is because they don’t know what the hell they’re doing, that’s why. Maybe they’re a Hillary person.”

Exactly the temperament and common sense needed for the leader of the free world, who holds the nuclear codes in his hands.

By the way, the fire marshal, Brett Lacey, was named “Civilian of the Year” for his paramedic work after two mass shootings. Compare his 34 years of public service to Trump’s.

Latest Trumpisms from Quartz
**“I don’t like email. You know why? I’m intelligent.”
**“General George Patton, who was rough as hell—he wouldn’t be doing emails when he’s gonna be ready to attack. If he were around, he’d say ‘I don’t like that system at all.’”
**“I think I have the best temperament, or one of the best temperaments, of anyone who has ever run for president.”
**“Some of the richest people in this country are people who can’t even read or write. They’re called friends of minecontractors.”

No, Trump doesn’t like Emails because he’s intelligent. Instead, he likes tweets, because they take more intelligence.

And there are his rich friends, those contractors who can’t even read or write. (You better stay clear of Trump Tower.) Maybe these rich friends learned contracting at Trump University.

Speaking about the wife of Khizr Khan, father of US Army Captain Humayun Khan, a Muslim soldier who was killed in Iraq, Trump said: “If you look at his wife, she was standing there. She had nothing to say. She probably, maybe she wasn’t allowed to have anything to say. You tell me.”

That is exactly what a potential President should say about the grieving mother of a dead child. So wise. So compassionate. Exactly the man to represent the United States of America.

Mr. Khan repeatedly had blasted Trump’s immigration proposals to bar Muslims, saying Trump has “sacrificed nothing and no one.”

Trump’s response: “I think I’ve made a lot of sacrifices. I work very, very hard. I’ve created thousands and thousands of jobs, tens of thousands of jobs, built great structures.”

Oh, the sacrifices  involved in building (and bankrupting) casinos, and in getting rich — and in all those lawsuits, because he doesn’t pay his contractors. Doesn’t your heart bleed for Trump’s sacrifices?

Trump: “I got a letter from the NFL saying ‘this (the dates set by the Debate Commission) is ridiculous, why are the debates against’ — because the NFL doesn’t want to go against the debates because the debates are going to be pretty massive from what I understand.

The NFL denied any letter was sent. “While we would obviously wish the Debate Commission could find another night, we did not send a letter to Mr. Trump,” The NFL said in a statement Saturday.

The dates were set by the independent Debate Commission, long before Trump and Clinton became candidates. The NFL should have sent Trump a tweet. 140 characters is his reading limit.

More surely to follow. The man is an idiocy machine.

Commitment denial: A story of cardiologists and economists

You may have noticed on this site, repeated examples of economists parroting the Big Lies in economics: Federal taxes fund federal spending, federal deficit spending is “unsustainable,” Medicare and Social Security are running short of money.

We never have seen a precise explanation for “unsustainable,” but we expect the economists want you to believe some combination of:
–The U.S. federal government is running short of its own sovereign currency, the dollar
–Taxpayers pay for federal spending
–Deficit spending causes inflations
–Deficit spending causes recessions and depressions
–At some unknown future time, the federal government will not be able to pay off its debts

All of the above are false.

The facts are: The U.S. government cannot run short of dollars; taxpayers do not pay for federal spending; deficit spending doesn’t cause inflations; deficit spending prevents and cures recessions and depressions; the federal government could pay off all its debt tomorrow.

Why do many economists, who of all people should know better, disseminate harmful myths about our economy?

In previous posts we have attributed the Big Lies to bribery by the rich — specifically those people who want to widen the Income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and the rest. (Without the Gap, no one would be rich — we all would be the same — and the wider the Gap, the richer they are.)

The rich bribe economists by employing them in “think tanks” and by making donations to their universities.

There may, however, be an additional factor: Commitment denial

Are Good Doctors Bad for Your Health?
New York Times, by Ezekiel J. Emanuel, 11/15/15

“Get me the best cardiologist” is our natural response to any heart problem. Unfortunately, it is probably wrong.

One of the more surprising research papers published recently appeared in JAMA Internal Medicine. It examined 10 years of data involving tens of thousands of hospital admissions.

It found that patients with acute, life-threatening cardiac conditions did better when the senior cardiologists were out of town.

And this was at the best hospitals in the United States, our academic teaching hospitals.

As the article concludes, high-risk patients with heart failure and cardiac arrest, hospitalized in teaching hospitals, had lower 30-day mortality when cardiologists were away from the hospital attending national cardiology meetings.

And the differences were not trivial — mortality decreased by about a third for some patients when those top doctors were away.

The research began as an investigation of how much harm cardiology meetings did (by calling doctors away from their hospitals), and instead found that heart patients did better when the hospitals’ best cardiologists were away!

There were several speculations about why this might be true:

One possible explanation is that while senior cardiologists are great researchers, the junior physicians — recently out of training — may actually be more adept clinically.

Another potential explanation is that senior cardiologists try more interventions.

When the cardiologists were around, patients in cardiac arrest, for example, were significantly more likely to get interventions, like stents, to open up their coronary blood vessels.

We usually think more treatment means better treatment.

We often forget that every test and treatment can go wrong, produce side effects or lead to additional interventions that themselves can go wrong.

The point of this post is not specifically to discuss medicine, for which I have very little background. Instead, the point is to discuss the medical establishment’s response to this research: Commitment denial.

When the AMA and several doctors were questioned about the research results, the responses could be summarized as, “We’re pleased that doctors made sure their staff was fully prepared.”

Get it? Rather than worry about why such results occurred, they tried a “lemons into lemonade” approach, in effect claiming that greater mortality with top doctors was a good thing.

Also, they questioned the research itself, and seem less concerned about the possibility the research may have uncovered a real problem.

Doctors themselves intuitively believed the results were impossible. And why should they not?

They have devoted their entire lives to the “self-evident” postulate that better, more experienced doctors always create better patient outcomes.

They are committed to denying otherwise.

In the same vein, many economists have devoted their lives to the belief that federal taxpayers, (like state and local taxpayers) fund their governments’ spending, and that deficits and debts are economically bad.

To them, it’s “self evident.” No proof needed, and no contrary evidence accepted.

Economists have written papers and read papers on the subject, given speeches and heard speeches , attended meetings and had informal discussions with fellow economists, received awards for their hypotheses, taught classes and corrected students who said otherwise — day after day after day — all of which have solidified their beliefs.

In short, the economists, like the doctors, are not just financially committed, but also emotionally committed to their versions of the Big Lie.

You probably have not heard much about the above-mentioned medical research. The doctors and media don’t discuss it.

Nor have you heard much about the Big Lies in economics. The economists and media don’t discuss them.

They believe what they believe, and anything that disagrees “obviously” is wrong.

Each group of doctors and economists fervently prays the data simply will disappear — the head-in-sand approach, though in each case, the data point to ways in which physical and financial lives may be saved.

In human psychology, a saved life sometimes is less valuable than a saved self-image.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

===================================================================================
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 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-tranferring 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 an 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

Medicare for Education: The “Free College” promise could come true

The web site, “Reason.com,” published an article titled, “Hillary Clinton’s Free College Promise Won’t Be Free—and Won’t Help College Students.”

The article is right — and wrong — and if you’re interested or confused about the “Free College” promise, here are some excerpts from the article:

“It’s just not right that Donald Trump can ignore his debts and students and families can’t refinance theirs,” Hillary Clinton said during her acceptance speech Thursday night.

She specifically name-checked Sanders and promised to work with him “to make college tuition free for the middle class and debt free for all.”

Actually, she and Bernie are on somewhat different paths. She even is on a different path from herself.

She spoke about refinancing debt, which is a long way from “debt free for all.”  For example, in the past few years, as interest rates fell, millions of people refinanced their mortgages, but that didn’t mean they were “debt free.”

By contrast, Bernie really did suggest free college, though supposedly (and erroneously) “paid for” by taxes.

The attack on Trump here is something of a non sequitur.

Sure, Trump may have overused and even abused America’s bankruptcy laws, but there’s actually an important reason why student loan debt can’t be wiped out in bankruptcy court while the debt of poorly run casinos can.

When a person or business goes through bankruptcy, there are physical assets that can be sold and used to pay lenders.

The bankruptcy process is meant to bring both sides to the table to work out a middle ground. Lenders get something back, and borrowers have to pay what they can.

There are no physical assets in student loan debt.

A college grad with $100,000 in unpaid loans can’t slice off a portion of their knowledge or experience and sell it, any more than they can hand over a portion of the better economic opportunities they have because of a college degree.

The explanation is wrong. Many people, who have no assets, go bankrupt every year. For them, the purpose of bankruptcy is to give them a fresh start, and not to be indebted forever.

So yes, the student loan laws could be amended to allow for bankruptcy, rather than the permanent, “indentured servant” system now in place.

America is damaged when its educated students are hamstrung by debt much of their lives, unable start a family, unable to use their education to create new business opportunities, unable to work in the lower-paid sciences or teaching, because they need to earn more to pay their debts.

To anyone who graduated in the last decade, during which tuition costs have skyrocketed, the idea of “free” or “debt free” college tuition probably sounds great.

But attempts by state and federal government to lower the cost of college have contributed mightily to the high cost of attending post-secondary school.

Government subsidies have hidden the price of college and broken the market forces that would naturally keep tuition costs down, allowing universities to charge pretty much whatever they want.

This is identical with the objections we all heard to Medicare: “Subsidize doctor and hospital bills, and doctors and hospitals will charge whatever they want.”

But, in fact, the opposite happened. Medicare has limited doctor and hospital bills.

Not that this is economically beneficial. By cutting medical bills, Medicare reduces the amount of money the federal government pumps into the economy, thereby reducing economic growth.

And the idea of “market forces that would naturally keep tuition costs down” doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.  It means that poorer students would seek out lower ranked colleges, theoretically forcing the higher ranked colleges to lower rates in order to compete.

Not only is this disgustingly elitist (Shall we also require poorer sick people to use lower ranked health care?), but colleges already compete on price, and that competition has not reduced prices.

Under a plan she announced earlier this month, anyone from a family making less than $85,000 a year would get free tuition to public universities.

(But) her vice presidential pick, U.S. Sen. Tim Kaine, (previously) wrote, “By making all public university education free, we’d be giving away college education to richer Americans who don’t need the assistance paying for it.”

So, does this mean a family making $86,000 a year should not receive free tuition?  Should we set up an income “no-man’s land,” whereby no one wishes to earn $86,000 – $126,000?

This would be yet another instance of Congressional “fine tuning” that creates more problems than it solves.

The entire discussion of “free college” would greatly be simplified if it revolved around two facts:

  1. College education is just as important to America today, as was high school education yesterday, and elementary school education before then.

    The world has become much more complex, much more technical, and for America to retain its leadership, we must ensure that all those who want a college education get it.

  2. The federal government has the unlimited ability to fund college for everyone. There is no benefit to America in limiting anyone’s financial ability to attend college. Taxpayers do not fund federal spending.

    There is no reason not to “give away college education to richer Americans who don’t need the assistance paying for it.

    The money enters the economy, thereby stimulating the economy, benefitting many Americans.

    At any rate, “family income” is a horrible way to measure one’s ability to pay for college.

    It is a measure that does not consider the varying costs of living in different geographical areas, the number and ages of people in the family, the family’s wealth, the family’s other financial obligations, the family’s health — a whole host of considerations that are not considered by family income.

What should be done: In the Ten Steps to Prosperity (below), Steps #4 (FREE EDUCATION, INCLUDING POST-GRAD, FOR EVERYONE) and #5 (SALARY FOR ATTENDING SCHOOL) describe in more detail, a financial plan for education.

Medicare already has solved many of the functional problems for us. It shows how the government can fund an important function, in this case, healthcare, in an evenhanded, highly beneficial way.

We should institute a “Medicare for education” plan, without the FICA and the age limits.

The government can afford it.
The country needs it.
Medicare has shown us how to do it.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

===================================================================================
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 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-tranferring 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 an 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