There is a much bigger lie than “Trump won the election.”

The lie that the election was stolen from Donald Trump is pretty big. Still, it’s a lie that was started by “30,000+ Lies Trump,” promulgated by Fox News, QAnon, and other lying sites, and is believed only by the increasingly ignorant and twisted MAGA crowd.

By contrast, there is a really, really BIG LIE that began at least in 1940 or earlier, a lie promulgated by virtually every news medium, politician, and economist in America, and a lie that is believed by possibly 99% of everyone.

We refer to the BIG LIE that:

  1. Federal financing is like personal, business, and state/local financing
  2. The federal government can run short of dollars.
  3. Your federal taxes fund federal spending.

One of the prominent purveyors of that BIG LIE is the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB). The lies which we have quoted many times on this site.

Here is what they say now on their own site:

Why High and Rising National Debt is a Problem

High and rising national debt will threaten economic growth and the standard of living for all Americans. High debt will slow the growth of the economy and wages.

As debt rises, higher interest payments will crowd out important investments in areas like education, infrastructure, and research that can help grow the economy.

Getting the debt under control once the crisis is over will be very beneficial for generations to come, from higher wages to increased investment to lower borrowing costs for families and businesses.

The Congressional Budget Office predicts that the economy will grow faster with debt on a declining path as opposed to a rising one.

Every single sentence in the above quote is a CFRB lie, with the possible exception of the last one. That one, if true, would be a Congressional Budget Office lie.

Let’s go through the lies, point by point.

“High and rising national debt will threaten economic growth” and “slow the growth of the economy.”

Wrong: Economic growth generally parallels federal deficit spending (aka “national debt,” except during recessions when debt increases to cure the recession.

The reason for the parallel is quite simple. Federal deficit spending adds dollars to the economy, and dollar growth yields economic growth. A growing economy requires a growing supply of dollars.

As federal debt (red) rises, Gross Domestic Product (blue) rises.

And as for the national debt “slowing the growth of wages,” it simply isn’t true. It’s just a part of the Big Lie.

Wage growth generally parallels federal deficit spending growth.

Adding dollars to the economy doesn’t slow the growth of the economy or of wages. Instead, federal debt growth stimulates economic growth.

Moving on to the next LIE: 

“As debt rises, higher interest payments will crowd out important investments in areas like education, infrastructure, and research that can help grow the economy.”

Translation: The federal government has only a limited amount of money, so spending on interest payments reduces the amount the government can spend on other things.

This lie assumes the federal government is like you and me, businesses, and state/local governments. It isn’t. The federal government uniquely is Monetarily Sovereign. A Monetarily Sovereign entity has the unlimited ability to create its own sovereign currency. It never unintentionally can run short.

Alan Greenspan: “A government cannot become insolvent with respect to obligations in its own currency.”

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.”

Quote from former Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke when he was on 60 Minutes:
Scott Pelley: Is that tax money that the Fed is spending?
Ben Bernanke: It’s not tax money… We simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account.

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.”

Press Conference: Mario Draghi, President of the Monetarily Sovereign ECB
Question: I am wondering: can the ECB ever run out of money?
Mario Draghi: Technically, no. We cannot run out of money.

Not only do federal interest payments not “crowd out” other investments, but by adding dollars to the economy, federal interest payment increase the private sector’s ability to invest in “education, infrastructure, and research that can help grow the economy.”

Now for the next lie:

“Getting the debt under control once the crisis is over will be very beneficial for generations to come, from higher wages to increased investment to lower borrowing costs for families and businesses.”

Translation: “Getting the debt under control” requires reducing the federal debt or at least reducing the size of deficits. Here is what happens when we reduce the federal debt:

U.S. depressions tend to come on the heels of federal 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.

Here is what happens when we reduce the federal deficit:

Each recession was preceded by reductions in federal deficit growth. Recessions are marked by vertical gray bars.

The only part of the CRFB’s statement that sometimes can approximate fact is: “. . . lower borrowing costs for families and businesses.”

The CRFB is confusing interest paid with interest rates. Although increased federal debt will increase total federal interest paid, it does not equal interest rates.

It is a rise in interest rates that increases borrowing costs.

There is no relationship between changes in federal debt (red) and interest rates (blue).

Interest rates do not just happen. They are set arbitrarily by the Federal Reserve.

The peaks and valleys do not match. In fact, a case might be made for an inverse relationship.

We’ll end with the final lie, this one supposedly from the CBO:

The Congressional Budget Office predicts that the economy will grow faster with debt on a declining path as opposed to a rising one.

Translation: “Debt on a declining path” requires federal surpluses. But we already have seen that federal surpluses beget depressions. The statement attributed to the CBO is diametrically wrong.

IN SUMMARY

The claim that Donald Trump won the most recent Presidential election is a big lie. Still, it pales compared to the really BIG LIE that has affected us since at least 1940, and probably before: The lie that federal deficits and debt should be reduced.

The BIG LIE is not promulgated by ignorance. It has a purpose, which is to widen the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and the rest. If there were no Gap, no one would be rich. We all would be the same. The wider the Gap, the richer are the rich.

So the rich who run America try to widen the Gap by convincing the public that the federal government can’t afford to give them benefits (the same benefits the rich already receive.)

It’s the ultimate con job. It’s the BIG LIE.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

Twitter: @rodgermitchell Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

The photo that finally will put Trump in jail.

Employing illegal aliens to build his casinos, then cheating them out of their wages didn’t do it.

Groping women didn’t do it. Consorting with whores didn’t do it. Cheating on three wives didn’t do it.

Blackmailing Ukraine didn’t do it. Secret meetings to support Putin and to gain Putin’s support didn’t do it. Love letters to Kim didn’t do it.

More than 35,000 lies didn’t do it. Repeatedly taking the 5th Amendment after saying that taking the 5th was for criminals didn’t do it.

Insulting gold-star parents didn’t do it. Saying soldiers who died for their country were “suckers” didn’t do it.

Equating fascist and anti-semites with people who oppose fascists and anti-semites didn’t do it

Spreading lies and bigotry about Mexicans, Blacks, Muslims, gays, and pregnant women didn’t do it.

First denying COVID, the delaying response so that hundreds of thousand of Americans unnecessarily died

 

Cheating on his income taxes didn’t do it.

Running a fraudulent “university” to cheat thousand of students didn’t do it.

Running a fraudulent foundation didn’t do it.

Paying $25 million in fines for his criminality didn’t do it.

Fifty failed lawsuits to overturn the election didn’t do it. Threatening and pleading with state government officials to take illegal actions to steal the election didn’t do it. Saying that Vice President Pence deserved to be hung didn’t do it.

Consorting with, and hiring, dozens of criminals, didn’t do it.

Planning and encouraging a coup against the American government didn’t do it. Refusal to halt the insurrection didn’t do it. Telling the Proud Boys and other traitors, “We love you” didn’t do it.

Continuing to this day, spreading lies about the stolen election didn’t do it.

Encouraging the ouster of good Republicans simply because they told the truth didn’t do it.

Being ousted from social media for lying didn’t do it.

Trying to take healthcare insurance from the poor didn’t do it. Giving tax breaks to the rich didn’t do it.

Being an ineffective President who spent most of his time playing golf and tweeting insults didn’t do it.

None of those things turned a cowardly, immoral, compliant GOP against Trump.

But this picture finally will put him in jail, though the GOP only will turn against him, not for ethical or occupational reasons, but for a political reason: He will lose elections and go to jail.

And this picture of illegally held classified documents, found at Mar-a-Lago will put him there:

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is image-13.png

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

Twitter: @rodgermitchell Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

The fairness issue of federal spending.

Situation #1: I am a wealthy man. From my own pocket, I unexpectedly hand you $10,000, with no strings attached. Would you be pleased or angry? Would that gift be fair? Situation #2: I am a wealthy man. From my own pocket, I unexpectedly hand you $10,000, with no strings attached. I also give some people $20,000 and to others, I give $0. Would you be pleased or angry? Would that gift be fair? Situation #3. I am a wealthy, new charity called “Student Help And Payment of Expenses” (SHAPE). You and millions of others give to SHAPE, which provides aid to many people for many purposes. This year SHAPE has begun to offer financial assistance to college students based on their income, grades, and other criteria. You qualify based on one criterion, so SHAPE gives you $10,000. SHAPE gives people who qualify on two criteria $20,000, and to those who do not qualify on any criteria, it gives $0. Would you be pleased or angry? Would that gift be fair? Think about your answers before reading further.
Granderson was the 2009 winner of the GLAAD Award for online journalism and was nominated for the award again in 2010. He received a GLAAD Award in 2022 for his ABC News podcast, Life Out Loud with LZ Granderson

Is Biden’s student debt forgiveness plan fair? LZ Granderson, Los Angeles Times 8/30/2022

What is fair?

That is the question of the hour, as politicians and everyday Americans on both sides of the aisle debate the pros and cons of President Joe Biden’s plan to forgive student loan debt.

Is it fair to those who didn’t go to college? Is it fair to those who “did the right thing’ and paid off their loans? In short: Is it fair to me?

Take this short “fairness perception” test. Each question has two answers. One answer is your opinion about “fair” or “unfair.” The other answer is whether you are angry about it. For example, you might feel something is unfair, but it doesn’t anger you. Yes or no, is it fair or unfair, and in either case, does it anger you that: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FAIR               ANGERS ME
  1. You pay more federal tax than Donald Trump?
  2. You pay less tax than some people who are poorer than you?
  3. You do not receive food stamps?
  4. You do not receive rent assistance?
  5. You drive a more expensive car than do some other people?
  6. You can afford a less expensive house than can some other people?
  7. You have more money than some people? (Yours was inherited.)
  8. You have less money than some people who inherited money?
  9. Older people receive Social Security, but though many people pay FICA taxes, most do not yet qualify”?
  10. The qualifying age for Medicare has been raised?
  11. Medicare doesn’t pay for some medicines and procedures?
  12. You paid for your college education, but some people receive scholarships?
Depending on your financial situation, your compassion, and your personal standards, your answers will be individual to you. I personally find the answers to questions #1, 9, 10, and 11, to be anger-provoking and unfair. How about you? Why? My anger mostly comes from the fact that federal taxes do not pay for federal benefits, and the federal government has infinite money but lies about it.
[Your taxes are paid from the M1 money supply measure–bank checking accounts. When the federal government receives those dollars, they no longer are counted in any money supply measure, because the government has infinite dollars. Effectively, your federal tax dollars are destroyed. By contrast, your state/local tax dollars go into private sector banks and remain in the M1 money supply measure. They are not destroyed.]

The White House says the average cost is $24 billion a year.

Considering we’re already nearly $31 trillion in debt and Jerome Powell, the Federal Reserve chairman, recently indicated that efforts to reduce inflation could bring “some pain to households and businesses,” asking how are we going to pay for this is a pressing question.

As readers of this blog know, “we” don’t pay for federal spending, although “we” do pay for state/local government spending and for private charity spending. The difference is the federal government is Monetarily Sovereign while state/local governments are monetarily non-sovereign. The federal government collects taxes but does not spend them; it destroys them. The state/local governments collect taxes and spend them.

But to me, the most important question is actually who is going to pay for this? As in, who pays for what society needs to remain whole and healthy and who pays when it falls short?

Anyway, my buddy Neil never had any children but for more than 40 years he has had a portion of his tax dollars pay for services he does not use, like public schools.

Now, is that fair to Neil and other taxpayers without children? Or is paying for education for the next generation necessary to be part of a healthy society?

A society where someone in Arizona can see Kentuckians struggling in the wake of devastating floods and be thankful the Federal Emergency Management Agency is there to help those people — as opposed to being resentful that no disaster requires FEMA aid in Arizona?

Those are good questions, though the author demonstrates he does not understand the differences between monetarily non-sovereign state/local financing (the public school question) vs. federal financing (the FEMA question). Taxpayers fund the former but do not fund the latter.

The answer to “who is going to pay for this?” is always “we are” — whether on the front end by addressing issues as a society or paying for the more expensive fallout from ignoring our problems.

Time and time again, we are forced to face the reality that we are all in this together.

Certainly the expected cost of $300 billion for Biden’s loan forgiveness plan is significant. But what of the effect of having 45 million borrowers grappling with $1.6 trillion in student loan debt? What of the societal and fiscal cost of those millions of Americans stymied in their futures?

Because no taxpayer pays a penny for federal loan forgiveness, the cost is not the issue. The issue is fairness and the fact that we are all in this together and that America needs educated people. The federal government, which costs you nothing, pays many different benefits to millions of different people. You personally receive only a tiny fraction of those benefits. Is that fair? Does it anger you?

But we don’t think like that, we don’t vote like that and we don’t govern like that. That is why history is replete with billions spent on fixing problems that would have taken millions to prevent. Look no further than the homelessness crisis, which used to be “someone else’s problem” until it wasn’t.

Much has been made about the likes of Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., and the other Republicans who have rabidly denounced student loan cancellations.

The irony is that the GOP aids the rich while appealing to the angry envy of the poor, who are not informed enough to understand how the GOP cheats them.

Turns out, they had their own far larger Paycheck Protection Program loans forgiven.

We know they have no shame and their supporters are not deterred by their blatant hypocrisy. And that’s how it has always been.

But for people genuinely asking about fairness or economic impact, there are issues to consider. If postsecondary education is the route to the middle class, is not college debt a sign of someone trying to pull themselves up?

That is the real point. Education is vital for the success of America. That is why our founders mandated free education for all children. Today, it is a given that all children be afforded grades K -12 (though some parents opt to pay for private schools or homeschooling). But what once was considered an advanced education — a high school diploma — today, we believe college+ to be advanced.

Sure, we can find examples like Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz’s hypothetical slacker barista, who game the system, but we can also point to examples of businessmen who repeatedly file for bankruptcy and still get loans — but that doesn’t mean it’s the norm.

It also doesn’t mean that supporting college is unnecessary for America, especially since nations advance not by the high schoolers but by the college-educated. College is the accurate measure of a first-world country.

I was one of those individuals who graduated from college with student loan debt and went to bed hungry at times because of it. And when I was able to pay it off, I was happy.

And I’m happy a portion of my tax dollars may go to relieve someone of that burden.

Author Granderson, it should make you even happier to learn that not one penny of your tax dollars relieves anyone of anything. Although, that may make you angry that you are forced to pay tax dollars the Treasury destroys upon receipt.

Right now, millions of Americans, including the very poor, are drowning in student debt.

I see this very much like a FEMA moment, and I’m thankful government is stepping up to help. Call me crazy but isn’t assisting those in need a principle of fairness as well? ____ LZ Granderson is an Op-Ed columnist for the Los Angeles Times.

Mr. Granderson’s article is an excellent example of American patriotism. Unlike the flag-wavers who attacked Congress and the traitors who still defend it, Granderson is a true American. He understands what “love-of-country” really means. I only wish he understood Monetary Sovereignty. Rodger Malcolm Mitchell Monetary Sovereignty Twitter: @rodgermitchell Search #monetarysovereignty Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

The China Situation. Are Their Politicians As Ignorant As Ours? This Will Be Interesting

China, like the U.S., is Monetarily Sovereign. It never can run short of its own sovereign currency, the renminbi. Keep that fundamental fact in mind as you read excerpts from the following article:

China’s dim prospects turn disastrous By Diane Francis

Russia’s terrible war generates headlines, but China’s growing debt crisis is mostly ignored. And yet, it will have profound negative effects on the global economy.

In just three generations, Beijing built a middle class bigger than America’s entire population. But now Chinese many face ruination.

China’s domestic real estate bubble, due to deregulation, is so gargantuan that much of its middle class has been damaged.

So far, the article refers to private sector debt. The private sector (people, banks, businesses) is not Monetarily Sovereign. Those elements can run short of money. However, the Chinese government has the power to service any private sector debt should it wish to prevent private sector insolvency.

A massive mortgage revolt is underway, and as banks fail, protests grow. Today, 50 million empty or unfinished units bought on “spec” in hundreds of urban areas may never be completed or paid for, equivalent to one-third of all housing units in the United States.

Should China wish to end the mortgage revolt, it simply could pay some percentage of the mortgages — as with Biden’s student loan support. Similarly, China could support or nationalize troubled banks to keep them solvent.

Besides that, Beijing itself is owed $1 trillion by struggling governments around the world that cannot afford to pay back loans for Belt and Road Initiative project,

Being Monetarily Sovereign, China does not need to receive payment on loans made in renminbi. If the loans were made in U.S. dollars or some other currency, China has the power to buy those currencies with renminbis. The problem with that approach is that depending on the size of the exchange, it could create chaos in currency markets.

The result of this domestic and foreign borrowing is that this year China’s debt is expected to reach the equivalent of 275 percent of its GDP due to massive borrowing and economic slowdown. The United States, by comparison, is expected this year to reach a debt level of 98 percent of its GDP.

The debt/GDP ratio is meaningless. Japan’s debt/GDP ratio is 266%, and the nation’s economy is vibrant and is nowhere near collapse.

The result of the property bubble is unusual defiance by Chinese people toward their authoritarian government. Unrest has grown because real estate speculation has been widespread for years, and most Chinese consider property ownership as a way to get ahead and secure an adequate retirement income.

But years of unbridled speculation has led to ever-increasing prices and overbuilding by aggressive developers, and now there is a glut, collapse in prices and widespread social discontent.

There is a glut of housing so housing prices are low. This is a problem for sellers, not buyers, that if it were deemed serious, easily could be solved by the central government. For example, levy a tax on future construction and sales.

Unrest spreads by word of mouth, which is a dangerous development in a country of 1.4 billion people, where putting deposits and owning several condos had become commonplace.

Essentially, China is a debt disaster in terms of foreign and domestic borrowing.

In rare acts of defiance, Chinese gather in public to object to the situation, and millions are refusing to repay loans on their unfinished apartments.This massive mortgage boycott movement began in early July and has now spread to 100 cities, involving 320 massive property development projects and many banks.

Recently, China’s Politburo issued a statement assuring property buyers that the government would help cash-starved developers finish such projects and that $44 billion would be dispensed to prop up their companies and their banks.

But this is a paltry amount, and millions of Chinese buyers need financial relief or else they will be left in the lurch.

And there is a solution to the problem. The Monetarily Sovereign Chinese government has the infinite ability to “prop up” developers, banks, and buyers. A large, Monetarily Sovereign nation has the ability to solve any money-related problem.

“China’s real estate slump has sucked in both banks and provincial governments, threatening a bigger impact on the world’s second-largest economy,” reports Nikkei Asia.

“Defaults have soared over the past 12 months. Real estate has been a key driver of the Chinese economy in the last two decades.

Real estate and related activities now account for around 29 percent of gross domestic product, up from less than 10 percent at the end of the 1990s.”

The first crack appeared when Evergrande Group stopped paying its debts or finishing projects. It had obtained free land from politicians in smaller urban centers and mortgage financing from local banks, then convinced people to snap up multiple units in the belief that demand and prices would never drop.

If it wished, the Chinese government could bail out every borrower and lender.

Now China must bail out lower levels of government because they depended on revenue from these land sales to provide education, health care, retirement benefits and other social services to their communities.

Their hardship means that services will be chopped, which could turn investor calamity into widespread national unrest.

There is no need to “chop services” for lack of money. The Chinese government could provide the needed money.

Clearly, China’s living standards have already suffered, given that one-quarter of its economy and more than 70 percent of household wealth is tied up in real estate that has dropped in value.

A Wall Street Journal op-ed headlined “Xi Tries to Ride a Real-Estate Tiger, and We All May Get Mauled” concluded that this “places the entire Chinese economic miracle model at risk” and cautions that “global financial markets, central banks and democratic leaders should brace for turbulence.”

Not only does China have the unlimited ability to create its money, but it also has the unlimited ability to create its money rules. In “The Genius of the Board Game, Monopoly,” we described how money-making and rule-making ability can affect the game. Players can change the game at will. They can begin the game by giving each player any amount of Monopoly money they choose. This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is image-10.png When any players are on the verge of bankruptcy, the other players can lengthen the game by changing the rules to provide money to the troubled players. The players arbitrarily can change the price of properties, houses, and hotels. They can increase or decrease taxes. They can change the traditional “$200 for passing ‘Go'” to any number they choose. They can charge for property sales. They can do anything. The Chinese government has the same powers. It can bail out anyone, reward anyone, and penalize anyone. Like Monopoly players, the Chinese are omnipotent when dealing with domestic financial matters.

Then there is the Belt and Road Initiative debacle. Bloomberg reported that 19 emerging economies (such as Sri Lanka, Lebanon, El Salvador and Pakistan) are virtually bust due to huge indebtedness to China as a result of unaffordable, ambitious infrastructure projects.

These loans were granted without concern for credit ratings or the ability to repay and accused of being politically motivated “debt traps.”

But these have become China’s “debt traps,” and now protests and pushbacks take place in these countries against Beijing. China must forgive loans, restructure them or walk away and let more Sri Lankan-style collapses occur.

China forgiving loans would cost China nothing. It has infinite renminbi. Forgiving those loans might be a brilliant foreign policy strategy.

China’s immediate past has been truly impressive. It has lifted itself out of abject poverty.

But given Xi’s economic mismanagement, combined with his loyalty to Putin, who is the sworn enemy of all his Western customers, China’s future looks not only dim but potentially disastrous.

These are all money problems. China’s future might look “dim” and “disastrous” if it were not Monetarily Sovereign. But it has absolute, total control of its money. One is reminded of the bleating and moaning about Social Security’s and Medicare’s fake impending insolvency, and insolvency that easily could be prevented by U.S. federal money creation.

Diane Francis is a non-resident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council in Washington at its Eurasia Center. She is editor at large at National Post in Canada, a columnist with Kyiv Post, author of 10 books and specializes in geopolitics, white-collar crime, technology and business. She writes a newsletter about America twice weekly on Substack.

If Diane Francis understood Monetary Sovereignty, she would have written a much different article. Rodger Malcolm Mitchell Monetary Sovereignty Twitter: @rodgermitchell Search #monetarysovereignty Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY