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:
Imagine you are Jeff Bezos, the $175 billion man. Your children are starving. They ask you for $10 so they can buy some food. You debate about whether to offer even $2.
That is the GOP Senate, today.
Parties remain divided over virus aid package Some Republicans balk over price tag as deadline looms By Lisa Mascaro Associated Press
WASHINGTON — The differences over the next coronavirus aid package are vast: Democrats propose $3 trillion in relief and Republicans have a $1 trillion counteroffer. At stake are millions of Americans’ jobless benefits, school reopenings and eviction protections.
Given that the federal government already has demonstrated it has unlimited money, and that infusions of money protect the economy and the people of America, why the reluctance to spend?
Striking any agreement between Congress and President Donald Trump by Friday’s deadline for expiring aid will be daunting.
The outcome will be a defining one for the president and the parties heading into the November election as an uneasy nation is watching and waiting for Washington to bring some end to the health crisis and devastating economic fallout.
Given that adding dollars to the economy will stimulate economic growth, and a growing economy will benefit Trump’s re-election chances, why is it the Democrats who wish to spend and the Republicans who are reluctant?
Key to the debate is the $600 weekly unemployment benefit bump that is expiring for millions of jobless Americans.
Republicans want to slash it to $200 a week as an incentive to push people back to work.
Given that millions of people are out of work, not because they quit, but were fired, and there are not enough jobs available to hire them back, why do Republicans insist there is a need or even a way to “push people back” to non-existent jobs?
Defending cuts to unemployment assistance, Republicans said the federal supplement is too generous, on top of state benefits, and people should not be paid more while they are at home than they would if they were on the job.
Given that giving Americans more money will allow them to spend more, which will help American businesses survive, why are Republicans concerned that the federal supplement is “too generous”?
With the virus death toll climbing and 4.2 million infections nationwide, both parties are eager for relief.
There is some agreement that more money is needed for virus testing, to help schools prepare to open in the fall and to shore up small businesses.
Half the Republican senators are expected to oppose any bill.
They warned against caving to liberal demands and worried the price tag will balloon past $1 trillion.
The Republicans come to the negotiating table hobbled by infighting and delays. Conservative Republicans quickly broke ranks, arguing the spending was too much and priorities misplaced.
“It’s a mess,” said Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo. “I don’t know what we’re trying to accomplish.”
Those words, “I don’t know what we’re trying to accomplish,” will live in infamy, for that is exactly the situation. Here are what seem to be the Republican goals.
Re-elect themselves.
Re-elect Trump.
Grow the economy.
“Open” the economy.
Get people back to work.
But they want to accomplish the above without:
Aiding consumers so they will spend more.
Aiding schools so they can create virus-free environments.
Aiding states so they can, in turn, aid their counties and cities.
More virus testing.
Demanding mask-wearing.
Offering any kind of unified recovery plan.
Doing anything liberals might like.
Benefitting the poor and middle-income groups.
When you don’t know what you are trying to accomplish, there is no hope you ever will accomplish it.
There are two steps Congress and the President could take that very quickly would return America to some semblance of normal:
Pump dollars into the pockets of consumers.
Universal mask-wearing.
With regard to mask-wearing, the fault lies directly at the feet of the President. Recently there appeared an article that read like this:
Shops: No shoes, no shirt, no service.
People: OK. No problem.
Traffic Laws: Wear a seatbelt in a car or be ticketed. No drinking and driving.
People: OK. No problem.
OSHA; At work in a dangerous place you must wear safety gear.
People: OK. No problem.
Airlines: You must be seated, with your seatbelt buckled and your tray table up. No smoking.
People: OK. No problem.
Do not go down the “up” escalator.
People: OK. No problem.
TSA: Remove your shoes & belt; empty your pockets; put your luggage on the belt; and go through the X-ray machine.
People: OK. No problem.
Schools: Children are not allowed to bring guns into the school.
People: OK. No problem.
Food processor: No animals allowed in a food facility.
Workers: OK. No problem.
Today’s stores: Please wear a mask to reduce the risk of infecting others and yourself with the deadly CORONA virus.
People: Don’t try to take away my rights and freedoms. If the President doesn’t have to wear a mask, neither do I.
Way back, on May 5th, 2020, we published:
The surprisingly simple way to open America in 14 days and avoid a depression. COVID-19 transmits primarily through the air by droplets. Stop the droplets and you stop the transmission. The incubation period is 14 days. If everyone wore a mask, even just a simple cloth mask, the virus would cease to be transmitted in two weeks.
The was 2 1/2 months ago, and nothing that has happened since, to change the prescription.
Even without social distancing, even with handwashing, even without scrubbing down facilities, even without a cure or a vaccine, the simple act of universal mask-wearing would create a kind of “herd immunity” that would end the disaster.
Yet here we are, still fiddling. And America is burning.
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:
Why do some societies, like some couples, fall apart under pressure, while others band together?
Today, Portland. Who’s next?
If a crisis brings them together, will that make them stronger in the future?
And if they come apart, is that a sign that they should never have been together in the first place?
This week’s exemplar for “banding together” is the European Union (EU), whose leaders agreed to extraordinary new measures to promote a broad economic recovery in the wake of the novel coronavirus.
The agreement represents an about-face from the stance the EU took in the wake of the financial crisis of the last decade, which emphasized austerity rather than stimulus.
More importantly it broke two key structural taboos: the European Commission will, for the first time, be authorized to borrow significant sums of money; and a large portion of that sum will be disbursed to member governments in the form of grants.
The EU bears a cursory similarity to the United States of America. Both groups are composed of individual state governments.
Both the U.S. and the EU themselves are Monetarily Sovereign. They each own sovereign currencies, which they have the unlimited power to create.
The U.S. cannot run short of dollars; the EU cannot run short of euros.
For the EU, most of those governments are monetarily non-sovereign, meaning they don’t have their own sovereign currency. For the U.S., all the constituent state governments are monetarily non-sovereign.
Pepper spray everyone.
You and I also are monetarily non-sovereign entities. So are counties, cities, and businesses. None of us owns a sovereign currency.
To survive long-term we monetarily non-sovereign entities must have a net inflow of money.
Even “break-even,” i.e. a balanced budget, is not sufficient because, with even the most modest amount of inflation, a balanced budget would cause us monetarily sovereign entities to lose real wealth.
For the monetarily non-sovereign states of the U.S. and the EU, this net inflow must come from net exports or grants from their Monetarily Sovereign U.S. or EU governments.
But within any group, it is mathematically impossible for all members to be net exporters, and it is unlikely they all will be net exporters to the rest of the world.
So there are periods when the states of the U.S. and the states of the EU run short of money.
Typically then, these states must borrow money, and when borrowing has reached its limit, they must levy increased taxes on their citizens.
But, because the citizens are monetarily non-sovereign, they too can run short of money. Increased taxes impoverish the citizens, who subsequently are unable to pay further taxes.
This is known as “austerity,” which always leads to an endless, downward helix of impoverishment, which only can be solved when the Monetarily Sovereign U.S. or EU creates new money and distributes it as grants, not loans, to the needy states.
The U.S. federal government impoverishes its states by unnecessarily taxing the states’ citizens — “unnecessarily” because the U.S. government, having the unlimited ability to create dollars, has no need for taxes.
It is federal deficit spending that enriches the populace, grows the economy, and makes state, county, and city survival possible.
Contrary to popular wisdom, it is the insufficiency of federal deficit spending that invariably leads to recessions and depressions.
Sadly, many state citizens pay more money to the federal government than their state receives from the federal government, which causes an erosion of those states’ finances.
Over time, these states must receive money from the federal government or they will become insolvent, and be unable to service their debts.
This bit of simple arithmetic is not well understood in America.
The U.S. federal government levies taxes it neither needs nor even uses.
Indebted states struggle to provide basic benefits to their citizens.
A similar situation exists in the EU.
Of the 28 EU states, 12 do not have a positive balance of payments vs. the EU.
But of those 12, three are Monetarily Sovereign — UK, Sweden, and Denmark.
Those three cannot run short of their own sovereign currencies, and so long as those currencies have widespread acceptance, those countries always will be able to pay their bills.
But Mr. Millman’s phrase, ” . . . a large portion of that sum will be disbursed to member governments in the form of grants.” seems to indicate that the EU just possibly may finally have discovered its own Monetary Sovereignty.
If so, the heretofore lagging EU will rocket ahead of the U.S. in growth and prosperity for its members and its people.
One hopes that the U.S. federal government’s current, proven ability to create trillions of stimulus dollars, with none of the bad effects predicted by deficit and debt critics, may awaken the realization that yes, the U.S. federal government is Monetarily Sovereign, and so has the unlimited power to support the states and the residents of America.
Which brings me to the union that seems to be coming apart: (America).
The primary characteristic of the American response to the coronavirus has been the lack of any national policyto speak of.
Individual states have been responsible for setting up their own testing infrastructure and contact-tracing apparatus, setting their own policies with regard to non-pharmaceutical interventions from lockdowns to mandatory masking, and even placed in competition with one another for personal protective equipment.
The federal government (has been) derelict in either building essential common infrastructure or promoting an agreed upon set of best practices.
It (has refused) to provide necessary funding to facilitate the opening of schools, and then threatening districts that don’t open with financial ruin.
President Trump has evinced a complete lack of interest in achieving meaningful collective goals, even those he ostensibly favors (like building a wall with Mexico).
Trump is interested in using power for pure assertion of prerogative, as he has demonstrated through his abuse of the pardon power and, most recently, by sending federal agents to Portland in response to ongoing protests and damage to federal property.
The purpose of his intervention is precisely to create the very chaos that he claims to want to quell, on the theory that public disorder ultimately helps the candidate promising a strong hand.
But it is also intended to demonstrate a willingness to use force against those who, in the view of his core supporters, deserve such treatment.
We frequently have noted Trump’s dictatorial, even Hitlerian bent ( here, and here, and here) which, along with his proven psychopathy, has been an ever-growing disaster for America.
A “calming” influence?
Rather than merely protecting federal property, Trump’s storm troopers are dragging innocent protestors, even onlookers, off the streets, in clear violation of the Constitution’s guarantees of “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
In the eyes of Trump, Trump’s supporters, and all dictators throughout history, merely assembling and petitioning the government for a redress of grievances are adequate reasons for harsh retaliatory measures.
The consequences to national cohesion of this approach to federal governance — neglect coupled with brutality — are likely to be felt long after this administration has ended.
A progressive prosecutor in Pennsylvania is already on record as saying he will order the arrest of federal agents if they break the law in his jurisdiction, as they did in Oregon.
Even if he never has to make good on that threat, a line has been drawn, and the prospect of direct confrontation between state and federal authorities in some future contingency is real.
Meanwhile, states (such as in the northeast) that banded together to combat the coronavirus, and that are now requiring visitors from the rest of the country to quarantine upon entry, will undoubtedly find new ways to work together without waiting for the federal government.
The nation has not been so divided since the civil war, and it is no coincidence that one of the innumerable points of contention involves rebel flags and names.
One part of the nation still considers those who fought against America to be heroes, and rather than feeling freed of the onerous yoke of slavery, they feel subjugated and resentful for having lost their freedom– their freedom to enslave.
For his own purposes, Trump has picked at this lingering wound and made if fester more than it has in over 15 decades.
Rather than “Make America Great, Again,” Trump has Made America Hate, Again.”
Trump has finally united the center of the country against him, and a decisive repudiation will restore Americans’ faith in the possibility of collective action.
The first part may prove true in November, but I wonder about the second, and not only because I remember how quickly the overwhelming Democratic majority of a dozen years ago curdled into endless partisan trench warfare.
Perhaps it behooves all of us who are appalled by the Trump years, and by what has happened to the party he purports to lead, to devote at least some of our energy to thinking outside the box.
How much do we actually want our states and cities to depend on the federal government, versus how much freedom do we want to chart our own course?
Do we want the battle against climate change to depend on which party controls the EPA — or do we want California to be able to use its economic clout to muscle the rest of the country along?
The rest of Mr. Millman’s article is devoted to his “outside the box” suggestion that we should consider the various states seceding from the union, just to scare people into thinking seriously about coming together.
But, our current divisions are not simply geographical. Trump also has made our nation’s divisions moral, theological, ethical, and national.
Thinking outside the box, seems to me, to begin with an acknowledgement of:
The benefits of Monetary Sovereignty, and the federal government’s unlimited ability to give virtually everyone virtually everything they want.
The dangers inherent in Gap Psychology, the desire to advance by making others fall behind.
Life is not a zero-sum game.
If the evil Trump has wrought doesn’t scare Americans sufficiently, then nothing will, and there is no hope for our future as one nation. We forever will be divided and weak.
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:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Current law, as determined by the latest Supreme Court, holds that the first 13 words are meaningless and should be ignored.
That leaves us with the common interpretation: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
What is the purpose of that Amendment?
Seemingly, there can be only four purposes:
Hunting.
In the event America is invaded by a foreign power, there will already be armed citizens ready to repel the invasion.
For self-defense.
In the event a dictator takes over our government, armed citizens will be able to resist.
I. Hunting: The 2nd Amendment does not address hunting. The fact that guns can be used for hunting is not a right protected by the Constitution. The protected right has to do with “the security of a free state.”
II. Foreign invasion: Here in the year 2020, purpose #2 is ridiculous on its face. By law, Americans can be armed with nothing more lethal than a semi-automatic rifle or pistol.
No bombs, no machine guns, no hand grenades, no land mines, no tanks, no naval ships, no military planes, no cannons, no flame-throwers, no poison gas — none of the war weapons an invader could possess.
Additionally, the citizens are not under the control of military leaders. They would be no more than a rag-tag bunch, fighting trained, militarily-armed cadre. A bunch of citizens, carrying rifles, would have no effect on an invading army.
III. Self-defense: This would be a legitimate purpose, but for one sad truth. Excluding police and similarly authorized personnel, guns more often are used by untrained Americans in the commission of crimes and for suicides than for self-defense.
IV. Defense against the government: You may find it surprising, but that is the primary purpose of the 2nd Amendment.
Today, an armed citizenry might as well use waterguns against a trained military.
According to the syllabus prepared by the U.S. Supreme Court Reporter of Decisions, in District of Columbia v. Heller, (2008), the Supreme Court held: The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.
The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing armyor a select militia to rule.
The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved.
Keep that in mind:
The primary purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to protect the citizens from the federal government.
In this vein, “James Madison wrote how a federal army could be kept in check by state militias, “a standing army… would be opposed [by] a militia.” He argued that state militias “would be able to repel the danger” of a federal army, “It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.” (Wikipedia)
This was a real concern in the earliest days of our nation, when the states were more jealous of their rights and more concerned about federal power.
In more recent years, the rights of states vs. the federal government have diminished, mostly because that’s where the money is. The federal government has the ultimate power of the purse, and that translates into other forms of power.
And now we come to the Trump administration and its dictatorial bent.
Trump Deploys Lawlessness Against Lawlessness The president’s heavy-handed response to protests against police brutality belies his promise of “law and order.“ Jacob Sullum, 7.22.2020
Notwithstanding Trump’s pose as “your president of law and order,” his heavy-handed reaction to the protests triggered by George Floyd’s death represents neither.
In response to largely peaceful demonstrations against police brutality that have been punctuated by criminal behavior, he has deployed his own brand of lawlessness, including arbitrary arrests and the disproportionate, indiscriminate use of force.
Billy Williams, the U.S. attorney for Oregon noted that the Justice Department’s inspector general is investigating a July 11 incident in which a protester was severely injured by “less-lethal munitions” that the Marshals Service allegedly fired at his head.
Last week Williams asked the Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general to investigate allegations that “federal law enforcement detained two protestors without probable cause.”
Williams was referring to reports that camouflage-clad federal officers, identified by nothing more than generic “police” patches, have been driving through the streets of Portland in unmarked rental cars, grabbing protesters for no apparent reason and detaining them without charge.
Although that sounds like the sort of thing that happens in tinpot dictatorships, some of the incidents were caught on video.
“We cannot give up liberty for security,” Sen. Rand Paul (R–Ky.) warned. “Local law enforcement can and should be handling these situations in our cities, but there is no place for federal troops or unidentified federal agents rounding people up at will.”
In a federal lawsuit filed on Friday, Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum, citing the accounts of protesters who said they had been subjected to such treatment, argues that the Marshals Service and several Homeland Security agencies thereby violated their First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights.
“Every American should be repulsed when they see this happening,” she said. “If this can happen here in Portland, it can happen anywhere.”
Trump is in fact threatening to deploy federal agents, who are ostensibly in Portland to protect federal property, in Chicago and other cities “run by very liberal Democrats,” whom he equates with “the radical left.”
Like Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler, who describes the Trump administration’s tactics in his city as “abhorrent,” local officials elsewhere do not want his “help.”
Notice the line, “run by very liberal Democrats.” To Trump, this is a political issue, to be used for political purposes, not for security purposes.
Trump is using the military to attack cities run by Democrats, under the guise of protecting them. It is, in fact, a military takeover of these cities, from the elected mayors.
But the single most important purpose of the 2nd Amendment was supposed to be to help citizens protect themselves from just such a takeover by the federal government.
Clearly, the 2nd Amendment does no such thing. That may have been its original purpose, but its current functionis just to give gun lovers the right to carry guns.
The original purpose of the 2nd Amendment has disappeared. Today, it is a lie.
Today, Trump is engaging in the first step of an American Kristallnacht. Trump is sending in his version of the Nazi brownshirts to cause chaos, pretending that the protesters are enemies of America.
Read the short article, What next? Kristallnacht? to learn what happens when a dictator sends in the troops to put down “enemies.”
Trump has followed Hitler’s playbook to the letter, with our salvation to date being that Trump is not as clever as Hitler.
Those who understand how an entire nation can be taken over by a ruthless dictator will justifiably be concerned about Donald Trump. The next half-year will determine the future of America, and all your guns and semi-automatic rifles will be of little use.
Only the ballot box can save you — if you are smart enough to want to be saved.
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:
#Monetary Sovereignty - Mitchell 