The ignorance about tariffs, and the real way to protect American business

We’ll begin with the facts and then move on to the ignorance: Fact: 1. The ostensible purpose of most tariffs is to protect domestic businesses by raising the price of similar imported goods. This allows domestic producers to charge higher prices while remaining competitive. Fact: 2. For a Monetarily Sovereign (M.S.) nation like the U.S. (and Canada, China, Japan, Australia, the U.K., et al.), tariffs cost domestic consumers in two ways.

They are forced to pay higher prices, i.e., tariffs are inflationary.
Consumers’ dollars are removed from the private sector (“the economy”) and transferred to the M.S. government, where they are destroyed. They cease to be part of any money-supply measure. Since a growing economy requires an increasing money supply, tariffs are recessionary.

Fact 3. An MS government has the infinite ability to create dollars simply by pressing computer keys.

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke: “The U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost.”

Fact 4. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) = Federal Spending + Nonfederal Spending + Net Exports Fact 5. To protect domestic industries, the federal government either could use tax laws to lower their costs or federal spending to increase their net income. Either approach would protect the selected businesses, fight inflation (reduce prices), and/or increase GDP (increase the money supply).

Uncle Sam steals from the poor and gives to the rich — **The poor and middle-class consumers think this came from the Chinese. No, it came from the consumers, and it’s going to the rich.**

In summary, import tariffs transfer dollars from the economy to the government in a misguided effort to protect the economy. If that isn’t stupid, I don’t know what is. Now, for the ignorance:

The Epoch Times Trump, Harris Endorse Tariffs on China, With Differing Approaches The next administration will be likely pro-tariff. The conversation has shifted from whether tariffs are necessary to how they can best be implemented.

Regardless of who wins the White House in November, tariffs against China are here to stay.

That’s the consensus in Washington, although Democrats and Republicans have different approaches.

That’s the consensus and that’s the ignorance.

Meanwhile, who bears the cost of tariffs remains a topic for debate.

How can it be a “topic for debate”? When money is collected from a transaction, the buyer generally pays unless the seller is willing to accept lower profit margins. However, in this case, the fundamental purpose of the tariffs is to increase the buyer’s price, so the buyer will opt for a cheaper domestic product. Both Trump and Harris want the price to go up for U.S. buyers. They don’t want the Chinese seller to absorb the tariff and continue to undercut domestic sellers.

The Trump administration imposed tariffs on more than $300 billion worth of Chinese goods to respond to an array of unfair trade practices, including intellectual property theft.

Translation: The Trump administration raised the prices paid by American buyers to punish the Chinese for unfair trade practices and intellectual property theft. That’s like cutting off your own hand for stealing. It might work, but it’s expensive, painful and unnecessary.

The Biden–Harris administration has kept all of them in place and, in May, increased rates on $18 billion of goods, including electric vehicles, solar panels, medical equipment, lithium-ion batteries, steel, and aluminum.

Translation: The Biden-Harris administration increased the cost of electric vehicles, solar panels, medical equipment, lithium-ion batteries, steel, and aluminum so as to help American industry, the consumer, and the economy. If that makes sense to you, you should be a government economist.

Both administrations have used tariffs to level the playing field for domestic manufacturers as China unloads its excess production in the U.S. market at cheap prices.

Heaven forbid U.S. consumers should enjoy cheap prices.

Without them, domestic industries will keep losing market share and cutting jobs.

Uncle Sam is a billionaire — **I could give you money by helping manufacturers lower prices, or I could take money from you by taxing you. Which do you prefer?**

Unless the government helps those industries survive by providing them with tax benefits and/or direct subsidies.

An August poll by the CATO Institute, a Washington-based think tank, found that a majority of Republicans and Democrats support tariffs levied by their party but not the opposing party.

The Republicans support tariffs by Republicans and not by Democrats. The Democrats support the reverse. Thus, tariffs are a nonsensical game of tit-for-tat, with the U.S. consumer paying both the tit and the tat.

Former President Donald Trump has repeatedly said on the campaign trail that he would raise China tariffs to 60 percent and apply at least 10 percent tariffs to goods imported from other countries.

“We have to take care of our own nation and her industries first,” he said, while alluding to tariff rates “higher than people had heard in the past.”

The Republicans raise tariffs because taxes on goods proportionately affect the rich much less than those who are not rich. As a percentage of their income and wealth, the rich spend less on tariffed goods. Thus, tariffs widen the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and the rest, which is exactly what the right-wing Republicans want. Sadly, most of the MAGA crowd, though not rich, doesn’t understand what their hero wants to do to them just for his personal revenge.

Vice President Kamala Harris’s position on tariffs is less clear, but they’ll be retained if she keeps the current administration’s policies. The administration will announce its final tariff determinations, initially scheduled for the end of August, in the coming days.

As for Harris, she’ll just do what she thinks the public, in its economic ignorance, wants. The public believes that Chinese companies will pay for tariffs, and “being tough on China” is required for election.

Tariffs are a “key piece of the solution,” if used in conjunction with other trade and industrial policies, to allow for domestic investments in critical industries, according to Nick Iacovella, a senior vice president at the Coalition for a Prosperous America, an advocacy organization exclusively representing manufacturers that have productions in the United States.

Iacovella is also political. Voters would not like to see “rich” manufacturers receive tax benefits or federal aid, but nobody will object to tariffs supposedly paid by the Chinese. As always, ignorance has a cost, and the U.S. consumers will pay it.

Who Bears the Cost of Tariffs? When the Trump administration imposed tariffs on Chinese goods in 2018, they were unpopular among many economists. Conventional free trade theory considers tariffs a market distortion that reduces competition and market efficiency and slows economic growth.

In this view, tariffs also raise retail prices to varying degrees, effectively reducing consumers’ net income.

Trust the economists to focus on “market distortion” and “reduced competition, market efficiency, and economic growth,” none of which the typical voter understands. The big, obvious problem is that tariffs are meant to raise prices, which the consumer pays.

Erica York, senior economist with the Tax Foundation, a tax policy watchdog, told The Epoch Times that the potential of multiple groups—exporters, importers, and retail consumers—sharing the burden of tariffs “doesn’t change that tariffs are a policy overall that reduces incomes and output.”

Billionaires surround Uncle Sam. Money is on the table. — **OK boys, this came from the poor and middle classes. We’ll tell ’em it came from the Chinese. I’ll take some and you take some.**

Who cares so long as one can appear to be “tough on China”?

Her analysis estimates the Trump–Biden tariffs will reduce long-run gross domestic product by 0.2 percent and employment by 142,000 full-time equivalent jobs.

Not to mention the inflationary aspects in addition to the recessionary.

Coalition for a Prosperous America, which advocates for tariffs on Chinese goods, says that the net impact of tariffs is more complicated than many analyses can assume.

Instead, the organization examined the singular case of washing machines, which had tariffs imposed from 2018 through to February 2023.

The trade organization concluded that the washing machine tariffs created more than 2,000 new jobs at Korean-owned companies that opened U.S. factories.

The study also noted that after a 12 percent retail price increase during the initial six months, the price came down to the pre-tariff level after another 14 months.

Isn’t that wonderful? The tariffs shifted profits from China to Korea while increasing prices paid by America’s consumers, and (maybe) created only 2,000 jobs — a real “success” story.

Paula Mints, the chief analyst of SPV Market Research, a research firm specializing in the solar industry, said tariffs impact different sectors differently.

U.S. manufacturing would not exist without China tariffs in her industry, she said, where China controls more than 90 percent of the global supply chain. The Trump administration imposed a 25 percent tariff on solar cells, and President Joe Biden doubled it, effective Aug. 1.

“We are starting to have a domestic industry. We are just starting to have it. It’s because of the tariffs, manufacturing incentives, and domestic content incentives attached to the demand side,” Mints told The Epoch Times.

She said the tariffs now work with the accompanying incentives for manufacturers to locate in the United States. “The Biden administration has used them to level the playing field.”

All those results could have been obtained with “manufacturing incentives, and domestic content incentives attached to the demand side” while putting money into U.S. economic growth and the pockets of American consumers.

William Lee, chief economist at the Milken Institute, an economic think tank based in California, calls himself “one of the few economists who actually considers tariffs as not so bad.”

He said the real-world market, which is different from an ideal world where free trade is the best solution, has distortions, such as government subsidies. Therefore, if used correctly, tariffs can be another distortion that makes things right.

Tariffs come at a cost because they raise the prices for U.S. importers and consumers, Lee said.

However, “the strategic need dominates the costs,” he told The Epoch Times. “The strategic need to have diversified industries in certain sectors, such as high-tech industries, became so important after COVID.”

Again, all of that could be accomplished without the American consumer paying the bill. Just use the abovementioned “manufacturing incentives and domestic content incentives. Reward the U.S. consumer with incentives; don’t punish the consumer with taxes.

Mints thinks the Trump administration viewed tariffs in a “retaliatory and aggressive way,” which would be carried into a second term. She believes the Trump administration didn’t think tariffs affected consumers, while the Biden administration says it raises the cost for buyers.

It’s the usual Trump way: Punish the middle and the poor to reward the rich.

Iacovella believes a second Trump administration would “go further on tariffs and industrial policy than a Harris administration” because Trump “has a greater understanding of the China threat.”

There’s that “be tough on China by punishing the U.S. consumer” idea, again.

He is delighted to see the conversation about tariffs shifting from whether they are necessary to how they can be best implemented.

“I think it’s very important that everyone recognizes that regardless of who becomes president, it will be a pro-tariff administration.”

They don’t even want to discuss whether taxing American consumers is necessary. The only question is how big a tax consumers should pay before they catch on to the rich’s money grab. Yes, there is a penalty for ignorance, and American consumers are paying for it. Both parties will make sure the poor and middle classes keep paying. The GOP will just make them pay more. Rodger Malcolm Mitchell Monetary Sovereignty Twitter: @rodgermitchell Search #monetarysovereignty Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell; MUCK RACK: https://muckrack.com/rodger-malcolm-mitchell; https://www.academia.edu/

……………………………………………………………………..

The Sole Purpose of Government Is to Improve and Protect the Lives of the People.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Another cost of economic ignorance

Ignorance has its costs. If you don’t understand Monetary Sovereignty and the federal government’s infinite ability to pay for anything, you pay the price. Here is one of many examples.

Nutrition programs for older adults facing service cuts Jessie Hellmann, CQ-Roll Call

WASHINGTON — Programs that feed older, homebound adults are instituting waiting lists amid budget crunches, rising costs of food, growing demand for their services and funding cuts from the government.

There is no financial reason for “funding cuts from the federal government.” It has the infinite ability to create dollars. The following is a disgrace, akin to a billionaire walking blithely past a starving family, ignoring their plight.

Combined with the end of COVID-19 era aid, local groups are finding that they can no longer serve the same number of people, resulting in difficult decisions about next steps.

“This is a huge challenge for our network,” said Josh Protas, chief advocacy and policy officer at Meals on Wheels America, a national organization that supports local organizations delivering meals to homebound individuals, mainly older adults.

The Federal Government says, “YOU CAN’T HAVE ANY. WE’RE ALL OUT.”

Meals on Wheels is among the groups pushing for funding increases through the appropriations process for programs funded under the Older Americans Act, a decades-old law first signed by President Lyndon Johnson to support adults as they age in their communities.

One in three Meals on Wheels programs has a wait list, with an average wait time of three months.

“The vast majority of them recognize that there are more seniors in need in their communities that they’re not able to serve, in large part because of a lack of adequate federal funding,” Protas said.

Why is there a lack of federal funding?

Higher demand The population is getting older. Over the next decade, people 65 and older will represent 22 percent of the population, compared to 17 percent in 2022.

They are at a unique risk for going hungry because of fixed incomes, social isolation, lack of access to transportation and health conditions that make it difficult to cook or shop for groceries.

Almost 7 million seniors were “food insecure” — or didn’t have enough to eat — in 2022, and more than 9 million could be by 2050, according to Feeding America.

Meals on Wheels or similar programs are almost ubiquitous. Many have been around for more than 50 years, providing a source of nutrition and social contact to people who can’t leave their homes and helping them age in place. Programs served 206 million home-delivered meals and 55 million congregate meals in fiscal 2021.

But the demand has outpaced the ability of programs to serve people in their communities.

“We have 12,000 people every day who are turning 60, and as a society, we haven’t really reckoned with the changes that are necessary to address those needs,” Protas said.

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan: “A government cannot become insolvent with respect to obligations in its own currency.”

The Federal Government says, “YES, WE HAVE INFINITE MONEY, BUT WE DON’T FEED THE STARVING. INSTEAD, WE PAY CONGRESS, SCOTUS, AND THE WHITE HOUSE.

Current legislation Congress has recognized the need for more funding for the programs. But budget pressures have made that difficult.

The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee — on a bipartisan basis — approved in July a reauthorization of the Older Americans Act, recommending to appropriators an increase of 20 percent each for the home-delivered and congregate meal programs.

Still, the Senate Labor-HHS funding bill, advanced by the Senate Appropriations Committee in August, would level-fund those programs in fiscal 2025. Meanwhile, the House appropriations bill would cut the nutrition programs by 1.6 percent.

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke: “The U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost.”

The Older Americans Act funds several different programs intended to help older adults age in place, but its most well-known ones are related to food services: one for home-delivered meals, another for meals served in congregate settings, like senior centers, and the Nutrition Services Incentive Program, which allows programs to purchase fresh, local produce, dairy or proteins for meals.

Alan Greenspan: “There is nothing to prevent the federal government from creating as much money as it wants and paying it to somebody.”

While home-delivered meals and congregate settings received increases in fiscal 2024, the nutrition services incentive program received a cut, surprising advocates.

The program is intended to incentivize states to serve more meals because the amount of money it gets is based on how many meals it served the previous year.

“If you’re discouraging incentives, you’re actually lowering meal counts at the end of the day,” said Robert Blancato, president of the National Association of Nutrition and Aging Services Programs.

Overall, funding to the nutrition programs was cut by 0.8 percent in fiscal 2024and states received about $10 million less in appropriations from the federal government in fiscal 2024 than in fiscal 2023.

Ben Bernanke: It’s not tax money… We simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account.

That cut, plus growing demand for services, cuts to state budgets, the end of COVID-19 aid and inflation has put pressure on local service providers and the people who count on them.

The 2021 COVID-19 rescue package alone nearly doubled the amount the government typically spends on home and congregate meals, allowing organizations to reach people they couldn’t before.

The 2021 COVID-19 rescue package demonstrates what the government can do merely by voting. There are no limits.

Local programs Now that the money is gone, groups have to make difficult decisions about who to remove from their programs or dropping the number of meals people receive per day, or creating wait lists.

The Federal Government says, “WE CAN FEED ONLY ONE OF YOU. WHO WILL IT BE?”

“During the pandemic, the demand definitely shot up, and so did government funding… but then that funding went away, and the demand didn’t,” said Adam Porter, director of Sound Generations Meals on Wheels based in Seattle.

The organization has had a wait list since February 2023. It currently has 1,423 people on it, more than the number receiving meals through the program.

Food costs have also increased by 25 percent from 2018 to 2023, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

“It continues to go up and funding isn’t, so we’re reducing the number of meals we can serve,” Porter said.

Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell stated: As a central bank, we have the ability to create money digitally.

In Pennsylvania, the Monroe County Area Agency on Aging, which is responsible for doling out Older Americans Act funding to local partners, has had a freeze on new clients entering the program since July 2023.

Its primary partner — Monroe County Meals on Wheels — had to seek out a grant to avoid instituting a waitlist after the state passed flat funding for senior services programs.

The organization enrolled people on the waiting list into its private pay program, which is based on a sliding fee scale, to ensure people weren’t going without needed meals. It received a grant to cover the costs of the meals for people who can’t afford it.

“We’ve been dependent on community support and grant funding to try to fill that gap because the alternative is a waiting list of our own,” Alyssa Koeck, executive director of Monroe County Meals on Wheels in Pennsylvania.

“We’re working very, very hard to make sure that we do our best to prevent that from happening because we know, especially with the cost of living, that having nutritious, affordable meals is so critical to our clients.”

So, it’s a rather easy question. Should the federal government, which has the infinite ability to create dollars, adequately fund efforts to feed the hungry? And if not, why not? Ask your Senator and Congressperson. (And no, it won’t cause inflation or raise your taxes).

Rodger Mitchell Monetary Sovereignty

Twitter: @rodgermitchell Search #monetarysovereignty

Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell;

MUCK RACK: https://muckrack.com/rodger-malcolm-mitchell;

https://www.academia.edu/

……………………………………………………………………..

The Sole Purpose of Government Is to Improve and Protect the Lives of the People.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Are you for or against Universal Basic Income. Do you understand Monetary Sovereignty?

I’ve researched the question, “What are the reasons against Universal Basic Income (UBI).” I call it “Social Security for All.”

Here is a summary of the anti-UBI claims:

1. Cost and Feasibility: One of the primary concerns is the high cost of UBI. For example, in the United States, a UBI of $12,000 per year for every adult would cost over $3 trillion annually/

2. Inflation: UBI could lead to inflation. If everyone has more money to spend, demand for goods and services might increase, driving up prices and potentially negating the benefits of the additional income.

3. Work Incentive: UBI might reduce the incentive to work. If people receive a guaranteed income regardless of employment, some may choose not to work, potentially leading to a decrease in the labor force and economic productivity.

4. Misuse of Funds: Recipients might misuse the funds, spending them on non-essential items rather than necessities. This could undermine the goal of reducing poverty and improving living standards.

5. Impact on Existing Welfare Programs: Implementing UBI might require cutting or restructuring existing welfare programs. This could harm those who rely on targeted support for specific needs, such as healthcare or housing.

6. Political and Social Challenges: Gaining political and public support for UBI can be difficult. Many people are skeptical of unconditional transfer programs and prefer welfare systems tied to employment or specific conditions.

Before I address #s 1 through 6, I’ll give you the real one:

7. It would narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and the rest. The Gap is what makes the rich rich. Without the Gap no one would be rich; we all would be the same.

The wider the Gap, the richer are the rich. The easiest way for the rich to remain rich is to make sure the Gap doesn’t narrow, so using their political and informational power, the rich invent and promulgate false reasons why UBI won’t work.

Now, let us address each of the reasons given for objecting to UBI.

1. Cost and Feasibility:

We already have a form of UBI, except it isn’t “U” (Universal). We call it “Social Security,” and it covers old and/or disabled people. All the ideas opposing UBI were put forth in the 1930s when Social Security first was proposed.

Contrary to popular myth, Social Security (as well as Medicare, the military, SCOTUS salaries, White House salaries, Congress’s salaries, and every other federal expenditure) are not funded by FICA or any other federal taxes.

These programs all are funded the same way: through federal money creation.

It is as simple as A, B, C.

A. When any federal government agency approves an invoice for payment, it sends instructions (not dollars) to the creditor’s bank, instructing the bank to increase the balance in the creditor’s checking account. The instructions are in the form of a check or a wire.

B. When the bank does as instructed ( by pressing a few computer keys), dollars are created by being added to the creditor’s checking account and to the money supply measure known as “M2.”

C. The bank then balances its books by clearing the payment through the Federal Reserve, which has the infinite power to approve all federal checks and wires.

So long as the federal government has the infinite power to pass laws and to issue instructions, it has the infinite power to pay any invoices it receives. The U.S. federal government, being the original creator of dollars from thin air, never unintentionally can run short of dollars.

You often have been told that Medicare, Social Security and/or their trust funds are running out of money. It is a false claim. Unlike state/local governments, the U.S. government is Monetarily Sovereign. With the infinite ability to create dollars, it could create the above-mentioned $3 trillion at the touch of a computer key.

The sole purpose of federal taxes (unlike state/local taxes) is not to provide the government with spending money. The dual purposes are to:

- Control the economy by taxing what the government wishes to discourage and by giving tax breaks to what the government wishes to reward and
- Assure demand for the dollar by requiring taxes to be paid in dollars.

Even if the federal government didn’t collect a single dollar in taxes, it could continue spending, forever.

Alan Greenspan: “A government cannot become insolvent with respect to obligations in its own currency. There is nothing to prevent the federal government from creating as much money as it wants and paying it to somebody. The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print the money to do that.”

Ben Bernanke: “The U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost. It’s not tax money… We simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account.”

Statement from the St. Louis Fed: “As the sole manufacturer of dollars, whose debt is denominated in dollars, the U.S. government can never become insolvent, i.e., unable to pay its bills. In this sense, the government is not dependent on credit markets to remain operational.”

Mario Draghi, President of the Monetarily Sovereign European Central Bank: “We cannot run out of money.”

Further, UBI would grow the economy. It’s a mathematical certainty because the size of the economy is determined by this formula:

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) = Federal Spending + Nonfederal Spending + Net Exports.

By simple algebra, UBI would grow the economy because it would increase Federal Spending and, as a result, increase Nonfederal Spending, too.

When faced with the undeniable facts that UBI is affordable for the federal government and would grow the economy, those influenced by wealthy propaganda resort to excuse #2.;

2. Inflation: The common yet erroneous belief is that “excessive” fedeal spending causes inflation. This belief is wrong on several fronts.

First, no one knows what “excessive” means. The rich always claim federal spending is excessive (see: Historical claims the Federal Debt is a “ticking time bomb.” From Sept. 26, 1940, to July 22, 2024) because most federal spending goes to the poor. It narrows the Gap, a situation the rich despise.

By contrast, the rich favor tax deductions for the wealthy, which are not part of “spending” but widen the Gap just as federal spending does.

Economics is a pseudoscience loaded with hypotheses and flush with data — and ne’er the twain shall meet.

Some economists make this arguement based on intuition, but not on fact: They claim that people earn income by selling their labor on the labor market as a contribution to the production of goods and services for the economy. Income increases that aren’t directly related to correlating increases in production tend to result in higher prices.

It’s nonsense.

Which of these can claim their income is “directly related to correlating increases in production?” Taxi driver? School teacher? Musician? Flight attendant? Doctor? How about Elon Musk? If he made “just $100 million instead of a few billion, would that “directly relate to a correlating decrease in production”?

Pay has little to do with production and more with labor scarcity, politics, heredity, and other social factors. Queen Elizabeth’s pay had little to do with her output. I am retired, and my income has nothing to do with my production. Raising hotel workers’ skimpy pay or decreasing mortgage brokers’ high pay would not “directly relate to their production.”

The hypothesis is something that only an economics professor in a well-endowed think tank could dream up.

Inflation is not caused by federal spending. Inflation is caused by scarcities, most often scarcities of oil and food:

The peaks and valleys of inflation(red) do not match up with the peaks and valleys of federal spending (blue).

The peaks and valleys of inflation do match up with the peaks and valleys of oil prices, which are dictated by oil supply and demand.

Today, the federal government is spending more than ever, yet inflation is drifting down. The most recent inflation was COVID-related, not spending-related. It was caused by shortages of oil, food, computer chips, metal, lumber, shipping, and labor.

Raising everyone’s income by giving them money would not cause inflation. Scarcities of crucial items cause inflation.

Federal spending to cure scarcities cures inflation. The “federal spending causes inflation” meme is a fever dream promulgated by the rich to maintain the income/wealth/power Gap.

The common meme that inflation is “too much money chasing too few goods” is half right. Inflation is caused by too few goods (and services).

3. Work Incentive: Critics argue that UBI might reduce the incentive to work, decreasing the labor force and economic productivity. This is a favorite of the rich, who love to portray lower-income people as lazy slugs who, if given money, will simply loll about doing nothing.

The truth is that poor labor is harder than rich labor unless one considers costly vacations, country clubs, and having servants do one’s work to be “labor.” Virtually everyone wants a better life, and that includes the poor. Given a stipend by the government, they will work to increase their standard of living, just as the rich do.

Similarly, the vast majority of the rich want to be richer. Almost no one is satisfied, and it is certainly not a low-income family that receives Social Security.

I trust this isn’t just a projection on my part, but I began collecting Social Security at age 65. I continued to work for a living until I was 73, not because I loved work, but because I wanted more money to feel secure. I had what some may consider a lot, but I still wanted more.

That said, what is wrong with a decrease in the labor force? What is wrong with a four-day work week or a five-hour day? Work usually is not a purpose unto itself. The primary purpose of most work is to improve one’s life, however one defines “improve.”

For households in every quintile of the income distribution, the share of income required to pay for their 2019 consumption decreased, on average, because income grew faster than prices did over that four-year period.

Households in the top income quintile had the largest decline, on average, in the share of income required to pay for their 2019 consumption.

Translation: The rich kept earning more spending money than the rest of us did. Even though they had plenty of money, they wanted more, and worked for it. Why would the average and below-average income people be less motivated? They wouldn’t, but that is what the rich claim.

Artificial intelligence (AI) and automation are making it more possible to do less and accomplish more. A solution to the possible unemployment caused by AI may be UBI.

4. Misuse of Funds: Some argue that recipients might misuse the funds, spending them on non-essential items rather than necessities. This is another one the rich love — the notion that the poor are ignorant money managers and that if you give them money they’ll waste it on drugs and lottery tickets.

The reality is quite the opposite. By necessity, the poor have learned to be good money managers. In any event, it is none of the government’s business whether or not someone “misuses” their income. The idea the the government knows better is repulsive and bigoted.

5. Impact on Existing Welfare Programs: Implementing UBI might require cutting or restructuring existing welfare programs. Critics worry that this could harm those who rely on targeted support for specific needs, such as healthcare or housing.

This is easily prevented. Just don’t do it. Don’t include UBI income as part of any welfare criterion.

The current system — requiring someone to be poor to receive financial aid — is self-defeating. It encourages the very thing the rich claim to fear: people not working. It also leads to dishonesty and to gaming the system by mischaracterizing income.

6. Political and Social Challenges: Gaining political and public support for UBI can be difficult. Many people are skeptical of unconditional transfer programs and prefer welfare systems tied to employment or specific conditions.

This is the old “If I had to work for my money, why should he get money for doing nothing?” The solution would be to give every man, woman and child in America the same amounts regardless of their other income or wealth.

The money would mean little to the rich and much to the poor, but it would overcome the resistance of those who hate to see others receive something.

7. It would narrow the Gap between the rich and the rest. The Gap is what makes the rich rich. Without the Gap no one would be rich; we all would be the same.

The wider the Gap, the richer are the rich. The easiest way for the rich to remain rich is to make sure the Gap doesn’t narrow, so using their political and informational power, the rich invent and promulgate false reasons why UBI won’t work.

This is the single biggest hurdle to cross. The first six objections easily are overcome and/or are based on incomplete information. This one is based on the intense emotions of America’s most influential people.

A rich man might be generous about charity for the poor, but he doesn’t want poverty to be eliminated altogether. He needs the poor. Having a mansion is not as attractive if everyone else has a mansion. It’s the Gap that makes him rich, and narrowing the Gap makes him less rich, an unappealing prospect.

If a neighbor wins the lottery or even gets a more lucrative job, how does the rest of the neighborhood feel? What does Mark Zuckerberg think about Elon Musk having more money?

The majority of us suffers from Gap Psychology, the desire to distance ourselves from those below us on the income/wealth/power scale and to come closer to those above us. The conflict arises because those above us don’t want us closer and those below us want us closer.

SUMMARY

There are no good reasons not to begin a UBI program and plenty of reasons to start.

I suggest the following monthly payments:

$1,000 to every adult (18+)
$500 to every child
Include undocumented adults and children.

Assume:

258 million adult (citizens) + 31 million adult (non-citizens) = 289 million total adults; Annual Cost: $289 billion * 12 = $3.468 trillion
73 million children (citizens) + 14 million children(non-citizens) = 87 million children; Annual Cost: $43.5 billion * 12 = $522 billion
Combined Annual Cost: $3.468 trillion (adults) + $522 billion (children) = $3.99 trillion per year

This compares to the most recent (2023) federal expenditure of about $6.3 trillion.

**Poverty generally is worse in the states that tend to vote Republican, the party that wrongly opposes social benefits, saying they are “unaffordable” and “socialism” — which they are not.**

(Socialism is government control of industry, not just government funding. All governments fund things, but relatively few of those things can be called “socialism.”)

Government spending has a multiplier effect on GDP. The multiplier effect measures how much economic activity is generated by an initial amount of the expenditure. Estimates for the fiscal multiplier vary, but a typical range is between 0.5 and 2.0.

With a conservative multiplier of 1.5, GDP would grow about $6 trillion on top of the most recent 28.65 trillion for a new value of $34.65 trillion.

Consider this: The expanded Child Tax Credit (CTC) in 2021 provided up to $3,600 per child under 6 and $3,000 per child aged 6 to 17. The total cost of this expansion was approximately $105 billion for the year. It lifted about 3.7 million children out of poverty during its implementation.

Today, about 37.9 million people live below the poverty line. The UBI described above would:

Eliminate poverty in America
Vastly increase economic growth
Stimulate scientific progress
Increase all areas of production.
Improve the quality and availability of education
Improve the infrastructure and help cut global warming
And improve the entire American nation’s quality of life by using the brainpower now hampered by a lack of funding
Do all this at no cost to anyone.

Think of it. The United States of America has the power to be the first large nation on earth to eliminate poverty. Millions of men, women, and children could begin to contribute to America’s success.

Too good to be true? No, too good only for those who don’t understand the power of human thought and desire, when funded by Monetary Sovereignty.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

Monetary Sovereignty

Twitter: @rodgermitchell

Search #monetarysovereignty

Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell;

MUCK RACK: https://muckrack.com/rodger-malcolm-mitchell;

https://www.academia.edu/

……………………………………………………………………..

The Sole Purpose of Government Is to Improve and Protect the Lives of the People.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Does this sound familiar?

Lest you believe the MAGA movement is unique, it’s happening in Venezuela, too.

Is there hope for Venezuela as Maduro clings to power? From the 08/15/24 Sun Sentinel Will Freeman, Los Angeles Times

MADURO

The Latin American left has a decision to make about Venezuela: Oppose Nicolás Maduro’s totalitarian bid to remain in power indefinitely or enable it.

Efforts to constrain Maduro may not succeed.

According to an Associated Press review of about 80% of Venezuelan voting machines’ paper tallies provided by the opposition, Maduro lost the July 28 election to opposition coalition candidate Edmundo González Urrutia by a more than 2-to-1 margin.

Rather than acknowledge it, however, Maduro simply announced that he had won and blamed an unsubstantiated cyberattack by Elon Musk for his inability to prove it.

Maduro’s blatant steal marks a dark new chapter in Venezuela. Until July 28, the country was authoritarian with a patina of democracy, holding periodic unfree, unfair elections.

Now that Maduro knows he lacks the popular support to win even on a tilted playing field, he is scrapping the facade and going full totalitarian, exceeding even his previous crackdowns.

Trump lost the popular vote by a vast 7 million-vote margin.

He also lost the electoral vote despite it being slanted to favor the smaller red states.

The right-wing Supreme Court he installed didn’t save him, and his own Vice President didn’t save him.

His attack on Congress didn’t save him, even when he waited 3 hours before calling it off, hoping that somehow the mob would succeed.

His attempts to cheat by installing fake electors didn’t save him.

He lost all 60+ lawsuits in the states he had lost electorally when he falsely claimed he had been cheated.

And when none of that worked, he simply declared he had won. He tried every dirty trick he could think of.

His followers are still being prosecuted for their role in his illegal coup attempt. Now, he wants to be President again, and when he loses again, he will claim he won.

Maduro’s government has arrested more than 2,000 people without trial since election day; deployed Russian Wagner group mercenaries, Cuban secret police and other forces; and promised to send critics to “reeducation camps.” At least 24 people have been killed since election day.

TRUMP

Venezuela’s descent into authoritarianism and a coinciding economic collapse in the 2010s pushed about 8 million Venezuelans into exile abroad, more than half a million of whom came to the United States.

The lurch toward full-fledged totalitarianism could prove even more destabilizing. Preelection polls suggested about 3.7 million additional people planned to migrate if Maduro remained entrenched.

Can anything hold Maduro back? Barring an improbable uprising within his security forces, further mass protests seem unlikely to rein him in. The United States could tighten its sanctions, but Maduro and his inner circle already know how to live under them, having forged ties with other pariah states.

Fortunately, Trump does not control America’s security forces.

That all could change should he become President.

Trump promised that, as President, he would deport 15-20 million undocumented immigrants.

He falsely claims they are causing increased crime in America. As usual, the facts say otherwise.

Data does not support claims that the United States is experiencing a surge in crime caused by immigrants.

The research does not support the view that immigrants commit crime or are incarcerated at higher rates than native-born Americans.

In fact, immigrants might have less law enforcement contact compared to nonimmigrants.

Focusing on the facts is imperative, especially given that immigration has become a top issue for voters ahead of the election. Substantial research has assessed the relationship between immigration and crime.

Numerous studies show that immigration is not linked to higher levels of crime, but rather the opposite.

Studies have also examined the impact of the concentration of immigrants in a community on crime patterns, finding that immigration is associated with lower crime ratesand an increase in structural factors — such as social connection and economic opportunity — that are linked to neighborhood safety.

When looking specifically at the relationship between undocumented immigrants and crime, researchers come to similar conclusions.

Numerous studies show that undocumented immigration does not increase violent crime; research examining crime rates in so-called sanctuary cities also found no discernable difference when compared to similarly situated cities without sanctuary policies.

One study found that undocumented immigrants are 33 percent less likely to be incarcerated than people born in the United States. Indications of a negative relationship between immigration and crime also emerge when looking at conviction rates.

In recent years immigrants were 60 percent less likely to be incarcerated than U.S.-born citizens.

Thus, disappear Trump’s excuses for destroying the lives of millions of hard-working, tax-paying people, as well as destroying the U.S. economy that relies on those people.

Trump was asked if his effort would include the military

“It would,” Trump said, adding, he would “have no problem using the military, per se,” although he thinks the National Guard would suffice.

He does not think that laws meant to prevent the use of the military against civilians inside the US without congressional approval would apply to his effort.

“These aren’t civilians,” Trump said of migrants. “These are people that aren’t legally in our country. This is an invasion of our country.”

Fear-mongering Trump invents his new definition of a “civilian.” The normal definition is: “a person not in the armed services or the police force.”

Because Trump does not even consider undocumented foreigners to be people, no wonder he claims they are not civilians.

He also repeated the conspiracy theory, for which there is no evidence, that “fighting age” males from China are somehow embedding themselves in the US.

He continues to invent idiocy to justify his craziness.

What about massive migrant camps? Trump tried to downplay the idea that there would be massive camps of detained migrants like those described to The New York Times by his immigration policy mastermind Stephen Miller, since, according to Trump, he would be deporting people so fast.

“We’re not leaving them in the country. We’re bringing them out,” he said. When asked under what authority he would make all of this happen, Trump suggested he would use federal money to pressure local police.

To where would these 15-20 million men, women and children be deported and how would he get them there? That hasn’t exactly been figured out. Presumably he would use the Nazi final solution of boxcars. Even Trump’s cruel advisors bear an uncanny resemblance to Hitler’s.

Finally, when Trump’s favorite lickspittle, flatterer, sycophant suckup softballed him with the easiest possible question, “Will you be a dictator,” Trump could simply have answered, “No.”

Instead, he answered, “Only for a day.” Would he do it. Would he violate the U.S. Constitution?

Here is what he wrote about that on his Truth Social platform: “A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution,”

Seventy-one thousand people liked the post. History repeats.

If you feel a dictatorship couldn’t happen here, that says it all.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

Monetary Sovereignty

Twitter: @rodgermitchell

Search #monetarysovereignty

Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell;

MUCK RACK: https://muckrack.com/rodger-malcolm-mitchell;

ttps://www.academia.edu/

……………………………………………………………………..

The Sole Purpose of Government Is to Improve and Protect the Lives of the People.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: