Author: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

MBA Northwestern, business turnaround expert, economist

Should the federal government give Louisiana billions?

Should the federal government give Louisiana billions of dollars?

Louisiana flood damage at least $8.7 billion, governor says
Associated Press, EMILY WAGSTER PETTUS and MELINDA DESLATTE, September 3, 2016

BATON ROUGE, La. (AP) — Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards says his state had more than $8.7 billion in damage from catastrophic flooding in August, and the figure will increase as officials finish assessing damage to roads and other public infrastructure.

The governor’s office Saturday released a letter Edwards sent Friday to President Barack Obama.

In it, the Democratic governor asked that Congress this month approve $2 billion in federal aid for Louisiana for housing, economic development and infrastructure. He said it’s a “very reasonable request,” adding to other programs assisting in Louisiana’s flood recovery, such as aid from the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

“While short-term relief for immediate needs available through FEMA for items such as temporary rental assistance, essential home repairs and other disaster-related needs are greatly needed and greatly appreciated, our full recovery will not be realized without additional help,” Edwards wrote.

Edwards said flood damage has been documented to more than 55,000 houses in Louisiana, and that could double as aid applications and inspections continue.

More than 80 percent of damaged homes lacked flood insurance because most were outside the 100-year flood plain. He said initial evaluations show the majority of flooded households were for people with low to moderate incomes, and 20 percent were renters.

More than 6,000 businesses flooded, with more than $2.2 billion in damages to buildings, equipment and inventory, Edwards said. He also said there are “conservative estimates” of more than $110 million in damage to agriculture.

Estimates are that about 30 state roads washed out and 1,400 bridges will need to be inspected

 

What is your answer: Should the federal government rescue individuals (most uninsured), businesses and infrastructure?

The federal government is Monetarily Sovereign, meaning it has the unlimited ability to pay any bill of any size, without tax increases. In fact, the federal government creates dollars by the very act of paying bills. That is the government’s money-creation method.

So, the federal government’s aid to Louisiana would cost us taxpayers nothing. The aid will be free to you, free to me, free to every American.

If the federal government does not help Louisiana, the people of the state will be thrown into permanent destitution. Many homes gone, many businesses gone, much agriculture gone.  Without homes and jobs, recovery without aid will be all but impossible.

Federal aid would do more than benefit the people of Louisiana. The input of dollars will benefit the entire American economy, by increasing the sales of all businesses, all over the country, that sell to Louisianans. This includes businesses in your state, perhaps even in your city.

So if saving thousands of men, women and children from poverty costs you nothing, and will benefit the entire American economy, should the federal government give Louisiana the needed money?

I suspect you, as a logical and compassionate American, would agree that federal help should be given.

Hey, it costs me nothing, and even benefits me, so why not?

But that being the case, why would we help only at times of massive, and sudden crisis?

If we are willing to lift people from poverty, while helping ourselves by stimulating the American economy, why not do it every day?

Poverty in America is not sudden. It is a life-consuming, grinding, existential reality for millions of people. If we are willing to help Louisianans who have lost their homes, lost their jobs and have trouble even paying for food, why wait for a natural disaster?

Why not help the poor, the homeless, the hungry, the jobless, now? And why not fix our roads and bridges, now? 

Hey, it costs me nothing, and even benefits me, so why not?

And if we are willing to lift people from poverty, why not help them stay out of poverty, by giving them an education?

The states and cities already provide free K-12 education, because we long have known how important education is for America, and that effort does cost us. (States and cities being monetarily NON-sovereign, do collect taxes to pay for schooling).

But K-12 isn’t sufficient in today’s more complex world. America’s growth and leadership rely upon educated  people. So why not provide free 13+ education?

Hey, it costs me nothing, and even benefits me, so why not?

We respond to the big things — hurricanes, big floods, forest fires — but sometimes we fail to respond to the day-to-day, individual disaster many people suffer.

Should we help individuals affected by a mass disaster, but not help individuals affected by a personal disaster? They all are suffering individuals, whether in groups or one at a time.

A child devastated by a sudden hurricane neither is less, nor more, impoverished, hungry and homeless, than a child devastated by life’s ongoing, daily circumstances. 

Why not prevent poverty rather than trying only to fix it after the fact? Do we really need hurricanes repeatedly to wake us up to the misfortunes many Americans face?

There is no reason why an infinitely wealthy government, that actually creates dollars by spending, should not care for all its citizens. That, after all, is the purpose of government.

(And no, we can’t use the “hyper-inflation excuse.” Not only has America never had a hyper-inflation, but being Monetarily Sovereign, we have the unlimited ability to control the value of our sovereign currency, the dollar.)

Yes, we should continue to provide aid to those affected by widespread disaster, but additionally, we should institute the Ten Steps to Prosperity:

  1. Eliminate the FICA tax
  2. Free Medicare, Parts A, B & D, plus long-term care insurance, for everyone
  3. Provide an annual economic bonus to every many, woman and child in America, and/or for every state, a per capita economic bonus
  4. Free education, including post-grad, for everyone
  5. Salary for attending school
  6. Eliminate corporate taxes
  7. Increase the standard income tax deduction, annually
  8. Tax the very rich (the “.1%”) more, with higher,progressive tax rates on all forms of income.
  9. Federal ownership of all banks
  10. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99.9%

Instituting The Ten Steps to Prosperity will accomplish far more than the occasional response to disasters. It will prevent the ongoing disaster many of our fellow Americans live.

Hey, it costs me nothing, and even benefits me, so why not?

If you agree that helping individuals and states in the wake of natural disasters, then the same logic should lead you to support The Ten Steps to Prosperity.

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 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-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

Do you really want to reduce street crime? Really?

Though the ostensible purpose of laws is to prevent crime, the effect of all laws is to create crime. If there were no laws, there would be no crime.

Every time a legislature passes, and a president or governor signs a law, a new  crime is created.

Each of us, consciously or not, evaluates five considerations when deciding whether or not to commit a crime:

  1. Our perception of morality and of ourselves.
  2. Our likelihood of being caught
  3. Our likelihood of being punished
  4. Our view of the severity of the punishment
  5. Our life without breaking a law.

This is true for all crime, “white collar” and violent crime.

The real purpose of all laws is not to reduce crime, but rather to control the populace according to legislators’ wishes.

When lawmakers perceive the populace doing something the lawmakers don’t like, the first step is to criminalize, i.e pass a law against, the act.

That notably was true in 1920:

Prohibition in the United States

Prohibition in the United States was a nationwide constitutional ban on the production, importation, transportation and sale of alcoholic beverages that remained in place from 1920 to 1933.

Criticism remains that Prohibition led to unintended consequences such as the growth of urban crime organizations.

Alcohol was legal in neighboring countries. Distilleries and breweries in Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean flourished as their products were either consumed by visiting Americans or smuggled into the United States.

Journalist H. L. Mencken: “Prohibition worked best when directed at its primary target: the working-class poor.”

Historian Lizabeth Cohen writes: “A rich family could have a cellar-full of liquor and get by, it seemed, but if a poor family had one bottle of home-brew, there would be trouble.”

Working-class people were inflamed by the fact that their employers could dip into a private cache while they, the employees, could not.

The varied terrain of valleys, mountains, lakes, and swamps, as well as the extensive seaways, ports, and borders which the United States shared with Canada and Mexico made it exceedingly difficult for Prohibition agents to stop bootleggers.

Prohibition created a black market that competed with the formal economy, which came under pressure when the Great Depression struck in 1929.

State governments urgently needed the tax revenue alcohol sales had generated. Franklin Roosevelt was elected in 1932 based in part on his promise to end prohibition, which influenced his support for ratifying the Twenty-first Amendment to repeal Prohibition

While alcohol is a harmful and addicting drug, and Prohibition did reduce alcohol consumption somewhat, the social cost was far greater than the benefits.

By now, you probably have noticed the incredible similarity between Prohibition and today’s “War on Drugs,” which is, in reality, a war on the poor.

Previously we discussed:

An easy solution to violent crime:

Reduce violent crime by reducing poverty. Reduce poverty by implementing the Ten Steps to Prosperity (See below).

The vast majority of violent crimes are committed by poor people. They feel they have no legal alternatives for obtaining money, so they take it illegally.

And much violent crime is related to the “War on Drugs,” which is even less effective than was the “War on Alcohol.” (Fortunately, we have been wise enough to avoid a “War on Cigarettes,” nicotine being one of the most common addicting drugs in America.)

Many communities, particularly black communities, have been destroyed by the War on Drugs. Once convicted, jailed and released, young men are unable to find jobs, so are encouraged to commit more crime, in a never-ending cycle of violence. 

They also are encouraged to leave school and to join violent gangs as a way to protect themselves in the mean streets.

Not only does the “War on Drugs” create and encourage crime, destroy communities, discourage school attendance, and cost millions of lives and billions of dollars, but it doesn’t reduce the availability of drugs — and never will.

Any K-16, child who wants illegal drugs, has no difficulty finding sources.  Drugs exist in elementary schools, high schools, colleges and on the street.  They are everywhere.

The American public has been misled into believing that violent crime can be stopped via additional punishments and police brutality.

But is that the America we want — an America where even innocent citizens are victims of police savagery and long incarcerations — especially when the “solution” doesn’t work, and especially when two productive solutions are available.  

We cannot continue doing the same things, hoping to get a different result.

We greatly can reduce the need for street crime by reducing poverty (via the Ten Steps to Prosperity). And we greatly can reduce the reward for street crime by eliminating one of the most important causes: The laws against drugs.

For it is not drugs that are the problem, but rather the problem is the laws against drugs  — the laws that create crime.

Street drugs, like other drugs (alcohol, nicotine, marijuana in some states) all should be treated similarly: Production and usage should be legal. Producers should be regulated, licensed and taxed.  Importation should be regulated. Users should not be prosecuted.

Are you among those who think America can’t afford the Ten Steps to Prosperity?  Do you think reducing poverty is unfair and only makes the poor lazy? Do you prefer to continue doing what doesn’t work?

Or, do you really want to reduce street crime? Really?

It comes down to this: The Ten Steps plus legalization of drugs, or more of the same?

Take your choice.

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.

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

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Help me. There must be a word for this.

Perhaps you can help me either find or invent a word for this.

Do you know of a word that means: The tactic of accusing and insulting someone for having a fault that you, yourself have even more extremely?

For example, Donald Trump referred to Ted Cruz as “lyin’ Ted.” There is ample evidence that Trump is one of the worst liars ever to run for political office.  (Being a worse liar than most politicians really says something. It’s like being the fattest pig in the pen or the loudest howler monkey in the jungle.)

While I don’t like Ted Cruz — he’s a mean-spirited SOB — he seems pretty honest about who he is, and surely doesn’t compare to Trump as a liar.

So for Trump to call Cruz a liar is: [The word needed here]

The closest thing I can think of is “ironic,” but it isn’t specific enough. Ironic can apply to all sorts of unexpected relationships. I’m looking for something more specific.

“The pot calling the kettle black” isn’t quite right. It’s not a word, and it implies that the pot and the kettle are equally black. I’m looking for a word that indicates the pot is much blacker than the kettle, but calls the kettle “black,” to divert attention from its own greater blackness.

Example: Trump refers to Hillary Clinton as “Crooked Hillary.” This, from the man who founded and profited from the outrageous scam operation known as “Trump University,” for which he is being sued and very well could be jailed.

Now, in truth, there always have been questions about Clinton’s finances, but the combination of Trump University and Trump’s failure to pay workers, and his cheating of creditors and boasting about it, surely exceeds any Clinton “crookedness.”

So, for  Trump to call Clinton “crooked” is [The word needed here]

Another example: Trump questions Clinton’s health.

She provided a real medical report from a real doctor. Trump provided a fake report from a gastro guy who claims to be a Fellow at the American College of Gastroenterology. Except he hasn’t paid his fellowship dues for 20 years, and the FACG wishes he would stop making the false claim.

So that isn’t exactly irony, because irony usually is unexpected, and the fact that Trump submits a faked letter from a doctor who provides a fake credential is completely expected. Birds of a feather, you know.

While no 69-year-old woman is in “perfect” health, for an overweight, 70 year-old-man, who turns in a fake health report, to question her health is  [The word needed here]

Similarly, Trump said Clinton is a bigot, who is interested only in black votes, not  in black people.

This from a guy who calls Mexicans “criminals and rapists,” wants to bar all Muslims from America, and who selected Mike Pence, known for his tough, anti- LBGTQ stance.

And it was Trump who tweeted, “Dwayne Wade’s cousin was just shot and killed walking her baby in Chicago. Just what I have been saying. African-Americans will VOTE TRUMP!” 

Talk about being interested only in black votes. A murder elicits that tweet?

Trump is the gun lover who has been endorsed by the NRA and (according to Breitbart) “opposes universal background checks, assault weapons bans, high-capacity magazine bans,and gun-free zones.” Trump even wanted guns in bars and night clubs.

In short, for a guy who has based his entire campaign on bigotry, to call anyone else a bigot, is  [The word needed here]

It’s far more than mere irony. It’s far more than merely the pot calling the kettle “black.”

It’s an attack method to deflect attention from his own faults, so that his followers will use the “They both are” defense.

If a Clinton fan points out that Trump is a bigot, a Trump defender can say Clinton is a worse bigot, to deflect attention from Trump’s bigotry.  “They both are bigots,” or “She’s worse,” is the response.

But while she may or may not have some bigotry in her heart, Trump is a real, major-league B-I-G-O-T, and that makes all the difference.

Trump, the scammer, tweeted that Marco Rubio, “is scamming Florida.”
Trump, the liar, said that reporter Jeff Horwitz, “wouldn’t know the truth if it hit him in the face.”
Trump, who has articulated no strategy re. ISIS, said to Megyn Kelly, “You have no idea what my strategy on ISIS is.”
Trump, who sees nothing wrong with nuclear bombing terrorists, called Charles Krauthammer, “an Iraq war-monger.”

There are many more examples, but to make the point, here is a final one: Trump says he himself is tough, and former POW Senator John McCain was not a hero, despite McCain having been tortured and even having refused freedom if his fellow POWs weren’t freed.

This from Trump, who ducked the military draft with the phony claim of a “heel spur” (that subsequently and miraculously healed all on its own.)

For a draft dodger to claim McCain is no hero is perfect example of  [The word needed here]

What is the best word to mean: “Deriding an opponent for having your flaws”?

“Phony” is accurate, but not specific to the circumstance. The same is true of “ironic.”

“Chutzpah,” “gall,” and “nerve” are in the right genre, but not really addressing the evil selfishness, and damaging, clownish incompetence of a Donald Trump.

So, if a word doesn’t exist, perhaps you can invent one.

Or maybe the word simply is “trumpism.”

What do you think?

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

Who will be the next President? What does research say?

‘Tis the season of research, where we all want to know what people think, and we depend upon research companies to tell us.

So research “A” informs us that 55% of probable (how probable?) voters prefer Clinton, and research “B” tells us that 51% of registered voters prefer Trump.

Then there’s research “C” which says that 60% of adults despise both candidates, and research “D” says 10% of those who say they despise both candidates actually will vote for Trump, but are too embarrassed to admit it, for fear of being thought stupid.

And, in the end, they all will be wrong. And we knew they would be wrong, though in two years, having learned nothing, we’ll go through the nonsense, again.

It may be more difficult to obtain useful information from a research program than simply to ask one smart person for his opinion.

This thought occurred to me today, when shortly after having bought a new car, I received in the mail, a research form. It came from MaritzCX of Toledo, OH, and was signed by Terry Phillips, Sr. Director, Automotive Research Group (ARGSyndicated@MaritzCX.com).

To encourage me to complete the form, I was offered an entry into a sweepstakes containing seven prizes, maximum value, $10,000, but mostly $1,000.

To conduct worthwhile (i.e predictive or evaluative) research, one must have controls, and these controls must involve such things as:

  1. Who is your audience? That is:
    • The characteristics of the recipients.
    • The characteristics of the respondents
  2. The many personal factors affecting truthfulness
  • The research environment
  • Phrasing of questions
  • The goals of the research. (What do you want to learn?)
  • The length of the procedure
  • The questions themselves

The list goes on and on. Research is really, really difficult to do well, and really, really easy to do poorly.

The car research form I received, was a monster. It consisted of 10 pages, small type, encompassing about 1,000 (!) questions.

And these were not simple “yes” or “no” questions. Most were multiple choice, with 5 or six alternatives (“Choose one”). Others were multiple choice, many answers (“Choose all that are right”)

I estimate that to do a thoughtful, accurate job, a respondent would need to set aside at least 3 seconds to answer each question. This comes to almost an hour.

What kind of person would do that? What is the nature of the person who:

  1. Receives what appears to be junk mail and actually opens it.
  2. Then bothers to read it,
  3. Then decides to answer the questions,
  4. And doesn’t quit part way through,
  5. Answers all questions honestly,
  6. And mails it all back?

Is that person “average,” “typical” or “representative” of some desired group? And, by the way, what is the desired group?

Here is what I think: The person who fits all six of the above categories is not average, typical or representative of any desired group. He or she probably:

  • Just loves entering sweepstakes.
  • Has lots of spare time.
  • But still will tire about midway through, so won’t finish
  • And doesn’t care about answering honestly, but just wants to check any answer so as to enter the sweepstakes.

Based on the research company’s analysis, the client (probably an auto manufacturer), will devote many millions of dollars to a marketing strategy, including advertising, sales literature, and auto design — even the on-site strategy of car dealers.

If a million questionnaires were mailed, and an optimistic 10,000 returned (1%), the likelihood of even one response being average, typical or representative approaches 0.

Meanwhile, a Steve Jobs or Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos will come along and do what research could not have uncovered. Think about the problem and come up with a logical solution.

Does this mean research is useless? No. Actually, most research is worse than useless like maps that send you in the wrong direction.

For example, if you were to send questionnaires to 100,000 people, asking these questions:

  1. Do you want the federal debt reduced? Why?
  2. Do you want the federal deficit reduced? Why?
  3. Do you want the federal government to live within its means? Why?
  4. Do you want the federal government to run a balanced budget? Why?
  5. Do you want Social Security benefits cut? Why?
  6. Do you want federal taxes to be increased? Why?
  7. Should taxpayers have to pay for the federal debt? Why?
  8. What will happen if China demands the return of the money it lent us? Why?
  9. Should illegal immigrants be allowed to use up your taxpayer dollars? Why?
  10. Should you be required to pay FICA? Why?

You may receive 1,000 responses (1%), and the likelihood is that 0 will answer all 10 questions in some meaningful way.

If you were running for political office, and relied on those answers, how would they affect your platform?

The car research form I received asked my opinion about hundreds of things like economy vs. prestige, or the environment vs. safety.

And there, the same problem exists: Most (all?) people simply do not know their own opinions, or will not reveal them, and this is especially true when confronted with a real buying (or real voting) decision. Most research is like that.

So, what to do? What to do?

Nothing will work perfectly, but several steps can be helpful:

  1. Simplify. A monster questionnaire , trying to get the answers to a thousand questions, is silly. Perhaps 5 questions could get more accurate answers.
  2. Focus. Direct your questions to a specific audience.
  3. Use the results. Use the answers to your first, simple questionnaire to create a second questionnaire , to verify or augment the first.
  4. Variety. Don’t use the same words and the same questions in the same order, repeatedly. Learn how phrasing and question order affect the answers.
  5. Reality. Where appropriate, test market or try to use a realistic (buying, voting, choosing etc.) action situation, rather than a questionnaire .
  6. Experience: Chances are, this research already has been done. Search for examples. What was learned? What went wrong and what went right?

I could continue endlessly with what good research requires, and I may already have spent too much space on this complex subject. But it all boils down to this: That 10-page, all-purpose questionnaire was a waste of time and money.

Worse, it will devolve into a 100-page analysis, which will provide thousands of erroneous conclusions.

Then one day, you will read an article saying something like, “67% of people 50 and older, would rather have easier ingress to the back seat than have a faster car.”

And the car manufacturer will spend millions to make his back seats more accessible — like an Edsel — while a competitor will create a fast, impossible-to-enter car, that will dominate car sales. Happens all the time.

Cars are complicated. Consumers have a choice of so many brands and options.

But consider the Presidential election. There are just two real options: Him or her. Should be simple to research, right?

But the research firms will make thousands of phone interviews (with the kind of people who answer land line phones) and receive thousands of mail responses (from the kind of people who answer mass mailings) and do thousands of street interviews (with the kind of people who will spend time talking to a stranger).

And they will ask these unusual people questions (that may or may not be understood) who may or may not give accurate, honest answers.

And then they will multiply those questionable answers from questionable people, by various, arbitrarily determined factors, to come up with predictions based on misunderstandings, lies, and erroneous math.

And soon you’ll hear that “55% of young voters are [likely to vote this way]. . . and 38% of female voters not [likely to vote that way] . . . ” and it all will prove wrong.

In the next few months, you may be amazed, or gratified, or upset by research findings. You may be tempted to believe them.

But now you know they are fantasy, created by research organizations that rake in billions, just to create fantasy.

How do I know? I once was in the creative writing . . . er, ah . . . research business.

So tell me, who will be the next President, and more importantly, why do you think so?

My prediction: Clinton. Why? Because when the chips are down, I believe​ Americans are too smart to vote for Trump.

That’s my research. What’s yours?

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