Category: Uncategorized

Bad news for MMT’s Job Guarantee

 

Image result for escaping the prison

 

It takes only two things to keep people in chains:
The ignorance of the oppressed
and the treachery of their leaders.

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

Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) is a close cousin to Monetary Sovereignty (MS), the theory espoused on this site.

Both recognize the fact that federal finances are unlike state and local government finances. The federal government uniquely has a sovereign currency, the dollar, which it can create endlessly. Thus, federal spending is not funded by taxes or borrowing.

Fundamentally, MMT and MS are identical, but one important detail concealed by the devil has to do with MMT’s “Job Guarantee” (JG).

We have discussed JG many times, and continue to do so, because MMTers claim it is one of the most important parts of MMT.

They even have established a Center for Full Employment and Price Stability at the University of Missouri, Kansas City.

Here are excerpts from an article in The Nation:

The Job Guarantee: A Government Plan for Full Employment
There is no economic demand more urgent than putting Americans back to work. The government can do this by creating an “employer of last resort” program.
The Nation, By L. Randall Wray, June 8, 2011

There is no economic policy more important than job creation.

JG is a scheme only a university economist could love.

The idea is this: A federal government bureaucrat will create (or find in the public sector; that never has been clear) a job for anyone who wants a minimum wage job.

MMT refers to such job seekers as “buffer stock” or a “pool of employable labor.”

To be part of “buffer stock” or the “pool”:

  1. You will accept any minimum wage job you are offered, wherever in America it may be.
  2. You are qualified for any minimum wage job you are offered.
  3. Or, a federal government bureaucrat has the ability to find you the minimum wage job you want, and for which you are qualified, in a location convenient to where you live (even if you live in a small town in rural America).
  4. You prefer to work a minimum wage job, rather than not work, because you find such labor to be more emotionally rewarding than not working. (This doesn’t apply to wealthy people, of course.)

The whole thing is based on the MMT economist’s belief that the primary goal of you “buffer stock,” “pool employables”  (sometimes known as “people”) is to labor, or if that isn’t your primary goal, it morally should be. Apparently, you cannot be happy unless you have some minimum wage job, somewhere.

If the MMT professors merely would open a window in their ivory tower, they might see this:

Why Can’t the Middle Class Find Good Jobs if There Are So Many Job Openings?
Money & Career Cheat Sheet, Sam Becker, October 07, 2017

Job vacancies and job openings are exactly what they sound like — open jobs waiting to be filled. These positions represent needs from employers, and as such, employers advertise them as jobs to be filled.

As mentioned, these openings are at the highest levels on record, which goes back to the year 2000 when the government started keeping track.

Bureau of Labor Statistics, show there are more than 6 million job vacancies in the U.S. economy.  Why are employers unwilling to dip into the pool of 6.9 million unemployed people?

The answer, it seems, is a “skills mismatch.”

What does that mean? Those unemployed Americans out there don’t have the required skills or experience to be successful in the open positions.

A more obvious issue is the fact that many employers are reluctant to pay workers more.

Labor, like any other commodity, is subject to the rules of the free market. When there’s a shortage (as there appears to be right now), prices go up. But businesses don’t want to increase spending, and as a result they are allowing positions to go unfilled.

It’s not merely a matter of not being able to find quality employees. It’s that businesses are reluctant to pay more for them.

Pause for a moment to consider what you have read: There are millions of jobs available, but unemployed Americans don’t have the the skills to do them and employers are reluctant to pay what applicants want.

This doesn’t mean no one in America can do the job. It means:

Convenient to this location, there are no people who know about the job, can do the job, or who want the job, or who want the pay the job offers.

There are five crucial faults — job location, job awareness, job ability, job desire, pay acceptance — that separate JG from reality.

If the unemployed are looked at as mere “buffer stock,” these may be non-issues, but if they are considered to be human beings, these are killer issues. MMT economists, with their charts and graphs, fail to understand that.

If you have millions of workers who don’t have the skills needed to fill your positions, one option is to train them. But that’s something fewer and fewer businesses are offering these days.

More jobs than ever require college degrees, and many entry-level positions expect you to come in with some sort of certification or experience. This, of course, is at odds with the “entry-level” designation.

The fulcrum point of all of this is many employers simply aren’t offering attractive enough compensation packages to get the people they want. Yes, there’s a skills gap out there. But even that can be solved with high enough incentives.

How does the above square with MMT’s desire to pay minimum wage? Of course, it doesn’t.

That brings us to another (issue): The South and Midwest are where the most open jobs are.

And it’s not just areas of  the nation. It’s not even which states have jobs. It’s not even which cities. It’s a question of transportation cost and time. Most people will not accept a job that is much more than an hour a way and/or costly to reach.

Someone living in a northern suburb of, for instance, Chicago, would not consider a job in most of the Chicago business area — especially for a minimum wage job. Too far away and too costly to reach.

When employers can’t get people to work for the wages they’re offering, what are they supposed to do? The answer is to offer higher wages — and keep raising them until people start to bite.

Or mechanize, so live employment is less necessary.  Machines are a tempting option: No absences, no complaints, no labor problems, no errors, no salaries, no benefits, no lunch breaks.

A lot of employers are willing to let the 6 million unfilled jobs sit there rather than offer higher wages to fill them. That is why we have a record number of job vacancies and why we have millions of unemployed people who aren’t interested, or, as employers say, aren’t qualified.

MMT’s view of people as eager pegs to be dropped into holes, is at odds with reality.

Image result for ditch digger
Do you want this minimum wage job?

And here is another reality: The future is not more working hours, but fewer.

The goal for most people is to be able to do what they want, when they want — to live a happy life.

For some, this means being productive. For others it means reading, vacationing, being healthy, having friends, raising children, etc.

To each his own.

MMT’s professors repeatedly have stated, “There is no economic policy more important than job creation.”  They are wrong. Slaves in the South were fully employed. They were not happy.

People want happy lives. Minimum wage jobs are not the road to happy lives. There’s an old line, “No one ever says, ‘I wish I had spent more time in the office.'” Working for money seldom is a goal. The real goal is money and what money can buy.

Ask any retired person.

Monetary Sovereignty says “The most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the have-mores and the have-less.”

While narrowing the Gap between the rich and the rest cannot be accomplished by JG’s minimum wage jobs, it can be accomplished, beginning with Monetary Sovereignty’s Ten Steps to Prosperity (below).

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

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

The most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the have-mores and the have-less.

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 (Ten Reasons to Eliminate FICA )
Although the article lists 10 reasons to eliminate FICA, there are two fundamental reasons:
*FICA is the most regressive tax in American history, widening the Gap by punishing the low and middle-income groups, while leaving the rich untouched, and
*The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, neither needs nor uses FICA to support Social Security and Medicare.
2. FEDERALLY FUNDED MEDICARE — PARTS A, B & D, PLUS LONG TERM CARE — FOR EVERYONE (H.R. 676, Medicare for All )
This article addresses the questions:
*Does the economy benefit when the rich can afford better health care than can the rest of Americans?
*Aside from improved health care, what are the other economic effects of “Medicare for everyone?”
*How much would it cost taxpayers?
*Who opposes it?”
3. PROVIDE A MONTHLY ECONOMIC BONUS TO EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA (similar to Social Security for All) (The JG (Jobs Guarantee) vs the GI (Guaranteed Income) vs the EB (Economic Bonus)) Or institute a reverse income tax.
This article is the fifth in a series about direct financial assistance to Americans:

Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Employer of Last Resort is a bad idea. Sunday, Jan 1 2012
MMT’s Job Guarantee (JG) — “Another crazy, rightwing, Austrian nutjob?” Thursday, Jan 12 2012
Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Jobs Guarantee is like the EU’s euro: A beloved solution to the wrong problem. Tuesday, May 29 2012
“You can’t fire me. I’m on JG” Saturday, Jun 2 2012

Economic growth should include the “bottom” 99.9%, not just the .1%, the only question being, how best to accomplish that. Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) favors giving everyone a job. Monetary Sovereignty (MS) favors giving everyone money. The five articles describe the pros and cons of each approach.
4. FREE EDUCATION (INCLUDING POST-GRAD) FOR EVERYONE Five reasons why we should eliminate school loans
Monetarily non-sovereign State and local governments, despite their limited finances, support grades K-12. That level of education may have been sufficient for a largely agrarian economy, but not for our currently more technical economy that demands greater numbers of highly educated workers.
Because state and local funding is so limited, grades K-12 receive short shrift, especially those schools whose populations come from the lowest economic groups. And college is too costly for most families.
An educated populace benefits a nation, and benefitting the nation is the purpose of the federal government, which has the unlimited ability to pay for K-16 and beyond.
5. SALARY FOR ATTENDING SCHOOL
Even were schooling to be completely free, many young people cannot attend, because they and their families cannot afford to support non-workers. In a foundering boat, everyone needs to bail, and no one can take time off for study.
If a young person’s “job” is to learn and be productive, he/she should be paid to do that job, especially since that job is one of America’s most important.
6. ELIMINATE FEDERAL TAXES ON BUSINESS
Businesses are dollar-transferring machines. They transfer dollars from customers to employees, suppliers, shareholders and the federal government (the later having no use for those dollars). Any tax on businesses reduces the amount going to employees, suppliers and shareholders, which diminishes the economy. Ultimately, all business taxes reduce your personal income.
7. INCREASE THE STANDARD INCOME TAX DEDUCTION, ANNUALLY. (Refer to this.) Federal taxes punish taxpayers and harm the economy. The federal government has no need for those punishing and harmful tax dollars. There are several ways to reduce taxes, and we should evaluate and choose the most progressive approaches.
Cutting FICA and business taxes would be a good early step, as both dramatically affect the 99%. Annual increases in the standard income tax deduction, and a reverse income tax also would provide benefits from the bottom up. Both would narrow the Gap.
8. TAX THE VERY RICH (THE “.1%) MORE, WITH HIGHER PROGRESSIVE TAX RATES ON ALL FORMS OF INCOME. (TROPHIC CASCADE)
There was a time when I argued against increasing anyone’s federal taxes. After all, the federal government has no need for tax dollars, and all taxes reduce Gross Domestic Product, thereby negatively affecting the entire economy, including the 99.9%.
But I have come to realize that narrowing the Gap requires trimming the top. It simply would not be possible to provide the 99.9% with enough benefits to narrow the Gap in any meaningful way. Bill Gates reportedly owns $70 billion. To get to that level, he must have been earning $10 billion a year. Pick any acceptable Gap (1000 to 1?), and the lowest paid American would have to receive $10 million a year. Unreasonable.
9. FEDERAL OWNERSHIP OF ALL BANKS (Click The end of private banking and How should America decide “who-gets-money”?)
Banks have created all the dollars that exist. Even dollars created at the direction of the federal government, actually come into being when banks increase the numbers in checking accounts. This gives the banks enormous financial power, and as we all know, power corrupts — especially when multiplied by a profit motive.
Although the federal government also is powerful and corrupted, it does not suffer from a profit motive, the world’s most corrupting influence.
10. INCREASE FEDERAL SPENDING ON THE MYRIAD INITIATIVES THAT BENEFIT AMERICA’S 99.9% (Federal agencies)Browse the agencies. See how many agencies benefit the lower- and middle-income/wealth/ power groups, by adding dollars to the economy and/or by actions more beneficial to the 99.9% than to the .1%.
Save this reference as your primer to current economics. Sadly, much of the material is not being taught in American schools, which is all the more reason for you to use it.

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

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Trump wants to force poor women to have more babies. That’s the plan.

Image result for the truth will set you free
It takes only two things to keep people in chains:
The ignorance of the oppressed and the treachery of their leaders.

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Yes, Trump really does want to force poor women to have more babies. It’s all part of the plan.

And it’s not just Trump. Many religious leaders — the self-proclaimed “moral” people — want the same thing.

Trump administration narrows access to birth-control coverage under Obamacare
By Juliet Eilperin, Amy Goldstein And William Wan, The Washington Post, 10/6/17

The Trump administration issued a rule Friday that sharply limits the Affordable Care Act’s contraception coverage mandate, a move that could mean many American women would no longer have access to birth control free of charge.

Several religious groups, which battled the Obama administration for years over the controversial requirement, welcomed the action.

Women’s rights organizations and some medical professionals portrayed it as a blow to women’s health, warning that it could lead to a higher number of unintended pregnancies.

“See, it’s like this. We Republicans know you’re poor and often don’t even have enough money to feed your kids.

The lazy poor, bending and sweating in the heat, for low wages.

 

But you’re just a bunch of lazy, good-for-nothings who are trying to collect “freebies” from the government.
“So we are doing everything possible to destroy your access to healthcare.

We tried to eliminate Obamacare all at once, but a few bleeding hearts prevented it, so now we are going to pick it apart, piece by piece.

“Our President already has cut some funding and probably will cut more.  Here’s the latest news:

“We won’t pay for your birth control, and we also won’t pay for your abortions, which result from lack of birth control.  You impoverished women have a choice: Either give up sex or have more babies you can’t afford. Yes, that’s part of the plan.

“(Or, of course, you can use a wire hanger in an alley, as a third option.)

“Later, it will be your fault that those unwanted, impoverished babies grow up to be gun-toting, uneducated, drug-dealing criminals, and all we superior, moral people will shake our heads and say ‘Tsk tsk,” then punish them severely.

“That too, is part of the plan.

“Gotcha!”

Several religious groups, which battled the Obama administration for years over the controversial requirement, welcomed the action.

Women’s rights organizations and some medical professionals portrayed it as a blow to women’s health, warning that it could lead to a higher number of unintended pregnancies.

“Could” lead to more unintended pregnancies? “Could”? How about, absolutely, positively will, but that is part of the plan.

Organizations affiliated with the Catholic church, which teaches against birth control other than by natural means, have been among the most vocal opponents.

They’ve argued that having to cover the cost of contraception through health insurance plans is tantamount to being forced by the government to be complicit in a sin.

Apparently, using a condom is a sin. And you know what else is a sin? Mistreating the poor, and doing it in the name of “religious freedom.”

I’m no expert on religion, but I suspect Jesus would be far more opposed to the latter sin than to the former.

The National Women’s Law Center – which estimates that in 2013 alone, the contraception requirement saved women $1.4 billion in oral contraceptive costs – has vowed to challenge the Trump administration in court.

It plans to argue that the new policy will allow employers to impose their religious beliefs on employees.

As always, the GOP says the religious freedom of employers is more important than the freedoms of employees.

But, that’s all part of the plan.

The rule follows some social conservatives’ increasing frustration with the pace at which the Trump administration has addressed their demands on issues such as the ACA contraception requirement.

“An awful lot of people who voted for this president did so believing this was going to be something he would solve,” said Mark Rienzi, senior counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, who hailed the rule as a correction of overly aggressive liberal actions under President Barack Obama.

“There are other ways to get contraceptives. You don’t need to force nuns to give people contraception.”

One suspects that all those “social conservatives” who are frustrated about poor people preventing pregnancies, have enough money to buy contraceptives, and they do so regularly.

We suspect that every single business that takes advantage of Trump’s ruling is led by a CEO whose wife, girlfriend and adult daughters — and/or their men — commit the “sin” of using contraceptives.

No, the issue is not about ordinary people using contraceptives. The issue is about the poor using contraceptives. And that is part of the plan.

So, what is the plan, you ask?

Job line

Part of the plan is to create desperation among millions of people, who will be forced to take any crap job at any crap wage the rich care to offer — thousands of laborers to build Trump hotels, be cheated out of their salaries, and not even have enough financial power to sue.

Torturing the poor, to get them to submit to all sorts of maltreatment, is a reliable old standby.

Deny them sex, or force them to have babies they neither want nor can afford, thus impoverishing them further. 

Then demean them for the crimes of being poor and having babies they can’t afford.

Put them in impossible situations they can try to avoid only by accepting the most terrible jobs. That is part of the plan.

How else can you get people to do backbreaking stoop labor under a hot sun for slave wages and without even bathroom facilities? Or to wait in hours-long lines, hoping to receive a one-day job from a mean taskmaster?

Desperation works. It’s cruel. It’s inhumane. But it works. Many religious leaders love it.

And the basic plan, the real plan? It’s to widen the Gap between the rich and the poor. It’s known as “Gap Psychology.” Without it, the rich wouldn’t be rich.

Look it up.  It’s a GOP favorite.

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

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

The single most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the have-mores and the have-less.

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 (Ten Reasons to Eliminate FICA )
Although the article lists 10 reasons to eliminate FICA, there are two fundamental reasons:
*FICA is the most regressive tax in American history, widening the Gap by punishing the low and middle-income groups, while leaving the rich untouched, and
*The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, neither needs nor uses FICA to support Social Security and Medicare.
2. FEDERALLY FUNDED MEDICARE — PARTS A, B & D, PLUS LONG TERM CARE — FOR EVERYONE (H.R. 676, Medicare for All )
This article addresses the questions:
*Does the economy benefit when the rich can afford better health care than can the rest of Americans?
*Aside from improved health care, what are the other economic effects of “Medicare for everyone?”
*How much would it cost taxpayers?
*Who opposes it?”
3. PROVIDE A MONTHLY ECONOMIC BONUS TO EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA (similar to Social Security for All) (The JG (Jobs Guarantee) vs the GI (Guaranteed Income) vs the EB (Economic Bonus)) Or institute a reverse income tax.
This article is the fifth in a series about direct financial assistance to Americans:

Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Employer of Last Resort is a bad idea. Sunday, Jan 1 2012
MMT’s Job Guarantee (JG) — “Another crazy, rightwing, Austrian nutjob?” Thursday, Jan 12 2012
Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Jobs Guarantee is like the EU’s euro: A beloved solution to the wrong problem. Tuesday, May 29 2012
“You can’t fire me. I’m on JG” Saturday, Jun 2 2012

Economic growth should include the “bottom” 99.9%, not just the .1%, the only question being, how best to accomplish that. Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) favors giving everyone a job. Monetary Sovereignty (MS) favors giving everyone money. The five articles describe the pros and cons of each approach.
4. FREE EDUCATION (INCLUDING POST-GRAD) FOR EVERYONE Five reasons why we should eliminate school loans
Monetarily non-sovereign State and local governments, despite their limited finances, support grades K-12. That level of education may have been sufficient for a largely agrarian economy, but not for our currently more technical economy that demands greater numbers of highly educated workers.
Because state and local funding is so limited, grades K-12 receive short shrift, especially those schools whose populations come from the lowest economic groups. And college is too costly for most families.
An educated populace benefits a nation, and benefitting the nation is the purpose of the federal government, which has the unlimited ability to pay for K-16 and beyond.
5. SALARY FOR ATTENDING SCHOOL
Even were schooling to be completely free, many young people cannot attend, because they and their families cannot afford to support non-workers. In a foundering boat, everyone needs to bail, and no one can take time off for study.
If a young person’s “job” is to learn and be productive, he/she should be paid to do that job, especially since that job is one of America’s most important.
6. ELIMINATE FEDERAL TAXES ON BUSINESS
Businesses are dollar-transferring machines. They transfer dollars from customers to employees, suppliers, shareholders and the federal government (the later having no use for those dollars). Any tax on businesses reduces the amount going to employees, suppliers and shareholders, which diminishes the economy. Ultimately, all business taxes reduce your personal income.
7. INCREASE THE STANDARD INCOME TAX DEDUCTION, ANNUALLY. (Refer to this.) Federal taxes punish taxpayers and harm the economy. The federal government has no need for those punishing and harmful tax dollars. There are several ways to reduce taxes, and we should evaluate and choose the most progressive approaches.
Cutting FICA and business taxes would be a good early step, as both dramatically affect the 99%. Annual increases in the standard income tax deduction, and a reverse income tax also would provide benefits from the bottom up. Both would narrow the Gap.
8. TAX THE VERY RICH (THE “.1%) MORE, WITH HIGHER PROGRESSIVE TAX RATES ON ALL FORMS OF INCOME. (TROPHIC CASCADE)
There was a time when I argued against increasing anyone’s federal taxes. After all, the federal government has no need for tax dollars, and all taxes reduce Gross Domestic Product, thereby negatively affecting the entire economy, including the 99.9%.
But I have come to realize that narrowing the Gap requires trimming the top. It simply would not be possible to provide the 99.9% with enough benefits to narrow the Gap in any meaningful way. Bill Gates reportedly owns $70 billion. To get to that level, he must have been earning $10 billion a year. Pick any acceptable Gap (1000 to 1?), and the lowest paid American would have to receive $10 million a year. Unreasonable.
9. FEDERAL OWNERSHIP OF ALL BANKS (Click The end of private banking and How should America decide “who-gets-money”?)
Banks have created all the dollars that exist. Even dollars created at the direction of the federal government, actually come into being when banks increase the numbers in checking accounts. This gives the banks enormous financial power, and as we all know, power corrupts — especially when multiplied by a profit motive.
Although the federal government also is powerful and corrupted, it does not suffer from a profit motive, the world’s most corrupting influence.
10. INCREASE FEDERAL SPENDING ON THE MYRIAD INITIATIVES THAT BENEFIT AMERICA’S 99.9% (Federal agencies)Browse the agencies. See how many agencies benefit the lower- and middle-income/wealth/ power groups, by adding dollars to the economy and/or by actions more beneficial to the 99.9% than to the .1%.
Save this reference as your primer to current economics. Sadly, much of the material is not being taught in American schools, which is all the more reason for you to use it.

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

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

The nine politicians in black robes

Image result for freedom
Freedom

It takes only two things to keep people in chains: The ignorance of the oppressed and the treachery of their leaders.

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

There is a difference between ideology and party politics. The former is concerned with issues. The latter is concerned with blind loyalty.

Political parties do not bind themselves to an ideology, but rather focus on winning elections.

You probably have been told that the Supreme Court is a mixture of conservative and liberal Justices, something like this small table, showing the “attitude” (fundamental belief) of each Justice. Image result for supreme court party politics

In reality, The Supreme Court acts like the 3rd segment of the legislative branch.

Like a politician, each justice clings to the party that nominated him (her).

In short, the Supreme Court is ruled by politics, not by law and not by ideology.

The Justices make new law in the same way the Senate and House do: On the basis of political expedience.  Each Justice interprets (twists) the words of the Constitution to fulfill political allegiance, even resorting to the claim that some of the Constitution’s words are completely meaningless.

The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution reads, “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.”

It is difficult to argue that the framers intentionally included the bolded words, knowing they were to have no meaning.

Yet, our most famous, self-described “originalist” judge, Antonin Scalia, who prided himself on following the exact, plain-word meaning of the Constitution, argued exactly that.

He said the words, “well-regulated militia” had no meaning whatsoever — that they were an introduction like “Ahem,” a kind of legal throat clearing.

Republicans claim to be “conservatives,” but they are not. A real conservative wishes to conserve the past or at least the present. That desire is not what defines today’s Republicans.

Some de facto elements of today’s Republicanism are:

1. Pro-life, pro-death penalty, anti-birth control, pro-religion, pro-gun.  There is an ideological disconnect between pro-life and pro-death penalty and pro-religion.

If your religion believes the killing of fetuses is murder, why would you favor the mass distribution of murder machines and the killing of prisoners?

And if you oppose abortion, why would you oppose the birth control that would reduce the demand for abortions?

These are not conservative positions. They are not ideological positions. They are Republican political positions.

For instance, the Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade, legalized abortion by a 7-2 vote. Six of the seven justices in the majority were Republican appointees.

The State of Massachusetts passed a health care reform law in 2006. Governor Mitt Romney was a Republican. The law became known as “Romneycare.” Clearly, politics, not conservative ideology, was responsible for the subsequent Republican hatred of Obamacare, which was a virtual clone of Romneycare.

2. Pro-Christian, anti-nonChristian, anti-black, anti-brown, pro-white,  anti-immigrant. Many Republicans would deny having these beliefs, but whether or not stated overtly, the evidence is in the voting.

One only can wonder how a follower of Christ’s teachings can vote against the well-being of blacks, browns, and immigrants.

3. Anti-Jew, pro-Israel. Another head-scratcher. Christ was born, lived, and died a Jew, and was, in fact, a rabbi.

Being anti-Jew, but pro-Israel can be justified (if justification even is possible) only if anti-Muslim feelings are greater than anti-Jew feelings –“the enemy of my enemy” idea.

4. Anti-big government, pro-big business, anti-gay marriage, pro-“strict law and order.”  The anti-big government people believe the government is too intrusive and burdensome on our lives, while inexplicably believing big business is not intrusive or burdensome.

 The same anti-government people believe the government should intrude forcefully on the lives of gay people, and on individuals accused of street crime.

4. Pro-military spending, anti-social spending, anti-deficit spending, anti-science, anti-arts. “Anti-science” manifests itself with climate change denial and evolution denial.

“Anti-deficit” always gives way to “pro-military.”

What is the commonality of the above? They are not conservatism. They do not express a conservative ideology. Some do not “conserve” anything, some are mutually nonsensical, and some merely are bigotry.

There is but one commonality: They all are today’s Republican political positions. 

Imagine this scenario:

You are a renter who is suing your landlord. A plain reading of the law favors your position, but you know the judge was appointed by a powerful politician, who also is a landlord. Thus, the judge has a personal bias favoring landlords.

Statistics show that in the vast majority of tenant vs. landlord cases to appear before the judge, he rules in favor of the landlord, no matter what a plain English interpretation of the law says.

That is not ideology. The judge’s decision is based on politics.

I have just described to you, the U.S. Supreme Court.

Today’s Supreme Court is composed of nine Justices, of whom four repeatedly lean politically Republican (Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, Samual Alito, and John Roberts) four repeatedly lean Democratic (Elena Kagen, Sonia Sotomayer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer) with one being a “swing vote,” but with a Republican tilt (Anthony Kennedy).

Each of the judges is being influenced by some notion, not included in the law or the case itself. This unity is what one would expect of a political party, not of a group of impartial judges.

All of the so-called “conservative” judges are, in fact, Republican, not conservative, judges.  

Similarly, all “progressive” judges were appointed by Democrats though the Democratic party is not truly progressive. President Obama, with his cuts to social programs and his massive number of immigrant deportations, mashed a large dollop of Republican belief into his progressivism.

But the left-wing of the Supreme Court is quite reliably Democratic.

The current Republicans, now being the “party of the rich,” consistently vote to widen the Gap between the rich and the rest. This is not a conservative position; it merely is the current political position of the Republican party.

The poor are more likely to be killed by guns and the pro-death penalty, more likely to be blocked by anti-gay marriage laws, far more likely to be punished by anti-poverty rulings, housing discrimination, the loss of medical care, and bigotry.

A Supreme Court that repeatedly favors the rich and opposes the poor, acts like Republican “politicians in black robes.”

But, consider the four “progressive” Justices.  What unites them?

The contemporary common political conception of progressivism in the culture of the Western world emerged from the vast social changes brought about by industrialization in the Western world in the late 19th century.

Progress was being stifled by vast economic inequality between the rich and the poor; minimally regulated laissez-faire capitalism with monopolistic corporations; and intense and often violent conflict between workers and capitalists, thus claiming that measures were needed to address these problems.

While Republicans (faux conservatives) wish to widen the Gap between the rich and the rest,  Democrats (faux progressives) claim to wish to narrow the Gap.  In reality, both sides are pro-Gap widening; the Republicans merely more so.

America has two parties: The strong Gap-wideners, and the weaker Gap-wideners.

In Summary: The Republicans are not ideologically conservative, and the Democrats are not ideologically progressive. They are political.

Similarly, Supreme Court bloc voting is not the result of ideology but rather, of party affiliation.

Is America better for having a Supreme Court that favors the Republican lean toward the rich, or would a Supreme Court that favors the Democratic lean toward the middle and the poor be better?Image result for supreme court party politics

Whatever your answer, you should know that in the Supreme Court, the law often is ignored and ideology often is forgotten. But politics never are either.

In summary:

The Republicans are not conservative. The Democrats are not liberal. The Supreme Court is not ideological.

It’s all party politics for the nine politicians in black robes.

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

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

The single most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the have-mores and the have-less.

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 (Ten Reasons to Eliminate FICA )
Although the article lists 10 reasons to eliminate FICA, there are two fundamental reasons:
*FICA is the most regressive tax in American history, widening the Gap by punishing the low and middle-income groups, while leaving the rich untouched, and
*The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, neither needs nor uses FICA to support Social Security and Medicare.
2. FEDERALLY FUNDED MEDICARE — PARTS A, B & D, PLUS LONG TERM CARE — FOR EVERYONE (H.R. 676, Medicare for All )
This article addresses the questions:
*Does the economy benefit when the rich can afford better health care than can the rest of Americans?
*Aside from improved health care, what are the other economic effects of “Medicare for everyone?”
*How much would it cost taxpayers?
*Who opposes it?”
3. PROVIDE A MONTHLY ECONOMIC BONUS TO EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA (similar to Social Security for All) (The JG (Jobs Guarantee) vs the GI (Guaranteed Income) vs the EB (Economic Bonus)) Or institute a reverse income tax.
This article is the fifth in a series about direct financial assistance to Americans:

Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Employer of Last Resort is a bad idea. Sunday, Jan 1 2012
MMT’s Job Guarantee (JG) — “Another crazy, rightwing, Austrian nutjob?” Thursday, Jan 12 2012
Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Jobs Guarantee is like the EU’s euro: A beloved solution to the wrong problem. Tuesday, May 29 2012
“You can’t fire me. I’m on JG” Saturday, Jun 2 2012

Economic growth should include the “bottom” 99.9%, not just the .1%, the only question being, how best to accomplish that. Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) favors giving everyone a job. Monetary Sovereignty (MS) favors giving everyone money. The five articles describe the pros and cons of each approach.
4. FREE EDUCATION (INCLUDING POST-GRAD) FOR EVERYONE Five reasons why we should eliminate school loans
Monetarily non-sovereign State and local governments, despite their limited finances, support grades K-12. That level of education may have been sufficient for a largely agrarian economy, but not for our currently more technical economy that demands greater numbers of highly educated workers.
Because state and local funding is so limited, grades K-12 receive short shrift, especially those schools whose populations come from the lowest economic groups. And college is too costly for most families.
An educated populace benefits a nation, and benefitting the nation is the purpose of the federal government, which has the unlimited ability to pay for K-16 and beyond.
5. SALARY FOR ATTENDING SCHOOL
Even were schooling to be completely free, many young people cannot attend, because they and their families cannot afford to support non-workers. In a foundering boat, everyone needs to bail, and no one can take time off for study.
If a young person’s “job” is to learn and be productive, he/she should be paid to do that job, especially since that job is one of America’s most important.
6. ELIMINATE FEDERAL TAXES ON BUSINESS
Businesses are dollar-transferring machines. They transfer dollars from customers to employees, suppliers, shareholders and the federal government (the later having no use for those dollars). Any tax on businesses reduces the amount going to employees, suppliers and shareholders, which diminishes the economy. Ultimately, all business taxes reduce your personal income.
7. INCREASE THE STANDARD INCOME TAX DEDUCTION, ANNUALLY. (Refer to this.) Federal taxes punish taxpayers and harm the economy. The federal government has no need for those punishing and harmful tax dollars. There are several ways to reduce taxes, and we should evaluate and choose the most progressive approaches.
Cutting FICA and business taxes would be a good early step, as both dramatically affect the 99%. Annual increases in the standard income tax deduction, and a reverse income tax also would provide benefits from the bottom up. Both would narrow the Gap.
8. TAX THE VERY RICH (THE “.1%) MORE, WITH HIGHER PROGRESSIVE TAX RATES ON ALL FORMS OF INCOME. (TROPHIC CASCADE)
There was a time when I argued against increasing anyone’s federal taxes. After all, the federal government has no need for tax dollars, and all taxes reduce Gross Domestic Product, thereby negatively affecting the entire economy, including the 99.9%.
But I have come to realize that narrowing the Gap requires trimming the top. It simply would not be possible to provide the 99.9% with enough benefits to narrow the Gap in any meaningful way. Bill Gates reportedly owns $70 billion. To get to that level, he must have been earning $10 billion a year. Pick any acceptable Gap (1000 to 1?), and the lowest paid American would have to receive $10 million a year. Unreasonable.
9. FEDERAL OWNERSHIP OF ALL BANKS (Click The end of private banking and How should America decide “who-gets-money”?)
Banks have created all the dollars that exist. Even dollars created at the direction of the federal government, actually come into being when banks increase the numbers in checking accounts. This gives the banks enormous financial power, and as we all know, power corrupts — especially when multiplied by a profit motive.
Although the federal government also is powerful and corrupted, it does not suffer from a profit motive, the world’s most corrupting influence.
10. INCREASE FEDERAL SPENDING ON THE MYRIAD INITIATIVES THAT BENEFIT AMERICA’S 99.9% (Federal agencies)Browse the agencies. See how many agencies benefit the lower- and middle-income/wealth/ power groups, by adding dollars to the economy and/or by actions more beneficial to the 99.9% than to the .1%.
Save this reference as your primer to current economics. Sadly, much of the material is not being taught in American schools, which is all the more reason for you to use it.

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

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

 

Actions matter. How America is losing.

Image result for breaking chains

It takes only two things to keep people in chains:
The ignorance of the oppressed and the treachery of their leaders.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Actions matter.

Arriving home from college one day, I was met at the train station by a high school pal, who said, “Do me a favor. My girlfriend only will double-date with me. Will you go out with her friend?”

I said, “Yes,” and as a result, I met and have been married to the greatest woman on earth for 61 years, and now have 2 daughters and 5 grandsons, and none of it would have happened had not my pal become a so amorously aggressive with his girlfriend that she wanted guards.

Actions matter in ways we never can predict. Those far-reaching effects can emanate even from the trivial, everyday actions by us regular folks.Image result for arctic melt

Now consider the vastly more influential, long-term effects of the actions by a powerful person, say the most powerful person on earth, the President of the United States.

President Donald Trump has claimed that human-caused global warming (or “climate change,” take your pick) is a Chinese hoax, and he has taken repeated actions to demonstrate his disbelief in the science of meteorology, not the least of which was his withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement.

Some take refuge in the notion that “American will survive Donald Trump,” but it isn’t true. Cancer begins with a single cell. The damage spreads forever.

I was reminded of this by an article in the 9/16/17 edition of NewScientist, titled “Can China save the world. Here are a few excerpts.

Why China’s green ambitions will make it The Next World Leader

As the US under Donald Trump turns its back on climate change, China’s globalisation agenda could catalyse a green revolution that will make it a superpower

Renewable energy is having its moment in the Chinese sun. The country’s investment in solar, wind and other clean energy technology has soared from $8 billion in 2005 to $103 billion in 2015.

China now spends more on developing renewable energy than the US and Europe combined.

Leaders lead. The U.S., which has been the world leader in science, now is relinquishing that leadership to China, at least in the development of non-carbon-based fuels.

(China has stepped) into the climate leadership void left by the US under President Donald Trump.

As Trump pursues an “America First” strategy and sings the praises of “beautiful, clean coal”, China is looking for ways to collaborate with other countries on tackling climate change.

Trump has demonstrated interest and curiosity about only two things: His money and what is said or written about him.

His policies, in reality, are not America first.  They are “Trump first.” They are based not on what is best for America, but what is best for Trump.

China’s president Xi Jinping said, “Some countries have become more inward-looking, and their desire to participate in global development cooperation has decreased.”

Translation for Americans: “Inward-looking” means, “hiding behind a wall, erecting trade barriers, antagonism to non-whites and gays, barring foreigners, and evicting non-citizens.” It is a less advanced version of the North Korean, hermit strategy.

To strengthen relations with other nations, China has begun one of the largest-ever trade initiatives, known as the Belt and Road. This links it to 68 countries in Asia, the Middle East, Europe and Africa along the historic Silk Road trade routes.

That will be 68 nations who look first to China rather than to the U.S. as we close our doors to the rest of the world.

China’s enormous manufacturing capacity means it can churn out millions of cheap solar panels and tens of thousands of wind turbines each year.

The country now owns five out of six of the world’s biggest solar panel manufacturers and half of the 10 largest wind turbine manufacturers.

This capacity has allowed Chinese companies to shift their focus to the international energy market in recent years. Chinese firms have recently won tenders to build solar farms in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Pakistan, Egypt, Ethiopia, Bulgaria, Jordan, Iran, Oman, Romania, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.

They are also building wind farms in South Africa, Kazakhstan and Ukraine, and hydropower plants in Indonesia, Myanmar, Nepal and Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Last year, China started talks with Russia, Japan and South Korea about building a supersized clean power grid. This would allow the four nations to share their solar, wind and hydro energy and balance out each other’s supplies.

“America first” is, in reality, an “America never” strategy. We aren’t aggressively pursuing renewable energy because we are told it’s not necessary.

We are told to believe coal and oil don’t pollute, don’t cause the world to warm, and will last forever.

Beyond obvious financial rewards, China seeks to extend its political influence by globalising its clean energy tech.

The Chinese government has put a strategic emphasis on investing in renewable energy because it sees it as the next industrial revolution – one which it wants to lead.

Tim Buckley at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis in Sydney, Australia, agrees.

“China wants to dominate industries of the future while the governments of the US and Australia want to dominate industries of the past.”

America’s leadership has told the people “globalization” is a dirty word, costing jobs and corporate profits.

The Chinese know globalization already exists, no matter what Donald Trump says, and unlike America, the Chinese want to be the leaders.

There are several reasons why China’s clean energy sector will ultimately beat its fossil fuel competitors.

First, the rapidly declining cost of Chinese renewables will make them highly attractive to other countries.

Chinese firm JinkoSolar, for instance, is constructing a solar farm in the UAE that produces electricity for 2.4 US cents per kilowatt-hour. In comparison, the US average is 5 cents per kilowatt hour for solar and 6 cents per kilowatt-hour for unsubsidised coal.

This is key, because at the end of the day, economics drives most decisions.

More accurately, ignorance of economics drives most decisions. The belief the Monetarily Sovereign U.S. federal government “can’t afford” to pursue renewable energy has crippled our ability to develop and thus to lead in renewable energy.

Speed is another advantage – a solar or wind farm can be built in six months, compared with five to 10 years for a coal-fired plant.

In a world where time is money, opting for a slow coal or nuclear plant rather than a fast, renewable energy plant, provides another example of economic ignorance driving decisions.

Many Belt and Road countries are also introducing environmental policies to limit fossil fuel use. India, which was previously the top destination in the partnership for Chinese coal investment, is now heavily backing solar energy and is aiming to get 57 per cent of its energy from renewables by 2027.

The U.S. has no comparable initiative. Our leaders tell us it’s not prudent.

Finally, clean energy projects are more likely to win investors. The World Bank no longer finances overseas coal projects. The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank has ruled out financing coal power and promised to be “lean, green and clean”.

Chinese banks have become the world leaders in issuing green bonds to finance environmental projects.

The U.S., being Monetarily Sovereign, easily could, and certainly should, finance investment in renewables. It’s what a leader would do.

The fastest uptake of clean energy could come from China and the countries along the new Silk Road.

Rich nations like the US may be the only ones left clinging to their “beautiful” coal.

And for evidence of our shortsightedness, there’s the following article:

Trump’s clean energy budget cuts would ‘devastate’ an emerging economic sector
Budget plan calls for elimination of ARPA-E, major cuts to renewables research. By: Mark Hand, May 23, 2017

President Donald Trump’s 2018 budget would make huge cuts in renewable energy research and eliminate agencies within the Department of Energy that fund energy technology projects.

The decision was “in line with administration policies,” according to the budget request.

Clean energy research took another major hit with the administration’s proposal to reduce the budget of the Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) to $636 million, about $1.4 billion, or 70 percent, below the FY16 enacted level for the office.

“It reflects an increased reliance on the private sector to fund later-stage research, development, and commercialization of energy technologies and focuses resources toward early-stage research and development.”

Translation: “Increased reliance on the private sector” means: “The government will do less, and if you people want to carry the ball, go ahead.”

Democrats warn Trump’s Energy Department against ‘unlawful’ withholding of funds. Already-approved grants are being reviewed for consistency with Trump administration priorities, DOE says.

Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA), ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said, “His budget proposals would devastate an emerging sector of our economy by killing thousands of clean-energy jobs all over the country — all in a misguided effort to hold onto the past at the expense of our future.”

President Trump talks and talks and talks about “making America great, again.”

But his ignorance-based decisions move us from leadership toward backward-looking, second-class status — a mean-spirited, small-thinking, once-great nation, hiding in fear behind a wall, while squabbling amongst ourselves to determine whether the rich and the whites will continue to divide what’s left.

Even the most trivial-seeming actions have long-term effects. But the outrageous actions of an inward-facing, ego-centric, leader can force centuries of ill-effect, not just to us but to our distant descendants.

One day people may ask each other, “Remember the time when the United States of America was a world leader?” That may seem unlikely now, but so was the blind date that gave me my wife of 61 years.

Actions matter. Some win.

America is losing.

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

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

The single most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the have-mores and the have-less.

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 (Ten Reasons to Eliminate FICA )
Although the article lists 10 reasons to eliminate FICA, there are two fundamental reasons:
*FICA is the most regressive tax in American history, widening the Gap by punishing the low and middle-income groups, while leaving the rich untouched, and
*The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, neither needs nor uses FICA to support Social Security and Medicare.
2. FEDERALLY FUNDED MEDICARE — PARTS A, B & D, PLUS LONG TERM CARE — FOR EVERYONE (H.R. 676, Medicare for All )
This article addresses the questions:
*Does the economy benefit when the rich can afford better health care than can the rest of Americans?
*Aside from improved health care, what are the other economic effects of “Medicare for everyone?”
*How much would it cost taxpayers?
*Who opposes it?”
3. PROVIDE A MONTHLY ECONOMIC BONUS TO EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA (similar to Social Security for All) (The JG (Jobs Guarantee) vs the GI (Guaranteed Income) vs the EB (Economic Bonus)) Or institute a reverse income tax.
This article is the fifth in a series about direct financial assistance to Americans:

Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Employer of Last Resort is a bad idea. Sunday, Jan 1 2012
MMT’s Job Guarantee (JG) — “Another crazy, rightwing, Austrian nutjob?” Thursday, Jan 12 2012
Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Jobs Guarantee is like the EU’s euro: A beloved solution to the wrong problem. Tuesday, May 29 2012
“You can’t fire me. I’m on JG” Saturday, Jun 2 2012

Economic growth should include the “bottom” 99.9%, not just the .1%, the only question being, how best to accomplish that. Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) favors giving everyone a job. Monetary Sovereignty (MS) favors giving everyone money. The five articles describe the pros and cons of each approach.
4. FREE EDUCATION (INCLUDING POST-GRAD) FOR EVERYONE Five reasons why we should eliminate school loans
Monetarily non-sovereign State and local governments, despite their limited finances, support grades K-12. That level of education may have been sufficient for a largely agrarian economy, but not for our currently more technical economy that demands greater numbers of highly educated workers.
Because state and local funding is so limited, grades K-12 receive short shrift, especially those schools whose populations come from the lowest economic groups. And college is too costly for most families.
An educated populace benefits a nation, and benefitting the nation is the purpose of the federal government, which has the unlimited ability to pay for K-16 and beyond.
5. SALARY FOR ATTENDING SCHOOL
Even were schooling to be completely free, many young people cannot attend, because they and their families cannot afford to support non-workers. In a foundering boat, everyone needs to bail, and no one can take time off for study.
If a young person’s “job” is to learn and be productive, he/she should be paid to do that job, especially since that job is one of America’s most important.
6. ELIMINATE FEDERAL TAXES ON BUSINESS
Businesses are dollar-transferring machines. They transfer dollars from customers to employees, suppliers, shareholders and the federal government (the later having no use for those dollars). Any tax on businesses reduces the amount going to employees, suppliers and shareholders, which diminishes the economy. Ultimately, all business taxes reduce your personal income.
7. INCREASE THE STANDARD INCOME TAX DEDUCTION, ANNUALLY. (Refer to this.) Federal taxes punish taxpayers and harm the economy. The federal government has no need for those punishing and harmful tax dollars. There are several ways to reduce taxes, and we should evaluate and choose the most progressive approaches.
Cutting FICA and business taxes would be a good early step, as both dramatically affect the 99%. Annual increases in the standard income tax deduction, and a reverse income tax also would provide benefits from the bottom up. Both would narrow the Gap.
8. TAX THE VERY RICH (THE “.1%) MORE, WITH HIGHER PROGRESSIVE TAX RATES ON ALL FORMS OF INCOME. (TROPHIC CASCADE)
There was a time when I argued against increasing anyone’s federal taxes. After all, the federal government has no need for tax dollars, and all taxes reduce Gross Domestic Product, thereby negatively affecting the entire economy, including the 99.9%.
But I have come to realize that narrowing the Gap requires trimming the top. It simply would not be possible to provide the 99.9% with enough benefits to narrow the Gap in any meaningful way. Bill Gates reportedly owns $70 billion. To get to that level, he must have been earning $10 billion a year. Pick any acceptable Gap (1000 to 1?), and the lowest paid American would have to receive $10 million a year. Unreasonable.
9. FEDERAL OWNERSHIP OF ALL BANKS (Click The end of private banking and How should America decide “who-gets-money”?)
Banks have created all the dollars that exist. Even dollars created at the direction of the federal government, actually come into being when banks increase the numbers in checking accounts. This gives the banks enormous financial power, and as we all know, power corrupts — especially when multiplied by a profit motive.
Although the federal government also is powerful and corrupted, it does not suffer from a profit motive, the world’s most corrupting influence.
10. INCREASE FEDERAL SPENDING ON THE MYRIAD INITIATIVES THAT BENEFIT AMERICA’S 99.9% (Federal agencies)Browse the agencies. See how many agencies benefit the lower- and middle-income/wealth/ power groups, by adding dollars to the economy and/or by actions more beneficial to the 99.9% than to the .1%.
Save this reference as your primer to current economics. Sadly, much of the material is not being taught in American schools, which is all the more reason for you to use it.

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

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY