If you are a regular reader of this blog, you know:
The U.S. federal government is Monetarily Sovereign. It has the infinite ability to create its sovereign currency, the U.S. dollar. It never can run short of dollars.
It can pay any financial obligation regardless of size, without levying taxes, merely by touching computer keys.
Contrary to popular belief, federal spending is financed by creating new money rather than taxpayer funds. When federal taxes are collected, they are effectively destroyed. Federal “debt” does not represent a financial burden on the federal government or taxpayers.
Federal spending does not cause inflation. Shortages of critical goods and services— usually food, water, and employees — cause inflation. Federal spending cures inflation when it addresses these shortages,
Please keep these facts in mind as we discuss excerpts from an article in the January-February edition of the AARP Bulletin:
By Howard Zucker*: WHERE HAVE ALL THE DOCTORS GONE?“How can I find a doctor who can help me?” As a physician, I get this question from friends and family all the time. And for most of my professional life, I was able to refer them to a medical colleague; a simple phone call was all it took to get someone an appointment within a reasonable amount of time.But no longer.The average wait for new patients to see a physician is 26 days, and that’s for mostly healthy people. In a medical emergency, the situation can become even more frightening: Twenty-two percent of acutely ill patients 65 or older who sought medical attention had to wait six days or more for an appointment, according to a 2021 survey by the Commonwealth Fund.This is a crisis. And it’s a crisis that’s getting worse, rapidly.“The backbone of our health care system, private practice, is on the brink of collapse,” warns Clarel Antoine, M.D., professor of obstetrics and gynecology at New York City’s NYU Grossman School of Medicine. “The nearly 70 million Americans on Medicare, many with chronic conditions, can expect longer waiting times for medical care.”Although there were some 835,000 practicing doctors in America in 2023, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, we are currently experiencing a shortage because demand exceeds supply.The current shortage of physicians, combined with a number of other factors, has placed such an intense strain on doctors that many in the medical field are choosing to switch professions or simply retire early. And despite efforts by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) to graduate more doctors, those efforts simply can’t keep up with the drain.Why don’t we have enough doctors?In 1980, a U.S. government report concluded that American teaching hospitals were graduating too many medical students. It predicted a surplus of 70,000 physicians by 1990, an alarming statistic. In response, medical schools established what became a 25-year moratorium on increasing class size, enforced by the AAMC and the American Medical Association (AMA).Yet there was a significant flaw to that initial report: It failed to account for the nation’s rising population, which is now 110 million more than it was 45 years ago. By 2005, as the population grew and the potential for a severe physician shortage emerged, the AAMC and AMA reversed their recommendation, and in the past 20 years, more and more young people have trained to be doctors.Yet despite the more than 97,900 students in medical school, 38,000 in osteopathic school, and 162,000 doctors currently in residencies and fellowships, the AAMC predicts a shortage of up to 86,000 physicians by 2036. By then, it projects that the U.S. population will have risen 8.4 percent since 2021. The population of those over 65 will increase by 34 percent, while the number of people 75 and older will increase by 55 percent.“Medical education is a long journey, and even though medical school enrollment has risen, we need more residency positions [where med school graduates get hands-on training], which requires increased government support,” says David Skorton, M.D., president of the AAMC.It’s not just that we don’t have enough doctors. Part of the problem may be that we don’t have enough of the right kind of doctors.Becoming a doctor is expensive: The average medical student emerges with roughly $235,000 in debt.
There is no reason for this. Our Monetarily Sovereign federal government easily could fund medical school education for everyone who wanted one without collecting a penny in taxes.
Now consider that the average primary care physician (PCP) in internal medicine, geriatrics, pediatrics or family medicine makes about $250,000 to $275,000 a year.
Not nearly enough to pay off his/her loans.
Becoming a PCP just isn’t financially feasible for most recent graduates. Two-thirds of newly minted doctors are choosing to become specialists, which allows them to earn salaries upwards of twice what a primary care doctor can make.“Primary care physicians are undervalued by government and insurance companies, and that is reflected in decreased compensation,” says Isaac Opole, M.D., president of the American College of Physicians. “It makes the field unattractive to medical students.”Yet it is the PCP who provides the annual checkups that may detect problems early on, and who serves as the gatekeeper for referrals to specialists. Many people with private insurance, as well as those enrolled in Affordable Care Act plans, are required to see a PCP before they can access specialists in a majority of fields.And while many med students are choosing to go into specialty care, others opt not to become physicians at all. Indeed, more than 50 percent of medical students and residents surveyed preferred to pursue careers that do not involve direct patient care, such as research or teaching, according to a 2023 report from Elsevier Health. One in 4 contemplate dropping out of medical school altogether, citing overwork, financial stress and mental health concerns.In a study published in 2019, parts of chromosomes that shorten with age eroded six times faster than average for doctors in their first year of training after medical school; researchers attributed the accelerated aging to the doctors’ stress levels.Your doctor has too many patients and not enough time.Why your doctor doesn’t have time for youMany doctors dreamed of medicine as a profession from early childhood. In past generations, it was common to see physicians practicing long past the age when they could retire. Yet a recent AMA survey found that 1 in 5 doctors were hoping to find a way out of medicine in the next two years. Among those 55 or older, that figure was 1 in 2. Why?Part of what’s driving this is the growing trend of private equity firms and corporations, such as CVS Health and Amazon, purchasing hospitals and private practices. One major medical group, with about 90,000 doctors in some 2,000 locations across the country, has spent billions of dollars acquiring physician-owned practices, home health centers and surgical centers. This past April, the Physician Advocacy Institute reported that just shy of 80 percent of all doctors were employed by hospitals or corporations, up 200 percent in just over 10 years.Typically, when for-profit firms acquire practices, they approach these acquisitions utilizing a profit-based strategy. What does that look like?Corporate entities now govern doctors’ allotted time with patients, often allowing just 15 minutes per visit, a situation that isn’t healthy for either the doctor or the patient. “They control every aspect of a doctor’s professional life, and it’s all about the money,” one doctor told me. A 2024 JAMA Internal Medicine report said that 61 percent of doctors surveyed found private equity ownership unfavorable for health care.For every hour seeing patients, the average doctor now spends two hours doing administrative tasks, according to the AMA. A primary driver of paperwork: the electronic health record, or EHR.Your doctor is drowning in work.“The EHR is the bane of existence for every doctor in the country,” says Opole. The EHR was designed to eliminate a paper-based tracking system and make patients’ health records easier for various health professionals to access. But in practice, doctors say, its primary focus is documenting for regulators and billing for insurers. To handle rising administrative demands, doctors have begun cutting back on office hours, resulting in even less time available to see patients. A 2023 Mayo Clinic study noted that 40 percent of doctors it surveyed intended to reduce their work hours in the coming 12 months.
The federal government could and should fund non-medical, administrative support help for doctors without collecting a penny in taxes.
“The doctor-patient relationship requires time to establish a trust, which comes with patients sharing stories of their life with you as it relates to their health,” John Dooley, M.D., an internist in private practice in Washington, D.C., shared with me one evening while driving home at 9:30 p.m. from a grueling day of work. “That doesn’t happen if you only give them 15 minutes.”Every physician told me they are burned out. Simply put, they are being asked by the business world that owns their practices to do medicine, at times, in ways they view as not in the patient’s best interest. Meanwhile, those who cling to their independent practices are finding it impossible to hold on given the financial pressures on them.
The government could pay doctors more. After all, one good doctor is worth more to America than a score of Elon Musks.
Yet another troubling trend: More than 300 doctors now die every year from suicide, a rate twice that of the general population.“We take highly intelligent people with a calling, put them in a demanding and often hostile work environment without any reasonable labor protections, and they cannot even meet their basic needs,” says Pam Wible, M.D., who runs suicide-prevention workshops for physicians. “They can find themselves on the path to taking their own life.”At a recent visit, my own primary care doctor, Paul Arias, M.D., shared that “the pandemic drove many doctors into retirement; others became ill and required disability and, sadly, some died. For those who remain, many fight daily with insurance companies to get approvals for a patient’s labs or procedure. It’s exhausting. Corporate America has taken over medicine.”
And yet, the Republican Party wants to privatize Medicare so that insurance companies can make more money and provide worse service.
To increase revenue, reduce paperwork and regain control of their lives, more and more doctors are choosing concierge medicine, a system in which patients pay a yearly out-of-pocket fee in exchange for longer visits and shorter wait times. Costs can range from $2,000 to $10,000 annually, though some practices have upfront prices that are markedly higher. And since most Americans don’t have the financial resources to pay such high and nonreimbursable fees, this further drains the pool of doctors available, especially to older people on fixed incomes.
There were more of us, but they died waiting for an appointment.
I have a concierge doctor. My previous doctor served more than 2,500 patients. Wait times were long, but visits were short.
My concierge doctor has about 500 patients.
I can see her on a moment’s notice, and we spend at least a half-hour discussing my medical situation, often far more than a half-hour.
She knows me far better than my previous doctor ever could.
Concierge is the private sector’s solution to the federal government’s failure to do what it could easily do: Pay doctors more and pay for their non-medical assistance.
It’s not a good solution, however, because if protects only those who can afford the service fee.
It reminds me of the private sector’s poor solution to Medicare’s failure to fund everything medical: Medicare Advantage.
This partially private-sector-funded program is famous for requiring advance notice of medical procedures, dramatically reducing the number of procedures authorized.
Americans suffer needlessly when medical service is restricted by the ability to pay and the profit motive. It is disgraceful that America, which could afford the best medical care, has mediocre to poor care.
“There is a perfect storm coming,” says Bruce Scott, M.D., president of the AMA, “with increased patient complexity, decreased reimbursements and increased demand for prior authorizations from the insurance company. The combination of these makes it increasingly difficult for physicians to accept new patients and, in some cases, even keep their doors open. We can’t afford to lose even one more doctor.”
And now the real embarrassment: Advice on how to jump the line:
To ensure you get the care you need:
Become friends with the nurses or schedulers in the doctor’s office. Learn their names and make sure they know yours. They can let you know if a cancellation has occurred and keep your name on a waiting list.
Schedule your next appointment while you are at your current one. That’s your best shot at securing a spot on the calendar.
Make sure to fill out all health forms online in advance of your visit. You may have only the smallest of windows to talk with a provider, so make sure you’ve provided as much information as possible to maximize your time in the doctor’s office.
Ask about telehealth options. If the physician’s practice cannot see you in the office, speak with the scheduler to see if a telehealth visit is possible. In surveys, about 87 percent of doctors reported using telemedicine, but only 37 percent of adult patients had taken advantage of it within the previous 12 months, according to CDC data.
Or ask if one of your doctor’s colleagues or another provider in the practice can see you.
Ask your doctor for a referral — and to reach out on your behalf. If your doctor is retiring, moving or turning to concierge medicine, and following them is not an option, ask them for a referral. If they can recommend someone else in their group, even better — that comes with the advantage of your medical records being readily available.
And always check to see if that new physician accepts your insurance, including Medicare.
Ask your insurance company for a list of names of physicians. If you are on Medicare, go to Medicare.gov and click on the Providers & Services tab to find and compare doctors by location. You may want to consider a physician who is not geographically convenient to your home but who meets your other needs.
Don’t be shy about going to urgent care or the ER if necessary. In many cases it’s better to get someone to look at you today than to wait weeks for your regular doctor.
Monitor your health at home. Learn more about home care devices that can help to detect important changes in your health, such as a blood glucose monitor, pulse oximeter (to measure oxygen levels), blood pressure monitor, or electrocardiogram (ECG) to track heart rhythms. Calling a doctor’s office to report a change in a vital sign can speed up an appointment, give you some worthwhile reassurance — or urge you to get to an emergency room.
Do some research. Use the internet wisely. Physician reviews may not be particularly helpful, as they are not only subjective but often filled with complaints; satisfied customers are less likely to post reviews. What is useful, however, are a physician’s board certification, specialty training, insurance plans and hospital affiliations.
*Howard Zucker is board-certified in six medical specialties. He has served as U.S. deputy assistant secretary of health, New York State commissioner of health, assistant director-general of the World Health Organization, and as a deputy director at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Those eleven suggestions just “shuffle the deck. They do not improve overall care. Jumping the line doesn’t make the line shorter.
America has become so wedded to the false notion that the private sector is always superior to the government we tend to forget some important points:
Government workers are no different from private sector workers. Some are smart, hard workers; some are not. As groups, they are the same
The federal government has the infinite ability to risk money for unprofitable research and development. Only the federal government could have funded putting a man on the moon, and it continues to fund work by private companies like SpaceX.
Government spending adds to economic growth. The formula for Gross Domestic Product is: GDP=Federal Spending+Non-federal spending+Net Exports.
The profit motive causes some of the worst aspects of America’s healthcare system, like unreasonable refusals to pay medical claims.
Sadly, our political leaders act as though federal money is limited. So currently, Millions of Americans suffer and die too early because Congress does not understand Monetary Sovereignty.
Here is what a knowledgeable and caring Congress would do with the infinite dollars it has available to spend without levying taxes.
Offer a free, comprehensive, no-deductible Medicare plan to every person in America, regardless of age or income. It would support every aspect of healthcare, including dental, eye, exercise, and personal training. There would no longer be different plans because one plan would cover everything.*
Fund free education and training for everyone who wants to become a doctor or nurse.
Fund research and development of medications and treatments for all diseases, including rare diseases that otherwise may be unprofitable for pharmaceutical companies.
In exchange for federal support, pharmaceutical companies would receive limited patent protection on medicines.
Federal support for doctors so that the concierge system no longer would be financially attractive.
Days 91-150: These are called “lifetime reserve days,” and you pay a higher daily coinsurance of $838 per day. You have 60 lifetime reserve days that can be used during your lifetime.
After 150 days: You are responsible for all costs.
To see the dozens of medically related problems and procedures Medicare doesn’t cover, see here.
Why doesn’t Medicare cover the above, especially when some are covered by Medicare Advantage and some private insurers? The answer: To save money.But Medicare, as a federal agency, doesn’t need to save money. It is funded by the federal government (not by FICA), which has infinite money. This is a clear example of our Monetarily Sovereign federal government pretending it is monetarily non-sovereign.
SUMMARY
Not only is the US short of doctors and nurses, but astoundingly:
U.S. ranks last in health care compared with nine other high-income countries, report finds.People in the U.S. die the youngest and experience the most avoidable deaths, despite spending much more on health care.The U.S. ranks as the worst performer among 10 developed nations in critical areas of health care, including preventing deaths, access (mainly because of high cost) and guaranteeing quality treatment for everyone, regardless of gender, income or geographic location, according to thereport, published Thursday by The Commonwealth Fund, an independent research group. The researchers looked at how the U.S. compared with nine other countries: Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. Each country was graded on five categories: access to care, care process, administrative efficiency, equity and health outcomes.
The Trump administration’s solution to the problem is to fire as many government workers as possible (Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)) to save the government money, not to save the public money or to improve health care for the populace.
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 opinionsof 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 $10as 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 currencyis 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 overallincrease 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 Americawithout 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 SovereigntyTwitter: @rodgermitchellSearch #monetarysovereigntyFacebook: 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.
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.
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?
AI: Oil 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 StatisticsOverly 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 SpendingNet 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.
MethodologiesAdvanced 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 UncertaintyConsumption 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 UncertaintyWhen 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 ImplicationsWhile 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.
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:
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.
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.
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 shortagesof 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 Gapis 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:
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.”
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.
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
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.
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.
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:
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 SovereigntyTwitter: @rodgermitchellSearch #monetarysovereigntyFacebook: 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 - Mitchell 
