When did Justice Scalia visit your house?

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

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

Simple question. When did Justice Scalia visit your house?

What? Never?

What about Justice Thomas, Justice Alito or any of the other Supreme Court members?

Again, never? Don’t feel bad. They never have been to my house either.

Here’s a little hint: Don’t wait up for them. They’re not coming. Not today. Not tomorrow. Not ever . . . unless you’re rich.

And that is the point.

Some Justices may be able to resist the allure of money and moneyed people. Justice Scalia was not one of those. He delighted in hanging with the rich and famous.

SunSentinel, 2/15/16: CREEK RANCH, Texas
When Texas millionaire John Poindexter invited Justice Antonin Scalia to his remote ranch near the Mexican border, it was for a private party with about 35 other guests, a weekend of hunting and sightseeing on his painstakingly restored and cultivated 30,000-acre spread.

Are you a Texas millionaire? Do you own a “painstakingly restored and cultivated 30,000-acre spread”? Do your friends? If not, no need to wonder why Justice Scalia never paid a visit.

(Despite the proximity to Mexico, it’s doubtful whether any non-celebrity Mexicans were among the guests, either.)

Poindexter became concerned and went to (Scalia’s) room, which has its own outdoor fire pit and a wall of windows overlooking the 22-room adobe ranch hotel, a lake and surrounding peaks of the Chinati Mountains.

It was Scalia’s first visit to the storied ranch, and his death is already becoming part of the lore at Cibolo Creek, a site steeped in Southwest history and frequented by what Poindexter’s consultant George Van Etten called “a lot of Hollywood people and captains of industry.”

Guests have included Mick Jagger, Julia Roberts, and Tommy Lee Jones.

Poindexter said he invited Scalia to the ranch on the suggestion of a mutual friend, a lawyer, who came with Scalia.

He declined to identify the lawyer or any of the other guests, except to say that they were “very substantial business people,” but not big names in politics.

“There is no political angle here,” he said. “It was strictly a group of friends sympathetic to the justice’s views.”

See, it’s like this. There was no political angle. Just people who were sympathetic to Scalia’s political views.

These rich people had plenty of time to express their political views to a sympathetic jurist, who would be ruling on cases of great financial importance to these rich people.

Of course, a man like Scalia would not be swayed by such ex parte communications. The common ethics rule goes something like this:

A judge shall not initiate, permit, or consider ex parte communications, or consider other communications made to the judge outside the presence of the parties or their lawyers, concerning a pending or impending matter.

If a judge inadvertently receives an unauthorized ex parte communication bearing upon the substance of a matter, the judge shall promptly notify the parties of the substance of the communication and provide the parties with an opportunity to respond.

Clearly, the Honorable Justice Scalia would scrupulously avoid any hint of unethical behavior (though what is the purpose of meeting a group of people “sympathetic to the justice’s views”?)

Scalia engendered criticism in the past over his choice of partners on hunting trips. In 2001, he went on a pheasant hunting trip with the dean of a Kansas law school who was the lead attorney in two cases that were about to come before the Supreme Court.

And in 2004, he went duck hunting with then-Vice President Dick Cheney — flying with him on a plane that served as Air Force 2 — while the high court was considering a case that challenged the secrecy of an energy task force led by Cheney.

Is Scalia so rude as not to know how to say “Thank you” to his benefactors?

Scalia simply enjoyed killing ducks and flying Air Force 2, and hey, what’s the good of being a judge if you can’t accept gifts from the plaintiffs who come before you?

“I spent quite a bit of time talking to him — about nothing official, just pleasantries: Texas scenery, outdoors, what life is like in Washington,” Poindexter said. “He didn’t come to have a long conversation about jurisprudence.”

Right. You invite a leading Supreme Court justice for a free weekend, to hobnob with “substantial people” who have similar views, and then you talk about Texas scenery.

Sounds reasonable.

Then there was Justice Thomas joining Scalia at the trough:

When the conservative financier Charles Koch sent out invitations for a political retreat in Palm Springs later this month, he highlighted past appearances at the gathering of “notable leaders” like Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas of the Supreme Court.

A leading liberal group, Common Cause, filed a petition with the Justice Department on Wednesday asking it to investigate whether Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas should have recused themselves in the case, involving Citizens United, because of their attendance at past retreats organized by the conservative financier Charles Koch, whose company operates a foundation that is a major contributor to political advocacy groups.

You remember Citizens United, don’t you? That’s the case in which Scalia ruled that “money is free speech, and the more free speech the better.”

Apparently, rich people are entitled to more free speech than other people, so they can spend all they want to sway elections.

Although Scalia may have been one of the more blatant flouters of normal judicial ethics, he was not unique:

At the Supreme Court, conflicts of interest are just a day at the office

Justice Samuel A. Alito’s sister is a high-powered labor attorney who represents management in disputes with workers. Justice Elena Kagan’s brother, a teacher at an elite public school in New York, has protested the school’s admissions process because of low minority enrollment. And Justice Stephen G. Breyer’s son co-founded a tech company that broadcasts civil court proceedings.

Does having relatives involved in labor disputes, affirmative action battles and cameras in courtrooms affect how Supreme Court justices decide cases and manage their institution? They say no, and we’re supposed to take them at their word.

But is “trust us” really good enough for the nation’s highest court?

A confluence of recent events has made the Supreme Court the most powerful, least accountable public institution in the country. It is time to make the justices more accountable to the American people.

In spite of this vast power, the justices have little accountability. Not only do they decide for themselves when to recuse themselves from cases in which they have conflicts; they also aren’t bound to a code of ethics the way the rest of the federal judiciary is.

They can decide how much information on investments and travel to release in their annual financial disclosure reports, and they determine when and where people can demonstrate near their building.

Unlike the consensus required to make changes in Congress, the Supreme Court is largely in charge of its own rules — and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. himself could usher in most of the vital changes needed, including tightening requirements on recusals, requiring the justices to adhere to the Code of Conduct for U.S. judges, posting disclosure reports online, providing advance notice for public appearances and permitting live audio and video in the courtroom.

Will the Supreme Court of the United States ever adopt the ethics rules by which all other judges in America are bound?

My prediction: Not with Roberts or any other conservative as Chief Justice. By nature, liberals are more tuned to fairness and ethics — that’s what makes them liberals — so we probably will have to wait until then.

There is a blog that addresses the issue: http://fixthecourt.com/ You absolutely should read it and keep it at ready access.

Meanwhile, do you see why laws always seem to benefit the rich at the expense of the rest of us?

Not only are the politicians bribed with campaign contributions and promises of well-paying jobs, and the media are bribed via ownership, and the economists are bribed by contributions to their universities, but the Supreme Court itself is bribed by conflict-of-interest.

Yes, it always has been this way, and yes, both parties are subject to this bribery at your expense, but does that make it O.K.?

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

===================================================================================
Ten Steps to Prosperity:
1. Eliminate FICA (Click here)
2. Federally funded Medicare — parts A, B & D plus long term nursing care — for everyone (Click here)
3. Provide an Economic Bonus to every man, woman and child in America, and/or every state a per capita Economic Bonus. (Click here) Or institute a reverse income tax.
4. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone. Click here
5. Salary for attending school (Click here)
6. Eliminate corporate taxes (Click here)
7. Increase the standard income tax deduction annually Click here
8. Tax the very rich (.1%) more, with higher, progressive tax rates on all forms of income. (Click here)
9. Federal ownership of all banks (Click here and here)
10. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99% (Click here)

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

10 Steps to Economic Misery: (Click here:)
1. Maintain or increase the FICA tax..
2. Spread the myth Social Security, Medicare and the U.S. government are insolvent.
3. Cut federal employment in the military, post office, other federal agencies.
4. Broaden the income tax base so more lower income people will pay.
5. Cut financial assistance to the states.
6. Spread the myth federal taxes pay for federal spending.
7. Allow banks to trade for their own accounts; save them when their investments go sour.
8. Never prosecute any banker for criminal activity.
9. Nominate arch conservatives to the Supreme Court.
10. Reduce the federal deficit and debt

No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth. Monetary Sovereignty: Cutting federal deficits to grow the economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia.
1. A growing economy requires a growing supply of dollars (GDP=Federal Spending + Non-federal Spending + Net Exports)
2. All deficit spending grows the supply of dollars
3. The limit to federal deficit spending is an inflation that cannot be cured with interest rate control.
4. The limit to non-federal deficit spending is the ability to borrow.

THE RECESSION CLOCK

Recessions begin an average of 2 years after the blue line first dips below zero. A common phenomenon is for the line briefly to dip below zero, then rise above zero, before falling dramatically below zero. There was a brief dip below zero in 2015, followed by another dip – the familiar pre-recession pattern.
Recessions are cured by a rising red line.

Monetary Sovereignty

Vertical gray bars mark recessions.

As the federal deficit growth lines drop, we approach recession, which will be cured only when the growth lines rise. Increasing federal deficit growth (aka “stimulus”) is necessary for long-term economic growth.

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Mitchell’s 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..

•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

How the Rich Use the Big Lie to Cheat You: Chapter IV: Bank Fraud

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

The notorious bank robber, Willie Sutton, was (probably falsely) reported to have answered the question, “Why do you rob banks?” with: “Because that’s where the money is.”

And whether he said it or not (He denied it), the answer is correct. Banks indeed are where the money is, and wherever there is money, there will be fraud. And wherever there is big money, there will be big fraud.

Big money and big fraud go together like a man and woman dancing, with the big money leading and the big fraud closely following.

Not only does big money create big temptation, but big money gives big bribes to crooked politicians and a crooked legal system to look the other way. Examples: President Barack Obama and his Department of Justice (DOJ), who to date, have not prosecuted, let alone convicted, even one CEO of a bank criminal enterprise.

In Obama-world, a shoplifter of $25 may go to jail; the CEO of a major bank criminal enterprise, who has stolen billions of dollars, and personally received hundreds of millions, keeps his job, receives bonus money and otherwise is punished not at all.

Bank criminals have well-bribed friends in the White House.

Bill Black, the author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One and an associate professor of economics and law at the nation’s best economics department — The University of Missouri-Kansas City — may be the most informed economist when describing bank fraud.

In addition to his book, he has written many articles on the subject. I recommend you read him whenever you can. To give you just a taste of his writing, here are a few excerpts:

The Inaugural Financial Fraud Lemons of the Week Award Goes to DOJ

This first column in a series we will do on DOJ’s refusal to prosecute the scores of senior bankers that led Morgan Stanley’s criminal enterprise will focus on DOJ’s press release.

Morgan Stanley was one of the largest criminal enterprises in the world and committed tens of thousands of acts of fraud that cost the American people billions of dollars in losses.

DOJ refused to make clear statements about Morgan Stanley’s massive fraud schemes. This column focuses on only four, spectacularly dishonest aspects of DOJ’s press release (regarding Morgan Stanley’s “punishment” of a $3.2 billion fine):

“Today’s settlement holds Morgan Stanley appropriately accountable for misleading investors about the subprime mortgage loans underlying the securities it sold,” said Acting Associate Attorney General Stuart F. Delery.

“The Department of Justice will not tolerate those who seek financial gain through deceptive or unfair means, and we will take appropriately aggressive action against financial institutions that knowingly engage in improper investment practices.”

How can a bank be held “appropriately accountable” for tens of billions of dollars in fraudulent mortgage sales? We can’t imprison a bank or shame it.

The bank is inherently incapable of being held “appropriately accountable” because that is a moral concept and a bank has no soul to damn.

“Those who contributed to the financial crisis of 2008 cannot evade responsibility for their misconduct,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Benjamin C. Mizer, head of the Justice Department’s Civil Division.

“This resolution demonstrates once again that the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act is a powerful weapon for combatting financial fraud and that the department will not hesitate to use it to hold accountable those who violate the law.”

DOJ held no Morgan Stanley official “appropriately accountable” while claiming that its settlement did the opposite.

Delery claims that DOJ “will not tolerate those who seek financial gain through deceptive or unfair means.”

The settlement proves the opposite, for DOJ “tolerated” Morgan Stanley’s senior officers being made wealthy through leading a massive fraud scheme – with zero accountability imposed on those officers.

Delery claims DOJ “will take appropriately aggressive action against financial institutions that knowingly engage” in fraud.

A “financial institution,” cannot “knowingly engage” in fraud except through vicarious liability for the actions of its officers.

Delery is admitting that Morgan Stanley’s officers “knowingly engage[d]” in fraud and became wealthy by doing so, but DOJ took no “action against” those officers, much less “aggressive” prosecutions.

Mizer’s claim that DOJ’s settlement with Morgan Stanley proves that “those who contributed to the financial crisis of 2008 cannot evade responsibility for their misconduct.”

DOJ, once more, refused to prosecute these elite frauds, did not require that they be fired, did not require them to give back their bonuses and other compensation that they received due to fraud, did not sue them, and did not even name them.

Mizer then extended his lie by claiming that “the department will not hesitate to use [the law] to hold accountable those who violate the law.”

Today’s settlement is part of the ongoing efforts of President Obama’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force’s RMBS Working Group, which has recovered billions of dollars arising from misconduct related to the financial crisis.

The RMBS Working Group is a federal and state law enforcement effort focused on investigating fraud and abuse in the RMBS market that helped lead to the 2008 financial crisis.

We have agreement from DOJ, collectively through its pathetic settlements, that Bernie Sanders’ charge is correct. Agencies of the United States, after investigation, have confirmed at virtually every enormous bank that the business plan was fraud.

Moreover, DOJ admits that the fraud epidemics by the world’s largest banks were leading causes of the financial crisis and the Great Recession.

All of Professor Black’s articles, and his book, say essentially the same things: The major banks are criminal enterprises, perhaps the biggest the world ever has known, making Bernie Madoff look like a piker.

They have stolen billions from the public.

The gangsters, who run these criminal enterprises, reaped billions, but having bribed our political leaders, they received rewards rather than punishment.

And the public neither knows nor cares what has been done to them.

You’ll notice that during the political debates, neither party and no candidate (perhaps with the exception of Bernie Sanders) has made an issue of these crimes. The reason: Both parties and all candidates have been bribed.

Consider the Clintons:

$153 million in Bill and Hillary Clinton speaking fees, documented

Hillary Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, combined to earn more than $153 million in paid speeches from 2001 until Hillary Clinton launched her presidential campaign last spring, a CNN analysis shows.

In total, the two gave 729 speeches from February 2001 until May, receiving an average payday of $210,795 for each address.

The two also reported at least $7.7 million for at least 39 speeches to big banks, including Goldman Sachs and UBS, with Hillary Clinton, the Democratic 2016 front-runner, collecting at least $1.8 million for at least eight speeches to big banks.

The analysis was made at a time when Hillary Clinton has been under scrutiny for her ties to Wall Street, which has been a major focus of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders on the campaign trail.

If you believe the banks gave Hillary $1.8 million just to hear her talk eight times, then I have some costume jewelry I’d like to sell you.

The banksters use money stolen from the public, to bribe the politicians. Do the Democrat or Republican candidates for President of the United States care about your losses? Not that you would notice.

What the politicians do care about is your vote, and they think your vote depends on such issues as gay couples marrying, and Mexican children coming here, and poor mothers receiving food stamps.

Your politicians believe you are oblivious to the billions being stolen from you, and that you are more concerned with cutting the (necessary) federal deficit and the (meaningless) federal debt.

Now, eight years after having caused one of the greatest recessions in American history, the unpunished banksters have learned not to fear the DOJ or the public.

As you read this article, they repeat their crimes, while bribing politicians to weaken any remaining laws that might prevent such criminality.

The Ten Steps to Prosperity, listed at the bottom of every post on this blog, include as #9. “Federal ownership of all banks” Here are some excerpts from the various posts on this subject:

The end of private banking: Why the federal government should own all banks.

Global Economic Intersection:
Dallas Fed: Break Up the TBTF
March 30th, 2012

The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas and its president Richard Fisher are generally known as conservative, hard money proponents. Often conservative economic thinkers are strong laissez-faire proponents.

That is why the 2011 annual report of the Dallas Fed, released this month, has been such a surprise.

A focal point of the report is very interventionist, calling for direct government action to force the break-up of the nation’s largest banks, the so-called TBTF (Too Big To Fail) institutions.

The focus of the report is an essay by Harvey Rosenblum, Executive Vice President and Director of Research. Key points by Rosenblum include:

[Dodd-Frank] may not prevent the biggest financial institutions from taking excessive risk or growing ever bigger.

TBTF institutions were at the center of the financial crisis and the sluggish recovery that followed. If allowed to remain unchecked, these entities will continue posing a clear and present danger to the U.S. economy.

Here, the FRB Dallas attributes bank problems to bank size. But even dividing the monstrous banks into mere big banks is unlikely to solve the basic problem: Greed, the profit motive and the access to punishment-free stealing.

TBTF undermines equal treatment, reinforcing the perception of a system tilted in favor of the rich and powerful.… virtually nobody has been punished or held accountable for their roles in the financial crisis.

… zero interest rates are taxing savers to pay for the recapitalization of the TBTF banks whose dire problems brought about the calamity that created the original need for the zero interest rate policy.

The final paragraph makes an interesting point. With zero interest rates, savers receive nothing so virtually are taxed.

But the more important point is that privately held banks control vast sums of money, and the profit motive provides vast temptations to steal.

Federal bank ownership would all but eliminate this problem. (I’ve not heard of the Federal Reserve Banking system, which also controls vast sums of money, engaging in criminal practices.)

While federal employees are fundamentally no more honest than private employees, the opportunities and desire for theft decrease markedly with a federally owned bank that has little-to-no profit motive.

Some people believe the banking problem can be solved with effective and strictly enforced laws and supervision. That may partially be true, but the ultimate in effective and strictly enforced laws and supervision is federal ownership and management.

Some people believe banks should be public utilities. I suggest that solves few problems. “Public” utilities actually are private enterprises. Making banks public utilities merely would move banks from their current set of government regulators to a different set of government regulators.

There is no public purpose being served by private banking. None. All banks should be federally owned.

For more thorough discussions, I recommend you read the various posts listed https://mythfighter.com/, with the word “Bank” in their title.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

THE RECESSION CLOCK

Monetary Sovereignty

Vertical gray bars mark recessions.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

How the Rich Use the Big Lie to Cheat You: Chapter III: Motivation

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

Economics is a social science, desperately trying to be a physical or natural science.

Economists attempt to prove their science chops by using mathematics. Open any economics text and you will see it filled with false mathematic equations. We say “false,” because equations imply a level of precision seldom found in the social sciences.

Consider Supply and Demand, the very bedrock of economics theory. You’ve seen the basic formula: Demand / Supply = Price (or Value).

Mathematically, it indicates that if you know two of the variables, you can determine the third variable.

Utter nonsense, and we all know it.

While Supply sometimes can (but often, not) be physical, and measured directly, Demand most often is non-physical, psychological and a derivative of the formula. Two, completely different entities in the same formula.

And then there is the third variable, Price or Value. Often they are quite different. While Price can be specific, Value, like beauty, can be in the eyes of the beholder.

At best — at the very best — the formula can give you a hint about what might be a direction. And yet, this is one of the most fundamental formulas in all of economics.

One unpredictable quantity is what makes the social sciences social: People.

Economics essentially is about money, and everything in economics devolves to motive.

What is your motive? Why do you want money?

Well actually, you don’t want money; you want what you believe it can buy: Goods and services, yes, and far more: Power, pride, admiration, security, the feelings of accomplishment.

Other than mere ignorance, what then is the motivation for telling the Big Lie?

We have discussed this in earlier posts, and we’ll borrow freely from those posts while compiling this chapter.

LEADERS & FOLLOWERS
We humans, being social animals, form societies. Most societies have Leaders and Followers. In human societies, the role of Leaders is protect, educate and guide us, so they are given special powers and privileges.

Evolution has taught Followers they benefit when their Leaders are strong, wise effective and possibly care about the well-being of Followers. So Followers are motivated to believe their Leaders have those traits.

We root for teams, often home-town teams or teams having other features with which we identifyh. Generally, we gain nothing from their victories and lose nothing from their defeats, and they care little about us. Yet we passionately care what happens to them. They are our Leaders. Their victories and losses are ours.

This makes evolutionary sense. Social animals cannot survive alone. We need the pack. When any member of the pack, especially the Leader, is attacked, our own safety is compromised, unless the attacker can be defeated.

Followers are motivated to close the physical and/or psychological distance between them and their Leaders.

Followers feel more comfortable when they figuratively can “touch” their leaders.

Just as Followers need Leaders, Leaders need Followers. Leaders too, do not survive alone.

Evolution has taught Leaders to strive to widen the psychological distance between them and their Followers, lest the Followers disrespect the Leader’s superiority, or even challenge the Leader for power. To be a Leader, one must have Followers who respect and agree to the Leader’s leadership.

To establish their superiority, Leaders create protocols. In Japan, the Follower bows lowest, while the Leader may barely nod. Popes and kings wear crowns and special robes. They live in castles, and they demand special forms of address, all to separate themselves from their Followers.

Leaders address Followers by first names, while Followers respond with “Mr.” or “Sir” or “Dr.” or “Senator” or “Excellency.” Thus, superiority is maintained.

American leaders may be rich, famous and/or have a powerful position in society. Your boss is a Leader and you are a Follower, except when you are a Leader and your assistant is a Follower.

You may not have to think about the protocols that separate you from your boss and separate your assistant from you. Followers follow protocols to strengthen the ties, and to gain favor with (i.e. come closer to), their Leaders. Followers obey commands and demonstrate appreciation for their Leaders. (No one ever was fired for giving the boss a gift or for laughing at the boss’s jokes.)

Leaders follow protocols to strengthen the fealty of their Followers (i.e. giving small gifts called “social spending”), while widening the psychological distance between them and their Followers.

We see a conflict of Leaders widening the psychological distance from Followers, while maintaining them closely enough for them to act as servants. And we see the Followers trying to close the psychological distance, while maintaining subserviance to please the Leaders.

It is a conflict marked by Followers’ envy and needs vs. Leaders’ contempt and needs. To them all, rank is a zero sum game. Others must be pushed down, for them to rise up.

BULLYING
We learn about bullying at an early age. It is a natural, human process whereby some people attempt to assert themselves as Leaders using the common, dual, distance-widening process: Lift themselves while depressing others.

Either works to provide the needed margin. Those who are not confident in the uplifting ability of their own personal qualities, may especially be tempted to resort to bullying.

Bigotry against race, religion, national background or social class is a form of bullying. By separating “us” from “them,” it makes us “better”.

When Donald Trump stigmatizes immigrants, Mexicans and Muslims, he appeals to the human desire for self-esteem relative to others.

GENERALISTS AND SPECIALISTS
Bears, for instance, are not social animals. The male bear roams alone. He is a generalist. He takes as his sole responsibility, finding his food and shelter, his safety and survival. He must be proficient in every aspect of his life.

By contrast, we humans are specialists. Some of us grow food and some distribute it, some cook it and some serve it.

Each of us has come to accept that other humans have specific knowledge we don’t have. Being neither a farmer, nor a distributor, nor a cook nor a waiter, I accept there are food-related experts who can do what I can’t. If I were a bear, I’d starve.

None of us is a Leader in all things. The wealthy man, who finds himself in legal difficulties, may regard his attorney as his Leader in legal matters, and be most anxious to have the attorney nearby and to follow the attorney’s advice — but not have the attorney as a social friend.

Exclusion from social circles is a way to uplift some by casting down others.

YOUR FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS
Typically, the majority of your friends and neighbors are in financial circumstances similar to yours.

You probably live in a neighborhood matching your wealth. Poor people may be geographically restricted by finances. But even rich people, who can live anywhere, prefer to live among other rich people and associate with other rich people.

This is no accident. It is a matter of comfort. The rich feel uncomfortable when a poor person comes close, except in the role of servant. Even then, protocols are followed to maintain or widen the Gap between them.

THE RICH AND THE POLITICIANS
America’s political Leaders are first, the rich, and then the politicians, who are controlled by the rich (via campaign contributions and promises of lucrative employment, later.)

Both have similar desires: The rich want an underclass, tame enough to accept hard work for moderate-to-minimal reward, and not to demand more power or proximity.

The politicians, servants of the rich, want an underclass, tame enough to accept lies about the need for minimal reward, and not to demand more power or proximity.

Over time, the rich have developed worldwide, the BIG LIE – the ridiculous-on-the-face-of-it lie that a sovereign nation can run short of its own sovereign currency.

This is the lie that keeps the underclasses in chains.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY
Even a few seconds of thought should be sufficient to make one realize, a Monetarily Sovereign nation, which invented the laws that created its currency, always has the power to create more of that currency.

The federal government does it, daily.

Why then do Americans believe President Obama when he lies that “America must live within its means”?

Our nation has no “means,” if “means” is defined as the ability to pay bills.

The U.S. government pays its bills by creating dollars, ad hoc. This is the primary method by which the federal government creates dollars.

Why do Americans believe Congressman Boehner when he lies that, “America is broke”?

It functionally is impossible for America ever to be “broke.” Even were the federal “debt” to be 100 times its current level, the federal government could continue paying all its bills as it always has.

(Actually, the federal “debt” today is almost 50 times what it was in 1970, just 45 years ago, and the federal government continues to pay its bills, with no difficulty whatsoever.)

We are genetically disposed to rely on our Leaders, and part of that reliance is the tendency to accept what they tell us.

Only a few more seconds of thought should be sufficient to show how a sovereign nation can prevent or create inflation by giving its sovereign currency any exchange value it chooses.

Many nations arbitrarily have changed the exchange value of their sovereign currency, more often via devaluation (to increase exports), but occasionally through revaluation.

Why then do Americans believe Fed Chairman Bernanke when he pretends inflation is something that could happen beyond America’s control, and that he heroically is working to control it?

The reason is simple: Our Leaders have brainwashed us into believing only their strong hands separate us from chaos, despite the clear facts that it is our Leaders who, consciously or not, create chaos, in distance-widening efforts.

One is reminded of young girls who stay enslaved by their pimps, because in their innocence, they believe their pimps protect them from a cruel world.

It’s what their pimps tell them. It’s what our pimps tell us.

ANTI-ABORTION
Consider anti-abortion laws, which never seem quite strict enough for some politicians. These actually are distance-widening laws, but with a moral veneer.

It is a way that certain groups exert control over women by claiming God as their moral ally. “I am good; you are bad.” (“You tricked Adam into eating the apple.”)

The rich and powerful pay no attention to such laws. They buy abortions at will. But the poor are trapped, by such laws, into giving birth to unaffordable, unwanted, future uneducated criminals, trapped by the rich in an endless cycle of poverty and powerlessness.

Of what value to humankind is forcing poor women to deliver such children into this world? One can debate about when a zygote becomes a sentient human being, but that debate is a excuse for an underlying motive: To create a larger, more compliant underclass.

Pro-”life” is the cover story into which a great many innocent, well-meaning people have bought. The unfortunate poor, chained to unwanted children, will work hard and cheaply (raising and empowering the rich).

And they will need government support for survival (raising and empowering the politicians).

What better way to enslave the poor than to force unaffordable burdens on them, then to be their only means of survival, so they must beg the rich and the politicians for help.

It’s perfect.

BUYING THE STAIRWAY TO HEAVEN
Humans have been taught to reward those in power, so to raise our status by narrowing the distance above us.

The ultimate power is God, so “He” universally is ewarded via prayer and valuable contributions to a church.

The motive of the rich, for accepting rewards, adoration from contemporaries and envy from those below.

The irony of poor people donating to a wealthy church is: The Leaders gain power, while the poor are told they must continue to ingratiate themselves with the all-powerful God, a God whose needs are infinite.

The poor never may stop giving.

The Leaders tell the poor that support of the religion is the sole path to heaven. The poor are impoverished further, and the Leaders, being the intermediaries between God and the poor, gain power.

In many religions, the Leaders wear costumes and create customs, to widen the distance between themselves and their Followers. The Leaders write and lead the prayers the Followers are compelled to read and recite, repeatedly.

Repetition implants the “truth.”. It is a classic brainwashing technique.

As always, the underclass attempts to close the distance from power, while power wishes to widen the distance between it and the underclass.

To Leaders, the distance is of foremost importance.

THE QUESTION
When anyone in power – any rich person, any business superior, any politician, and cleric – speaks about money or economics in general, the first question you should ask is, “Why? What is the motivation? How will this widen the distance between him and those with less power?”

“Rich” and “powerful” are not absolutes. They are comparative term. For someone to be rich, someone else must be poor.

If you own $1000, you are not rich if everyone else has $2000. But if you own $1000, you are rich if everyone else owns $10.

Similarly, you are powerful only if there are those having less power.

Power corrupts, and the corrupted tell lies to extend their corruption.

When any President, any Congressperson, any cleric, any person more powerful than you tells lies, they lie for the same reason: To maintain or widen the distance between them and you.

THE BASIS FOR ECONOMICS
Money is not the real goal of the rich, nor even of the middle class. The real goal is to widen the Gap.

No matter where in the wealth rankings people find themselves, their natural desire is to widen the Gap from those having less, and to narrow the Gap with those having more.

The rich, however, have far more power to widen the Gap, which is why the GINI ratio continues to rise.

President Obama tells lies to create and widen the gap. He wants the best Presidential Library. He wants the best legacy. He wants history to separate him from other Presidents. He wants to hobnob in the homes of the rich and famous. He wants his family to have the same.

President Obama will not come to stay at your house, but he very well may stay Bill Gates’s or Queen Elizabeth’s castle. What is his motivation?

Why would he prefer to spend time with Bill and the Queen than with you? Because he doesn’t want to be near you. He wants to be near them. He wants to increase the gap below him and narrow any Gap that may exist above him.

Meanwhile, you too would like to visit Bill and the Queen as a gap narrowing measure, and like the President you don’t want poor people coming to your house.

You too want to widen the gap below you and narrow the Gap above you.

This is the psychological basis for all economics: Motivation and the gap.

It is the reason for the Big Lie, and also is the primary reason so many of your friends are happy to believe the Big Lie.

It accommodates their own desires for growth.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

THE RECESSION CLOCK

Monetary Sovereignty

Vertical gray bars mark recessions.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

From “ticking time bomb” to “looming collapse.”

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

Are you still here? I am, though one wouldn’t know it by the endless, hysterical headlines regarding the federal budget.

Just by way of reminder:

Back in 1940, the federal budget was a “ticking time-bomb which can eventually destroy the American system,” said Robert M. Hanes, president of the American Bankers Association.

By 1960: the debt was “threatening the country’s fiscal future,” said Secretary of Commerce, Frederick H. Mueller.

By 1983: “The debt “probably will explode in the third quarter of 1984,” said Fred Napolitano, former president of the National Association of Home Builders.

In 1984: AFL-CIO President Lane Kirkland said. “It’s a time bomb ticking away.”

In 1985: “The federal deficit is ‘a ticking time bomb, and it’s about to blow up,’ U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell.

Later in 1985: Los Angeles Times: “We labeled the deficit a ‘ticking time bomb’ that threatens to permanently undermine the strength and vitality of the American economy.”

In 1987: Richmond Times – Dispatch – Richmond, VA: “100TH CONGRESS FACING U.S. DEFICIT ‘TIME BOMB'”

Later in 1987: The Dallas Morning News: “A fiscal time bomb is slowly ticking that, if not defused, could explode into a financial crisis within the next few years for the federal government.”

In 1989: FORTUNE Magazine: “A TIME BOMB FOR U.S. TAXPAYERS”

In 1992: The Pantagraph – Bloomington, Illinois: “I have seen where politicians in Washington have expressed little or no concern about this ticking time bomb they have helped to create, that being the enormous federal budget deficit, approaching $4 trillion.”

Later in 1992: Ross Perot: “Our great nation is sitting right on top of a ticking time bomb. We have a national debt of $4 trillion.”

In 1995: Kansas City Star: “Concerned citizens. . . regard the national debt as a ticking time bomb poised to explode with devastating consequences at some future date.”

In 2003: Porter Stansberry, for the Daily Reckoning: “Generation debt is a ticking time bomb . . . with about ten years left on the clock.”

In 2004: Bradenton Herald: “A NATION AT RISK: TWIN DEFICIT A TICKING TIME BOMB”

In 2005: Providence Journal: “Some lawmakers see the Medicare drug benefit for what it is: a ticking time bomb.”

In 2006: NewsMax.com, “We have to worry about the deficit . . . when we combine it with the trade deficit we have a real ticking time bomb in our economy,” said Mrs. Clinton.

In 2007: USA Today: “Like a ticking time bomb, the national debt is an explosion waiting to happen.”

In 2010: Reason Alert: “. . . the time bomb that’s ticking under the federal budget like a Guy Fawkes’ powder keg.”

In 2011: Washington Post, Lori Montgomery: ” . . . defuse the biggest budgetary time bombs that are set to explode.”

In 2014: CBN News: “The United States of Debt: A Ticking Time Bomb”

*On Jun 18, 2015: The ticking economic time bomb that presidential candidates are ignoring: Fortune Magazine, Shawn Tully,

*On January 23, 2017: Trump’s ‘Debt Bomb’: Deficit May Grow, Defense Budget May Not, By Sydney J. Freedberg, Jr.

*On April 28, 2017: Debt in the U.S. Fuel for Growth or Ticking Time Bomb?, American Institute for Economic Research, by Max Gulker, PhD – Senior Research Fellow, Theodore Cangero

[*Added to the list subsequent to first publication of this post]

After seventy-seven years, that ole’ federal debt still is ticking. Meanwhile, it also has been “unsustainable,” “insane,” and “irresponsible.”

I mention all this again, because today, 2/10/16, the Daily Bell added a new fright wig to the wax devil: “Obama’s $4.1 Trillion Budget Is Latest Sign of America’s Looming Collapse”

Well, the time bomb still is ticking, you and I and America still are here, and we still are sustaining and the collapse still is looming. The apocalypse has not arrived, except for the occasional rescession exacerbated by deficit reduction.

To paraphrase something Albert Einstein supposedly said, “Insanity is saying the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

THE RECESSION CLOCK

Recessions begin an average of 2 years after the blue line first dips below zero. There was a dip below zero in 2015. Recessions are cured by a rising red line.

Vertical gray bars mark recessions.

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

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: