A puzzle perhaps you can solve

The puzzle is, can something be too simple to be believed? In the mid-19th century, Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis discovered that washing hands with a chlorinated lime solution could significantly reduce the incidence of puerperal fever (childbed fever) among women in maternity wards. Despite his compelling evidence and efforts to convince his colleagues, many doctors ridiculed him and refused to adopt his practices.
From Wikipedia: Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis was a Hungarian physician and scientist who was an early pioneer of antiseptic procedures and was described as the “savior of mothers.” Postpartum infection, also known as puerperal fever or childbed fever, consists of any bacterial infection of the reproductive tract following birth, and in the 19th century was common and often fatal. Semmelweis discovered that the incidence of infection could be drastically reduced by requiring healthcare workers in obstetrical clinics to disinfect their hands. In 1847, he proposed hand washing with chlorinated lime solutions at Vienna General Hospital’s First Obstetrical Clinic, where doctors’ wards had three times the mortality of midwives’ wards. The maternal mortality rate dropped from 18% to less than 2%, and he published a book of his findings, Etiology, Concept and Prophylaxis of Childbed Fever, in 1861. Despite his research, Semmelweis’s observations conflicted with the established scientific and medical opinions of the time, and his ideas were rejected by the medical community. He could offer no theoretical explanation for his findings of reduced mortality due to hand-washing, and some doctors were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands and mocked him for it. In 1865, the increasingly outspoken Semmelweis allegedly suffered a nervous breakdown and was committed to an asylum by his colleagues. In the asylum, he was beaten by the guards. He died 14 days later from a gangrenous wound on his right hand that may have been caused by the beating.
I hope I won’t be similarly confined because, for 25 years, I have struggled to explain what seems to me to be the simple concepts of Monetary Sovereignty. The question: Is Monetary Sovereignty so simple, so obvious, that you believe “it can’t be that easy‘? (It is.) Or, “if it were that simple, someone else would have thought of it.” (Others have.) Or, “that’s not what schools, economists, and the media teach.” (That’s the problem.) Here are three simple facts about our economy. 1. Money is not a physical thing. Gold, silver, and paper are not money, but they can represent money.
A dollar bill is a title to a dollar, not a dollar itself. All forms of money merely are bookkeeping entries. For example, a $10 gold coin is just a title to $10. The coin always is worth exactly $10 as money, though it may be worth thousands as barter. As money, that gold coin is worth neither more nor less than a $10 paper bill or the $10 on your checking account bank statement. Thus, money is just government-approved numbers on a statement. The U.S. government has the infinite ability to create these bookkeeping entries simply by pressing computer keys. 2. A government having the infinite ability to create, spend, and control a specific currency is sovereign over that money and it is called “Monetarily Sovereign.”  The governments of the U.S., Japan, the UK, Canada, and Australia are examples of Monetary Sovereignty over their respective currencies.

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

The governments of Italy, France, Germany, and Greece are monetarily non-sovereign. They do not have their own sovereign currencies. Instead, they use the euro, over which the European Union (EU) is sovereign. These nations can run short of euros, while the EU cannot. The nations rely on taxes; the EU needs no taxes. The Monetarily Sovereign U.S. government  cannot unintentionally run short of its money. Given a creditor’s demand for a million, or a billion, or a trillion trillion dollars, the U.S. government could pay immediately, without collecting a single penny in taxes. What does that tell you about federal debt? Just as the U.S, cannot unintentionally run short of dollars, the EU cannot run short of euros. Contrast with any monetarily non-sovereign entities — euro nations, businesses or people — which do not have the infinite ability to pay bills and can run short of whatever currency they are using. 3. Government spending of its Monetarily Sovereign currency is not inflationary. Historically, all inflation is supply-based — i.e, shortage(s) of critical assets, usually oil and/or food — not demand-based. While government spending can increase demand for specific products, this doesn’t cause inflation, which is an overall increase in the prices of almost all products.
These three fundamentals seem simple and straightforward. Yet, for perhaps 25 years, I have failed to help most people understand them. #1 confuses those who mistakenly believe the pieces of green-printed paper in their wallet are actual dollars, not just titles to dollars. #2 is vaguely understood except by all those who believe federal finances are the same as personal finances.. #3 is denied outright by those whose vision of supply and demand makes them believe excessive demand caused inflation rather than a lack of supply. To help people understand, I have given examples of the Monopoly game, which can be played without physical paper “money”—just a balance sheet—and that, by rule, the Bank (a corollary for the federal government) cannot run short of money. I have presented graphs demonstrating how inflations are closely related to oil costs, not to federal spending. I have presented graphs showing that recessions occur immediately after reductions in federal deficit spending growth and are cured by increased federal deficit spending growth. I have shown that every depression in U.S. history has come shortly after the federal government reduced deficit spending.

1804-1812: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 48%. Depression began 1807. 1817-1821: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 29%. Depression began 1819. 1823-1836: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 99%. Depression began 1837. 1852-1857: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 59%. Depression began 1857. 1867-1873: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 27%. Depression began 1873. 1880-1893: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 57%. Depression began 1893. 1920-1930: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 36%. Depression began 1929. 1997-2001: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 15%. Recession began 2001.

I have published articles by thought leaders from 1940 to today who falsely claimed that the federal debt is a ticking time bomb. During those 84 years, the debt grew from $40 billion to $30 trillion, yet this so-called “debt bomb” never exploded. I encounter articles daily discussing the dangers of federal debt and deficits. Currently, Congress is struggling with the absurd federal debt limit, which ignores the government’s unlimited capacity to meet its financial obligations. Even this morning, I read again about how federal agencies like Social Security and Medicare are in danger of running short of money, though Congress could supply all the funds needed just by voting. Every day, dollars are deducted unnecessarily from paychecks to “pay for ” some federal expense when, in fact, federal taxes pay for nothing. The federal government already has infinite dollars. Think. With infinite dollars, why would it need taxes? A simple question with a simple answer, yet most people are stumped by it

The sole purposes of federal taxes are:

1. To control the economy by taxing what the government wishes to discourage and by giving tax breaks to what the government wishes to reward and

2. To assure demand for the dollar by requiring taxes to be paid in dollars.

3. To help the rich become more affluent by providing tax breaks not available to the rest of us.

The wealthy promote the idea of “small government,” not because they genuinely believe the unfounded claim that “government is the problem,” but because they recognize that government establishes regulations they prefer to avoid. These regulations regarding clean air, clean water, food safety, and fair treatment by banks and businesses hinder the wealthy’s relentless pursuit of power and wealth, often at the expense of the rest of society. Most Congresspeople understand all these points but continue disseminating disinformation for political reasons. (Wealthy political donors pay a lower percentage of their incomes than the rest of us, so useless tax collections widen the Gap between the rich and us. The Gap makes them rich; we all would be the same without it.) Sadly, while the rich don’t want us to understand, most of us blindly follow their lead, just as the unfortunate pregnant women followed the fatal lead of mid-19th century doctors. Through the years, I have provided examples, data, and proofs. At the same time, again, some disingenuous Congressperson, deceptive economist, misleading writer, or uninformed friend assures you that Social Security and Medicare will become insolvent without tax increases or benefit cuts. Monetary Sovereignty is not complicated. It’s not, as they say, “rocket science.” It’s dead simple. However, I do not know how to help the populace understand what will benefit them. Consider the suggestion: “Eliminate FICA.” Is that too difficult to contemplate, or is it too easy to believe? What is the psychology of the millions who cannot accept the often-proven fact that the federal government has infinite money while accepting the never-proven nonsense that a Presidential election was stolen? Would you be outraged if your local car dealer tried to overcharge you or if your favorite football team refused to honor your tickets? Where is your passion against paying thousands of dollars in unnecessary taxes? Where is your anger about billionaire Trump paying far less taxes (almost nothing, actually) than you do? Why aren’t you frothing at the mouth about your doctor bills when the federal government could and should fund comprehensive, no-deductible Medicare for every man, woman, and child in America without collecting a penny in taxes? Why aren’t you screaming on the phone about proposed cuts to Social Security? If you heard about a billionaire who refuses to give his infant child enough money for medical care, would you be outraged? Well, the government is a multiple trillionaire, and you are its child. Get outraged. If I can’t convince people to make meager efforts to contact their Congresspeople about something that will save them many thousands of dollars and their health, improve their lives and their children’s lives, all at no cost, what is the purpose of reason? You’ve gone through the effort of reading this far. Why not make it meaningful? Call your Senator and Representative. Today. Now. “Why not” is the puzzle. Rodger Malcolm Mitchell Monetary Sovereignty Twitter: @rodgermitchell Search #monetarysovereignty Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell; MUCK RACK: https://muckrack.com/rodger-malcolm-mitchell; https://www.academia.edu/

……………………………………………………………………..

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

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Does federal spending cause inflation? A conversation with AI

It widely is believed that federal spending, or “excessive” federal spending (whatever that may be), causes inflation.

I have debunked that idea many times,  most recently here and here.

I thought it might be instructive, fun, and/or illuminating to ask the online AI, Copilot, for its “opinion,” which is nothing more than an amalgam of opinions it finds in various sources. (This is quite similar to how we all arrive at our opinions, though we tend to believe we apply some reasoning to these findings — reasoning an AI supposedly lacks.)

RM: What data indicates that federal spending causes inflation?  
AI: Research indicates that federal spending can indeed contribute to inflation.
For example, a study by MIT Sloan found that 41.6% of the inflation spike in 2022 could be attributed to federal spending. This was significantly higher than other factors like inflation expectations (17%) and high interest rates (14%).
The reasoning behind this is that increased federal spending injects more money into the economy, which can lead to higher demand for goods and services. When demand outpaces supply, prices tend to rise, resulting in inflation.

Note: To be precise, federal spending does not “inject more money into the economy.” Rather, net federal spending (spending minus taxes) does.

We mention this because the MIT Sloan study refers to federal spending and ignores the fact that federal taxes remove dollars from the economy.

RM: Do you understand the math that would create such precise results?  
AI: Yes, I understand the mathematical and economic principles that can be used to analyze the impact of federal spending on inflation. Here’s a high-level overview of how economists might derive such precise results:
Economic Models: Economists use complex economic models, such as the Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium (DSGE) models, to simulate how different factors, including federal spending, affect the economy.
These models consider various components of the economy, such as consumption, investment, and government expenditure.
Statistical Analysis: Techniques like regression analysis are used to estimate the relationships between variables. By analyzing historical data, economists can identify the degree to which federal spending has historically correlated with inflation rates.

Note: Here is a graph showing the correlation (or lack of it) between federal spending and inflation:

GRAPH I

Inflation is blue. Federal spending is red.

The peaks and valleys of the two lines do not seem to correlate, especially by comparison to the following graph:

GRAPH II

The blue line is inflation. The green line represents oil prices, indicating oil supply and demand.

Federal spending would lead you astray if you were looking for the real cause of inflation. You would be far better off using oil supply and demand as your yardstick.

GRAPH III

Federal debt held by the public, which takes into account federal taxes, is purple.

Even net federal debt (Federal debt held by the public) does not correlate well with inflation.

AI: Input-Output Analysis: This method examines the interactions between different sectors of the economy. By understanding how government spending impacts specific industries, economists can trace how this spending propagates through the economy and influences overall price levels.

True, so long as that industry is oil or food, the two industries most often responsible for inflation.

AI: Inflation Decomposition: To attribute inflation to specific causes, economists decompose the inflation rate into its contributing factors.
This involves breaking down the total inflation rate into parts attributable to federal spending, supply chain disruptions, changes in consumer demand, and other factors.
Data Collection: Accurate and comprehensive data collection is crucial. Agencies like the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) and the Federal Reserve provide detailed data on federal spending, inflation, and other economic indicators.
Simulations and Forecasting: By simulating different scenarios and using forecasting techniques, economists can project the potential impact of changes in federal spending on future inflation rates. These simulations often involve running multiple iterations to assess the robustness of the results.

While the explanation appears scientific, the possibility of infinite iterations results in a lack of correlation, as demonstrated in Graph I.

AI: The precision of these results hinges on the quality of the data and the assumptions built into the models. While no model is perfect, these techniques allow economists to make informed estimates and provide valuable insights into the complex dynamics of the economy.

Sadly, the assumptions seem to be biased by the preconceived notion that federal spending causes inflation.

RM: How do you explain the graph at https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=1CxUT which shows a close relationship between oil supplies and inflation vs. the graph at https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=1CxUZ which shows no relationship between federal government spending and inflation?
AI: The two graphs you’re referring to illustrate different relationships between economic factors and inflation:
Oil Supplies and Inflation: The first graph shows a close relationship between oil supplies and inflation. This is because oil is a major input in the economy, affecting the cost of production and transportation.
When oil prices rise, it increases the cost of goods and services, leading to higher inflation. This direct and indirect impact on various sectors of the economy explains the strong correlation.
Federal Government Spending and Inflation: The second graph shows no relationship between federal government spending and inflation. This might be due to several reasons:

Timing and Lag Effects: The impact of government spending on inflation can take time to materialize and may not be immediately apparent.

Offsetting Factors: The Federal Reserve and other monetary policies might counteract the inflationary effects of government spending.

Complex Interactions: The relationship between government spending and inflation is influenced by multiple factors, including monetary policy, consumer behavior, and global economic conditions.

These differences highlight the complexity of economic relationships and the importance of considering multiple factors when analyzing inflation.  
RM: Given “timing and lag effects,” “offsetting factors,” and “complex interactions,” why is there a close relationship between oil scarcity and inflation, but none between federal spending and inflation?
AIOil Scarcity and Inflation
Direct Impact on Costs: Oil is a critical input in many industries. When oil prices rise due to scarcity, the cost of producing and transporting goods increases directly.
Immediate Effects: Changes in oil prices can quickly influence the prices of a wide range of goods and services, from gasoline to consumer products, creating a more immediate and noticeable impact on inflation. Federal Spending and Inflation
Delayed Impact: The effects of federal spending on inflation can take time to materialize. Government projects may take months or years to fully roll out and impact the economy.
Monetary Policy Offsets: The Federal Reserve can implement monetary policies to counteract inflationary pressures from increased federal spending, such as adjusting interest rates.
Diverse Outcomes: Federal spending affects various sectors differently, and other factors like productivity gains or changes in consumer behavior can mitigate its inflationary impact.
In Summary:Oil prices have a more direct and immediate influence on costs across the economy, leading to a closer and more visible relationship with inflation.
Federal spending, on the other hand, has a more complex and delayed impact due to various intervening factors and policy responses. This nuanced understanding helps explain why we see a closer relationship between oil scarcity and inflation compared to federal spending.
 RM: I agree that oil prices can have a more immediate effect on inflation than can other factors.

And yet, the claim is made that federal spending accounts for 41.6% of inflation, a suspiciously precise number.

Also, if federal spending caused inflation, wouldn’t you expect federal DEFICIT spending to be the cause rather than federal spending? For instance, if federal spending was a trillion dollars and federal taxes were two trillion, would the claim be made that taking a trillion net dollars out of the economy cause inflation?

The notion of using gross federal spending as an inflation cause seems bogus.

(This is where GRAPH III is pertinent.)

AI: The claim federal spending accounts for 41.6% of inflation is based on specific studies and methodologies, such as the one by MIT Sloan, which used advanced statistical techniques to isolate the impact of various factors on inflation. However, it’s important to consider the broader context and the nuances involved.
Key Points to Consider: Net vs. Gross Spending: The distinction between gross federal spending and net spending (after accounting for taxes) is crucial.
While gross spending injects money into the economy, net spending considers the balance after taxes are collected. Net spending would indeed more accurately reflect the impact on inflation.  
RM: But they use Gross federal spending, not net federal spending, and come up with 41.6% cause. Two things are fishy. Using an overly exact number (41.6, not 41.5 or 41.7) is a sign of bad statistics.
Had they said “over 40” or maybe even “41,” I might have believed, but 41.6?? And the use of gross, rather than net, also is bogus. I suspect that “advanced statistical techniques” is another phrase for WAG (Wild Ass Guess).
AI: I understand your skepticism. The precision of the 41.6% figure and the use of gross spending do raise valid questions. Let’s break it down:
Precision in Statistics Overly Exact Numbers: In complex economic analyses, the presentation of highly precise numbers, like 41.6%, can indeed give an impression of false precision. It’s often more transparent to round numbers to reflect the uncertainty inherent in such estimates.
Significance of Figures: Statistically, small variations (e.g., 41.5 vs. 41.6) might not be practically significant and could be within the margin of error. Hence, terms like “over 40%” would generally be more appropriate.
Gross vs. Net Spending Net Spending: As you pointed out, net federal spending (accounting for taxes) gives a clearer picture of the actual fiscal impact on the economy. Gross spending doesn’t provide the full context, as it ignores the offsetting effect of tax revenues.
Economic Context: Analysts should ideally consider net spending to understand its true impact on inflation, as it’s the net injection or withdrawal of funds from the economy that matters most.
Methodologies Advanced Statistical Techniques: While these techniques aim to provide more accurate estimates by considering multiple factors and interactions, they are not infallible. They rely on assumptions and models that can be debated.
Transparency: Clear communication about the methodologies used and their limitations is crucial. Over-reliance on complex models without transparent disclosure can indeed resemble educated guesses. It’s always important to critically evaluate such claims and consider the context and methodology behind the statistics.   
RM: You also said, “These models consider various components of the economy, such as consumption, investment, and government expenditure.” This leaves the question, how do they know how much weight to give each variable?
The weighting is as important as the final number. Is “consumption” worth 10% or 80%? And consumption of what? How much is investment worth?
AI: You’re spot on—weighting each variable is crucial in economic modeling. Let’s break down how economists approach this: Weighting Variables in Economic Models
Empirical Data: Economists use historical data to determine the significance of each variable. For example, they analyze past periods of inflation to see how consumption, investment, and government spending have historically influenced price levels.
Economic Theory: Theories like Keynesian economics provide frameworks for understanding how different factors interact. For instance, Keynesian models might place a significant weight on consumption due to its large share of GDP.
Statistical Methods: Techniques such as regression analysis help economists estimate the relationship between variables. By running multiple models and testing different scenarios, they can refine the weights to best fit historical data.
Dynamic Models: Advanced models like DSGE are designed to capture the dynamic interactions between variables over time. These models are calibrated using a mix of historical data and theoretical insights.
Expert Judgment: Sometimes, the judgment of experienced economists is used to fine-tune the weights. They may adjust models based on their understanding of current economic conditions and emerging trends. Examples of Weighting
Consumption: Typically accounts for a large portion of GDP (around 70% in the U.S.), so it often receives a significant weight.
Investment: Though smaller than consumption, it’s crucial for economic growth and can have a substantial impact on inflation, especially in capital-intensive sectors.
Government Expenditure: Its weight varies depending on fiscal policies and current economic conditions. During times of increased spending, such as stimulus packages, its weight might be higher.
Consumption of What?
Durable Goods: Items like cars and appliances, which can have different inflationary effects compared to nondurable goods.
Nondurable Goods: Everyday items like food and clothing.
Services: Includes healthcare, education, and entertainment, which also have unique impacts on inflation. The process is iterative and involves constant refinement. While no model is perfect, these approaches help economists make informed estimates.  
RM: The value of each variable is expressed as a percentage, but when you begin having percentages of percentages of percentages, each iteration adds another dimention of randomness to the eventual result.
As for consumption, what percentage is durable goods, nondurable goods and services.   
AI: You’re right—compounding percentages and multiple layers of analysis do introduce more complexity and potential for variability in the results.
When it comes to consumption, here’s a rough breakdown of the percentage contributions of different categories to the overall consumption expenditure in the U.S. economy (these are approximate figures and can vary year by year):
Durable Goods: Typically around 10-15% of total personal consumption expenditures. This includes items like cars, appliances, and furniture.
Nondurable Goods: Generally account for about 25-30% of total consumption. This category includes food, clothing, gasoline, and other items that are consumed quickly.
Services: The largest category, usually making up about 55-60% of total consumption expenditures. Services include healthcare, education, housing, and entertainment.
RM: If you have three categories of consumption, and they range from 10-15%, 25-30%, and 55=60%, what is the level of uncertainty.
And then, multiply that level of uncertainty times the levels of uncertainty in “investment” and “government expenditure.”
Makes that 41.6% look a bit silly, doesn’t it?
AI: You’ve highlighted a critical aspect of economic modeling: the propagation of uncertainty through multiple variables. Let’s break down the concept of uncertainty in this context:
Levels of Uncertainty Consumption Categories: Each category (durable goods, nondurable goods, services) has a range: Durable Goods: 10-15% (±2.5%) Nondurable Goods: 25-30% (±2.5%) Services: 55-60% (±2.5%)
Combining Uncertainties: When you aggregate these categories, the uncertainty doesn’t simply add up linearly but rather increases in a compounded manner. This can lead to a broader range of possible outcomes.
Investment and Government Expenditure: Adding in the uncertainties for investment and government expenditure multiplies the overall uncertainty. Each of these variables also has its own range of estimates.
Propagation of Uncertainty When combining multiple uncertain variables, the overall uncertainty of the final result tends to increase. This is due to the compounded effect of each variable’s range of possible values.
Precision of 41.6% Given the compounded uncertainties, presenting a figure like 41.6% with high precision does indeed seem overly exact and may not accurately reflect the true uncertainty inherent in the model.
Practical Implications While these models provide useful insights, it’s crucial to interpret their results with caution and consider the range of possible outcomes. Using broader estimates, like “over 40%,” would better reflect the inherent uncertainties in such analyses.
You’ve aptly pointed out that the level of precision and the use of gross spending in these models can sometimes oversimplify or misrepresent the complex dynamics of the economy.

The following graph shows the data mentioned earlier. They supposedly reveal the causes of inflation.

The graph does not mention the scarcity of oil, which is the most common and powerful cause of inflation. But it does say “Producer Prices,” which more accurately should be considered a result, not a cause.

And there is “Inflation Expectations,” which is comical in the context of percentage exactitude. Accurately measuring “expectations” might be more appropriate for psychologists than economists.

IN SUMMARY

Prices rise due to scarcity. Does federal spending cause scarcity, or can scarcity arise from a lack of targeted federal spending?

Federal spending can encourage drilling, refining, and transporting if there is an oil shortage, and planting, storage, and shipping if there is a food shortage.

Blaming federal spending for inflation ignores that the primary remedy for inflation is federal spending to address the shortages that caused the inflation.

Federal spending also stimulates economic growth, while reductions in federal spending lead to recessions and depressions.

Kinlaw et al. also seem to ignore the differences between gross and net federal spending, with the latter taking taxes into consideration.

To oppose federal spending because of a fear of inflation is misguided. To prevent and/or cure inflation, one must address each inflation’s specific cause(s) and not prescribe the “cure-all” medicine of limited federal spending.

Most inflations are caused by shortages of oil or food. Prevent and cure those shortages, and you will prevent and cure most inflation.

Giving the wrong medicine cures nothing and is, in fact, harmful.

 

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

Monetary Sovereignty

Twitter: @rodgermitchell

Search #monetarysovereignty

Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell;

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

https://www.academia.edu/

……………………………………………………………………..

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

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

 

Inflation: The cause. No, not that, The REAL cause. The end of Social Security and Medicare?

Recently, I had a conversation with a young man who told me that federal deficit spending causes inflation. If you took an economics course in school, you probably agree with him because that is what they teach. His logic was simple. He has been taught:
  1. Federal deficit spending increases the supply of dollars. When one increases the supply of any product, without increasing demand, the value of that product decreases. When the value of the dollar decreases, we experience inflation.
  2. Adding money to the economy increases demand, which, in the absence of increased supply, causes shortages, which create inflation.
The problem with #1 is that money is unlike any other product or service. The demand for money is relatively inelastic. Example: You own a Tesla and learn that Teslas are now on sale at bargain prices. Will you buy an additional Tesla? Or you see that tomatoes are on sale, but you have a dozen at home. Do you want additional tomatoes? Probably not. But you have a million dollars and hear of an investment that will pay you another million at no risk. Do you want that additional million dollars? Probably so.
Wheelbarrows of Money | Keri M. Peardon
Currency printing didn’t cause inflation. Scarcities cause inflation, which causes a government to print currency.
The point: Federal deficit spending adds dollars to the economy, but that additional supply doesn’t reduce the dollar’s value. In fact, if those extra dollars are used to obtain products or services that are in short supply, they can reduce the inflation caused by the shortages. That is the problem with #2, because when the federal government spends dollars in the economy, the economy usually responds by increasing the supply of goods and services. While deficit spending can be inflationary if it leads to excessive demand without corresponding increases in supply, spending can address supply-side constraints, boost productivity, and ultimately help reduce inflation. There can be no economic growth without federal deficit spending. The illusion that deficit spending causes inflation may come from hyperinflations, where governments print currencies in response to inflations.  It’s the “wheelbarrows filled with currency” visual we all have seen. In those situations, inflation has been caused by scarcities of critical products and services, such as oil, food, labor, transportation, etc., and the additional dollars do nothing to relieve those scarcities. When a government fails to address the real causes of inflation but instead prints currency, the inflation worsens, The illusion of cause and effect is reversed. Money “printing” doesn’t cause inflation. Inflation can cause money printing if a government doesn’t understand what really causes inflation: Shortages of crucial goods and/or services. It’s like a baseball team losing by five runs because it is short of good pitchers. So it trades its few decent pitchers for more hitters and starts losing by ten runs. Here is a graph demonstrating the relationship (or rather, lack of relationship) between federal deficit spending and inflation:
The blue line shows the annual inflation rate in the U.S. The red line shows the annual deficit increase in the U.S. The lines are not parallel. Recessions (gray vertical bars) result from declining deficit growth and are cured by increased deficit growth.
Presumably, if federal deficit spending caused inflation, the two lines would generally be parallel. They are not. In fact, they tend to move in opposite directions. One could use the above graph to demonstrate that federal deficit spending often cures inflation by reducing the shortages that do lead to inflation. By comparison, please look at the following graph:
The blue line again shows the annual inflation rate. The green line shows the annual percentage changes in oil prices.
The lines in the above graph are essentially parallel, indicating a close relationship between oil prices and inflation. Changes in oil supplies have had a far more profound and sudden effect on oil prices than changes in oil demand, which generally are slow. Overall, the graphs suggest that federal deficit spending plays, at most, a minor role in inflation, and possibly none at all, while oil supplies (in addition to supplies of food, shipping, labor, and other products) are the main drivers of inflation. Our most recent inflation was caused by COVID-related shortages of oil, food, shipping, labor, metals, wood, and other products. When these shortages were eased by federal deficit spending, inflation eased. This is an important fact because the threat of inflation is often used as an excuse for not federally funding social programs like Social Security, Medicare, and anti-poverty efforts. The income/wealth/power Gap is what makes the rich wealthy. Without the Gap, no one would be rich; we would all be the same. The wider the Gap, the wealthier are the rich. The wealthy are aware of this, and in their efforts to become even richer, they try to widen the Gap by increasing their own wealth and power and/or diminishing the resources of others. One way they do this is by claiming that the social programs are becoming insolvent and so must be cut or taxes increased. However, it is difficult for them to deny that the federal government could afford to fund these programs. Even the lie that the federal government would have to borrow dollars is easily debunked for two reasons:
  1. As a Monetarily Sovereign entity, the federal government can create dollars at will by simply pressing keys on a computer. Former Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke: “The U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost. It’s not tax money… We simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account.”
  2. Even if the notion of future borrowing and increased interest payments were accurate (it isn’t), it would be of no significance to an entity that possesses the unlimited capacity to settle its debts by pressing computer keys. Statement from the St. Louis Fed: “As the sole manufacturer of dollars, whose debt is denominated in dollars, the U.S. government can never become insolvent, i.e., unable to pay its bills. In this sense, the government is not dependent on credit markets to remain operational.” 
So, the rich resort to the false claim that federal spending causes inflation. What they fail to mention is the following graph, which highlights the relationships between federal deficits and recessions: When federal deficit growth (red) decreases, we have recessions (vertical gray bars). Recessions always are cured by increases in federal deficit growth. Economic growth requires money growth. Here is an example of the close relationship between economic growth and money growth
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) closely mirrors money (debt) growth.
The formula for Gross Domestic Product shows how money growth is necessary for economic growth:

GDP = Federal Spending + Non-Federal Spending + Net Exports

Net Exports generally are negative. (We import more than we export). So, GDP growth relies on federal and non-federal spending growth.
Federal Spending is a large part of M3, which in turn, is a large part of GDP. Federal Spending growth is necessary for GDP (economic) growth.
Then, of course, there is the fact that federal surpluses (the extreme version of deficit reduction) cause depressions (the extreme version of recessions). In fact, every depression in American history has resulted from surpluses.

1804-1812: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 48%. Depression began 1807. 1817-1821: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 29%. Depression began 1819. 1823-1836: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 99%. Depression began 1837. 1852-1857: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 59%. Depression began 1857. 1867-1873: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 27%. Depression began 1873. 1880-1893: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 57%. Depression began 1893. 1920-1930: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 36%. Depression began 1929. 1997-2001: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 15%. Recession began 2001.

All money is a form of debt. Have you noticed that every dollar bill (“bill” is a word that denotes debt) is a Federal Reserve note (“note” is another word denoting debt)? Each bill is signed by the Treasurer and the Secretary of the Treasury.
United States one-dollar bill - Wikipedia
The U.S. dollar is nothing more than a number on the federal government’s books. It is not a physical entity. There are no physical dollars. The U.S. dollar bill is a title to a dollar showing that the bearer is owed a dollar by the United States government.
For example, an author owns a story he has written, though the story is not a physical entity. Similarly, the federal government is an author of federal dollars, though those dollars are not physical entities. And just as the author can create infinite stories, the government can create infinite dollars. All debt requires collateral. The collateral for federal debt is “full faith and credit.” This may sound nebulous to some, but it involves certain, specific, and valuable guarantees, among which are:

A. –The government will accept only U.S. currency in payment of debts to the government B. –It unfailingly will pay all its dollar debts with U.S. dollars and will not default C. –It will force all your domestic creditors to accept U.S. dollars if you offer them to satisfy your debt. D. –It will not require domestic creditors to accept any other money E. –It will take action to protect the value of the dollar. F. –It will maintain a market for U.S. currency G. –It will continue to use U.S. currency and will not change to another currency. H. –All forms of U.S. currency will be reciprocal, that is five $1 bills always will equal one $5 bill and vice versa.

The value of debt, i.e., the U.S. dollar, is based in part on the value of its collateral. Should any of A – H no longer be in effect, the dollar’s value would plummet. Another key factor influencing the value of the U.S. dollar is interest rates. Investments denominated in dollars, such as bonds and Treasury securities, are more sought after when they offer higher interest rates. Be cautious with this, as the value of a bond decreases when interest rates rise. Newly issued bonds offer higher rates and compete with older bonds. The key point is that dollars do not lose value, and inflation is not caused by the federal government’s increasing deficit spending. The government could easily fund Social Security and Medicare without imposing FICA taxes or triggering inflation. The wealthy classes’ arguments for cutting SS and Medicare benefits and raising taxes are unfounded and based on misleading claims. IN SUMMARY
  1. Inflations are caused by scarcities, often due to oil and food shortages. Shortages of shipping, labor, metals, wood, and electronics can also be significant factors.
  2. While deficit spending can be inflationary if it leads to excessive demand without corresponding increases in supply, spending can address supply-side constraints, boost productivity, and ultimately help reduce inflation.
  3. Without federal deficit spending, there can be no economic growth and no solution to scarcity. The lack of federal debt growth causes recessions and depressions. Recessions are cured by federal (money) deficit growth.
The federal government could and should fund a comprehensive, no-deductible Medicare and Social Security for every man, woman, and child, regardless of age and income, while eliminating FICA.  We’ll end this post with excerpts from an article on the MSN website:

MAGA Republicans Dodge Questions About Their Own Party’s Plans To Gut Social Safety Net Story by Emine Yücel

Grandma' thrown off cliff by Paul Ryan lookalike in anti-GOP Medicare advert made by The Agenda Project | Daily Mail Online
GOP wants to toss Grandma (and you) off the roof.

Some House Republicans (show) interest in reviving the party’s longtime passion for gutting the social safety net in the wake of Donald Trump’s reelection and the coming Republican trifecta.

Reports have surfaced about cuts to programs like Medicaid and food stamps to offset the cost of extending Trump’s 2017 tax cuts.

Others are openly suggesting that Medicare and Social Security may be on the chopping block as part of Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy’s performative venture into government spending cuts through the new Department of Government Efficiency.

But MAGA Republicans on Capitol Hill who recently spoke to TPM were unwilling to be pinned down on the issue.

The Republican Party promulgates public ignorance about the differences between federal (Monetarily Sovereign) finances and personal (monetarily non-sovereign) finances to put forth a “small government” agenda that will widen the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and the rest of us.  Rodger Malcolm Mitchell Monetary Sovereignty Twitter: @rodgermitchell Search #monetarysovereignty Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell; MUCK RACK: https://muckrack.com/rodger-malcolm-mitchell; https://www.academia.edu/

……………………………………………………………………..

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

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

The Divided State of America

Donald Trump swore he would unite America and “make America great again.” He seems to have done the opposite: Divide America and move it toward a banana republic dictatorship.

We offer this flag of the Divided State of America to honor Trump’s imminent commitment. 

The official flag of the Divided State of America now is available*

The flag’s symbols are explained:

Trump standing on money holding  a whip
This picture symbolizes Trump’s focus on his own financial enrichment and power rather than America’s.

 

train car filled with dying human children
This picture symbolizes the innocents who will suffer from Trump’s needless cruelty, which will do nothing to benefit America but will cause great harm, financially and morally.

 

The Evolution of Prison Uniform – Mocha Girls Read
The stripes symbolize the clothing Trump should wear, the criminals he hires for his administration, and the guilty Jan 6th criminals he will set free.

The phrase “IN SCOTUS, WE DON’T TRUST” reflects the U.S. Supreme Court’s claims to be “originalist.” Sadly, this Court has established a Presidency that operates above the law—the exact opposite of what the Constitution’s original framers intended and what the Revolutionary War was fought to end.

There are no stars on the Divided State of America flag because there are no stars in the leadership.

Here is some interesting reading:

Donald Trump’s Mass Deportation Plans Attacked in Home State Newspaper

Immigration advocates rally Nevadans to protect families amid Trump’s deportation threats.

Trump’s Agenda: Deportation

Trump confirms plan to declare national emergency, use military for mass deportations.

The Trump administration’s next target: naturalized US citizens

Donald Trump Gets Bad News About His Tariff Plan From Americans in New Poll

Consumers Stock Up Ahead of Expected Trump Tariff Price Hikes Polls indicate over a third of shoppers are spending more now, fearing Trump’s looming import duties will increase prices—a reaction that risks reigniting inflation.

Fact check: Trump makes false claims about immigration, tariffs and global conflicts

*Unlike Trump, we aren’t asking you to send us money for pieces of crap. After he is sworn in and begins to implement his cruel, expensive deporting and his costly tariffs, you’ll need to save every dime you can.

 

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

Monetary Sovereignty

Twitter: @rodgermitchell

Search #monetarysovereignty

Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell;

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

https://www.academia.edu/

……………………………………………………………………..

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

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY