Well, there goes another excuse for not giving poor people money.

The sole purpose of government is to improve and protect the lives of the people.

Most people would like to have more money. This includes many of the rich, who already have more money than they can spend, but seem motivated to have even more.

How Florida Is Pushing Back Against Government Overreach
The sole purpose of government is to improve and protect the lives of the people.

Gap Psychology describes the human desire to distance oneself from those below, on any social scale, and to approach those above.

Thus, growing “richer” requires widening the Gap. This involves not only gaining more for oneself but also depressing others.

Either approach widens the Gap.

That is why the rich, and the Republican Party of the rich, seem so adamant that giving people money will disincentivize people to work.

Strangely, or perhaps not so strangely, the rich do not feel the “disincentive” applies to them, for they generally claim to work just a hard as always, no matter how much more money they own.

Their story is that the poor and middle-classes are congenitally lazy, who only will labor if whipped by hunger, homelessness, or other deprivations.

The fact that millions of people work at demanding, or even dangerous jobs, for low or moderately low pay, does not seem to occur to those who claim that if people are given money, they will refuse to work.

It is a lie, or if not a lie, then at least an ivory tower misunderstanding by academics.

Ask a police officer or a fire-fighter or a public school teacher why they work. It is in the nature of human beings that most of us like to work, and we feel such emotions as worthlessness and boredom when we are not working.

In fact, lack of “something to do” is a major problem for retirees.

All of the above is the hypothesis. Here is some fact:

When a California city gave people a guaranteed income, they worked more — not less
Stockton’s experiment shows what $500 per month in “free money” can do for employment, mental health, and more.
By Sigal Samuel Mar 6, 2021

The city of Stockton, California, embarked on a bold experiment two years ago: It decided to distribute $500 a month to 125 people for 24 months — with no strings attached and no work requirements.

The people were randomly chosen from neighborhoods at or below the city’s median household income, and they were free to spend the money any way they liked. Meanwhile, researchers studied what impact the cash had on their lives.

The results from the first year of the experiment, which spanned from February 2019 to February 2020, are now in. And they’re extremely encouraging for its participants, and for advocates who see unconditional cash transfers as an effective way to help people escape poverty.

The most eye-popping finding is that the people who received the cash managed to secure full-time jobs at more than twice the rate of people in a control group, who did not receive cash.

Within a year, the proportion of cash recipients who had full-time jobs jumped from 28 percent to 40 percent. The control group saw only a 5 percent jump over the same period.

When confronted with a non-intuitive result, you surely must wonder, “How can that be? How would giving people money increase their desire to work for money?”

The researchers wrote in their report that the money gave recipients the stability they needed to set goals, take risks, and find new jobs.

In other words, when you’re drowning, all you can think about is staying afloat in the moment. That focus on the now, occupies all your energy and resources.

But if you are given a boat, you now can begin to think about getting food, shelter from the elements, finding land, signaling potential rescuers, etc.

One man in his 30s had been eligible for a real estate license for over a year but hadn’t gotten it because he just couldn’t afford to take time off work. Thanks to the freedom offered by the extra $500 per month, he said, his life was “converted 360 degrees … because I have more time and net worth to study … to achieve my goals.”

That’s a short-term example, but it also works in the longer term. Many intelligent youngsters do not stay in school, because their families need money now. So they are forced to find whatever low-paying jobs they can.

Eventually, these low-level jobs are the first to disappear. During any period or hard times, the under-educated are the first to need unemployment compensation.

Given money, they can continue in school, and find even better jobs, and/or create their own companies. They will be less likely to need unemployment compensation, later.

In the research done to date, unconditional cash does not tend to disincentivize work. In several programs — from Alaska and North Carolina in the US, to Finland and Spain in Europe — it has had no effect on employment either way.

In some cases, it seems to embolden people with an entrepreneurial bent; for instance, in Japan, initial survey results have shown that recipients are 3.9 times more interested in launching a new business.

Employment aside, there are clear benefits to unconditional cash programs. The Stockton experiment shows that getting unconditional cash tends to boost happiness, health, school attendance, and trust in social institutions, while reducing crime.

At its basic level, giving people money reduces their poverty, and crime, especially street crime, is an outgrowth of poverty.

(In the Stockton experiment, money) recipients spent most on necessities like food (37 percent), home goods and clothes (22 percent), utilities (11 percent), and car costs (10 percent). They spent less than 1 percent on alcohol or cigarettes.

These numbers offer a counter to harmful stereotypes and faulty assumptions: that people who become poor get that way because they’re bad at rational decision-making and self-control, and that they’ll blow free money on frivolous things or addictive substances. The evidence does not support these beliefs.

As part of its obligation “to improve and protect the lives of the people” government should give people money. This notion has been criticized on moral grounds. It’s as though not helping a drowning person will force a sink-or-swim mentality, which somehow is morally better.

But, allowing someone to drown is the ultimate immorality.

Here are excerpts from an article describing results around the world.

Everywhere basic income has been tried
Which countries have experimented with basic income — and what were the results?
By Sigal Samuel Updated Oct 20, 2020.

The general idea — that the government should give every citizen a regular infusion of free money with no strings attached — has been around since the 16th century. But it’s recently experienced a remarkable resurgence: Advocates ranging from tech billionaire Mark Zuckerberg to libertarian economist Milton Friedman to former Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang have endorsed it.

Many people, who otherwise might favor such a plan, are reluctant to “give money to people who don’t need it.” This belief is founded on two concerns:

  1. The false belief that federal taxes fund federal spending, while in fact no one — not you, not me, not our grandchildren — ever pay for federal spending. The concern, “Why should my money go to rich people?” does not apply to Monetarily Sovereign federal spending. The government creates, from thin air, all the dollars it spends.
  2. The legitimate belief that federal spending should help narrow the Gap between the rich and the rest. I suggest that the simplicity of “Give the same amount to everyone” is far more actionable, and just a fair, as an income-based (or wealth-based?). The rich always find a way to game the system, and they would game this system, too.

Alaska: Since 1982, the state has given each citizen an annual check just for being alive, effectively wiping out extreme poverty. The money — which can range from around $2,000 per person when oil prices are high to $1,000 in cheaper gas years — comes from the Alaska Permanent Fund, a state-owned investment fund financed by oil revenues.

Economists investigated whether the payment was leading people to work less and found that “the dividend had no effect on employment” overall.

North Carolina: Since 1997, revenue from a casino on tribal land has been given to every tribal member, no strings attached. Each person gets on average somewhere between $4,000 and $6,000 per year. Economists found that it doesn’t make them work less. It does lead to improved education and mental health, and decreased addiction and crime.

Manitoba, Canada: Choosing one farming town, Dauphin, as a “saturation site” where every family was eligible to participate in a basic income experiment. The basic income seemed to benefit residents’ physical and mental health — there was a decline in doctor visits and an 8.5 percent reduction in the rate of hospitalization — and high school graduation rates improved, too.

Finland: The government chose 2,000 unemployed citizens at random and gave them a check of 560 euros ($635) every month for two years. Participants were assured they’d keep receiving the money if they got a job. The income didn’t help them get jobs, but it did make them feel happier and less stressed. The recipients also reported that they felt more trust toward other people and social institutions — from political parties to the police to the courts — than they did before getting a basic income.

Spain’s “B-MINCOME” experiment started offering a minimum guaranteed income to 1,000 households randomly selected from some of Barcelona’s poorest districts. Under the two-year randomized controlled trial, households could receive up to 1,675 euros ($1,968) per month. There was also a control group of 383 households. Preliminary results showed that the basic income boosted life satisfaction and mental health while making participants neither more likely nor less likely to find employment.

Iran rolled out a nationwide unconditional cash transfer program to compensate for the phase-out of subsidies on bread, water, electricity, heating, and fuel. The government gave out sizable monthly payments to each family: 29 percent of the median household income on average. Economists found that “the program did not affect labor supply in any appreciable way.” The program is still running, and it’s the only such program in the world to run nationwide.

Namibia: All residents below the age of 60 living in the Otjivero-Omitara region of Namibia received a basic income: 100 Namibian dollars ($6.75) per person per month, no strings attached, regardless of their socioeconomic status. As a result, child malnutrition dropped and school enrollment rates went up, while poverty-related crime (like theft) fell.

India: Between 2011 and 2012, a pilot project in the state of Madhya Pradesh gave a basic income to some 6,000 Indians. Every man, woman, and child in eight villages received a monthly payment: 200 rupees ($2.80) for adults and 100 rupees for each child. The results: Receiving a basic income led to improved sanitation, nutrition, and school attendance.

Japanese billionaire Yusaku Maezawa announced that he would give away 1 billion Japanese yen — about $9 million — to 1,000 random Twitter followers. Recipients of the cash benefit are now 3.9 times more interested in launching a new business. Recipients saw a decrease in divorce rates, from 1.5 percent to 0.6 percent. And more than 70 percent of recipients said they experienced a significant increase in happiness.


Poverty is the lack of money, and the cure for poverty is to supply money to the impoverished.

We use the term “poverty” to describe merely being short of money. It does not need to be the abject, begging-in-the-street form of poverty, to have a negative effect on a family.

Just being unable to afford college or unable to live in a good home, are serious monetary and psychological negatives, not only for one family, but for that family’s economic surroundings.

Poverty does not indicate a moral lack. It is the result of bad fortune, whether at birth or at any time thereafter. Punishment does not cure poverty, because poverty itself is punishment.

Blaming the needy for their situation provides no benefit, moral or monetary, either for the impoverished or for the rest of humanity.

Withholding money from the impoverished is like withholding medicine from the sick.

The U.S. federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, has the unlimited ability to create dollars. It is infinitely rich. The dollars it would give in the form of a basic income are not tax dollars. No one ever will pay for those dollars. They are created ad hoc, from thin air.

People receiving money are not less likely to work; the reverse is true. And they are more likely to be more productive members of society and less likely to commit crimes.

Giving “no strings” money to people has time and again proved to benefit the people themselves and the rest of the private sector. Everyone benefits.

See Step #3, Social Security for All (below).

There are no downsides.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

Monetary Sovereignty Twitter: @rodgermitchell Search #monetarysovereignty Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..


The most important problems in economics involve:

  1. Monetary Sovereignty describes money creation and destruction.
  2. Gap Psychology describes the common desire to distance oneself from those “below” in any socio-economic ranking, and to come nearer those “above.” The socio-economic distance is referred to as “The Gap.”

Wide Gaps negatively affect poverty, health and longevity, education, housing, law and crime, war, leadership, ownership, bigotry, supply and demand, taxation, GDP, international relations, scientific advancement, the environment, human motivation and well-being, and virtually every other issue in economics. Implementation of Monetary Sovereignty and The Ten Steps To Prosperity can grow the economy and narrow the Gaps:

Ten Steps To Prosperity:

  1. Eliminate FICA
  2. Federally funded Medicare — parts A, B & D, plus long-term care — for everyone
  3. Social Security for all
  4. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone
  5. Salary for attending school
  6. Eliminate federal taxes on business
  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% 

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


SOCIALISM! The Green New Deal socialism monster under your bed

Perhaps you were one of those children who feared the night monster hiding under your bed or in your closet. Perhaps you thought you could hear the night monster sneaking around you while you pulled the covers over your head.

Typical anti-socialism cartoon, misrepresenting the facts
Typical anti-socialism cartoon, misrepresenting the facts

Today, as an adult, perhaps you now fear the Green New Deal (GND) socialism monster. The GND socialism monster and the night monster have much in common.

Both scare you. Both are commonly believed in by the unknowing. And both are imaginary.

SOCIALISM: “A theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.”

The words ownership and control are bolded because they are key. When the government owns and controls something, for instance, a Veterans Administration hospital, that is an element of socialism.

But when the government merely provides funds, as when Medicare pays your hospital and doctor bills, that may be progressivism, but it is not socialism.

The abject failures of Russia’s and Venezuela’s socialist and criminal governments often are given as examples of why socialism “doesn’t work.” But do we give the examples of Greece and Brazil to demonstrate why capitalism “doesn’t work.”

It isn’t socialism that has injured Russia and Venezuela; it’s criminal dictatorships — closer to Donald Trump’s administration of criminals than to real socialism.

We Americans wisely accept some elements of socialism, i.e. government ownership and control, in our capitalistic nation. For example:

Image result for socialism cartoons
The GOP wants you to believe that government spending is socialism.

The list goes on and on. In fact, a capitalistic government could not survive without many socialist elements.

So when pundits complain that this benefit or that program is “socialist,” they merely are using a word that has become a pejorative to the ears of Americans — and that’s why they use it: For psychological impact when facts don’t matter.

Socialism, in of itself, is not a bad thing. Unless you wish to get rid of the military, the national highway system, et al, we always will, always must, have some socialism to protect us.

In fact, when Trump derides “Medicare for All” as “socialism,” he conveniently forgets that his demand for $6 billion dollars to extend the border wall, also is socialism.

The GND monster is not socialism. It is not even a law. It is a set of goals and directions toward preventing the collapse of our ecology and our economy, due to global warming.

If, like Trump, you claim global warming is a Chinese hoax (and that Trump University was a real university, and that Trump never would cheat on his wives, his taxes, or his employees), you are fact-averse, and you now have permission to return to the cult.

Otherwise, you understand that human-caused global warming is a real threat to our grandchildren, a threat we are causing, a threat we cannot ignore as it gets worse and worse.

This is Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s, and Sen. Ed Markey’s, framework defining what they call a “Green New Deal”:

  • upgrading all existing buildings in the country for energy efficiency;
  • working with farmers “to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions … as much as is technologically feasible” (while supporting family farms and promoting “universal access to healthy food”);
  • Overhauling transportation systems to reduce emissions — including expanding electric car manufacturing, building charging stations everywhere, and expanding high-speed rail to a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary;
  • A guaranteed job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations and retirement security for every American;
  • High-quality health care for all Americans.
For those with no imagination, all goals are unrealistic.

Contrary to what Trump’s pundits want you to believe, Ocasio-Cortez and Markey are not stupid. They do not propose killing cows to prevent cow-farts. They do not propose taking away your cars and tractors.

(An otherwise intelligent friend of mine confided in me that he was worried about the Democrats taking away airplane travel.) Such is the power of rumor and conspiracy-mongering.

Trump’s conservatives, predictably, denounced the GND. After all, conservatism wishes to “preserve or restore what is established and traditional and to limit change.”

Conservatives tend especially to embrace strict interpretations of religion because religion does not easily change. Religion does not create any new thing. Religion did not create modern medicine, or electronics, today’s machinery.  Though most religions preach kindness to the poor, a left-wing notion, religion itself is conservative. The “Word” does not change and those who try to change it are derided as “blasphemous.”

Conservatives tend to be anti-science, because science creates change. So when the vast majority of professional climatologists say that the world is warming, humans are contributing to it, and this will be to our detriment, conservatives try to dig up nay-sayers, who say, in essence, “Do nothing and all will be well.

(That also is why the anti-vaccination movement is fundamentally conservative. If those folks had their way, smallpox still would be killing millions.)

And just as anti-science conservatives do not want us to understand the science of climatology, they also misrepresent the science of economics by threatening us with the “Green New Deal” socialism monster.

It’s so easy to claim that the government is incompetent, wasteful, and less able to accomplish good things than the private sector, and in many cases that is true.

But there are some things the federal government is able to do better than the private sector, the most prominent of which is: Create and spend dollars.

This is especially true of big projects or projects that have no profit motive, like free national highways, armies, space exploration, free libraries, free public schools, et al. Left to the private sector, these things would not exist in America.

The federal government has the unlimited ability to pay for anything. It can pay to upgrade existing buildings, though upgrading “all” existing buildings within a short time period would be functionally impossible.

It could pay farmers to “eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions … as much as is technologically feasible”

It could pay for “expanding electric car manufacturing, building ‘charging stations everywhere,'” and expanding high-speed rail, reducing the use of air travel. It also could pay for research to make air travel less carbon intensive.

And those government dollars will stimulate economic growth for more than have Trump’s tax cuts for the rich.

The federal government has the ability to pay for all the things the GND proposes. And while accomplishing these things in the goal of ten years may not be feasible, as Laozi said, “A journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step.

That journey also begins with a goal. The Green New Deal provides us with the goal — a goal of saving the world for our children. If we allow the conservatives to do nothing, our children will suffer, and they will know it was we who did this.

They will look upon us in the same way as we look upon the religious fanatics who tortured and murdered those who claimed the sun circled the earth — as ignorant savages who refused the truth.

Now, we must convince the Democrats to have courage, and not to fear the Green New Deal (GND) socialism monster. It is a friendly monster that can save the world.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty
Twitter: @rodgermitchell
Search #monetarysovereigntyFacebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell


The most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the richer and the poorer.

Wide Gaps negatively affect poverty, health and longevity, education, housing, law and crime, war, leadership, ownership, bigotry, supply and demand, taxation, GDP, international relations, scientific advancement, the environment, human motivation and well-being, and virtually every other issue in economics.

Implementation of The Ten Steps To Prosperity can narrow the Gaps:

Ten Steps To Prosperity:

1. Eliminate FICA

2. Federally funded medicare — parts a, b & d, plus long-term care — for everyone

3. Provide a monthly economic bonus to every man, woman and child in America (similar to social security for all)

4. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone

5. Salary for attending school

6. Eliminate federal taxes on business

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% 

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