Kansas is nothing like America Saturday, Jun 17 2017 

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

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

Image result for tennis helmet

What, no face mask?

If a sportswriter told you that tennis players should wear helmets and face masks because football players get concussions, what would you think about that writer?

That thought occurred to me when I read an article in a site called “FiveThirtyEight.

Here are some excerpts:

JUN. 9, 2017 AT 5:57 AM
The Kansas Experiment Is Bad News For Trump’s Tax Cuts
By Ben Casselman, Maggie Koerth-Baker, Anna Maria Barry-Jester and Michelle Cheng

Before commenting on the article, I should tell you:

“Ben Casselman is a senior editor and the chief economics writer for FiveThirtyEight.
“Maggie Koerth-Baker is a senior science writer for FiveThirtyEight.
“Anna Maria Barry-Jester reports on public health, food and culture for FiveThirtyEight.
“Michelle Cheng is FiveThirtyEight’s data reporting intern.”

That’s a great deal of firepower for this one article, and still, they managed to get it wrong.

The Kansas state legislature on Tuesday voted to override Gov. Sam Brownback’s veto and roll back $1.2 billion of tax cuts over two years. The vote marked a bipartisan repudiation of what Brownback had described as an “experiment” in a particular brand of anti-tax fiscal conservatism.

The failure of that experiment has implications beyond Kansas because Brownback’s approach was meant to be a model for conservatives elsewhere, including in Washington.

(It was drafted with the help of prominent conservative thinkers, including former Ronald Reagan adviser Arthur Laffer and Heritage Foundation economist Stephen Moore.)

Brownback aimed  to push personal income taxes to zero and exempted certain kinds of businesses, known as “pass-through” entities, from taxes entirely.

President Trump’s tax plan doesn’t go as far, but it follows the same basic roadmap of sharply lower taxes on both individuals and businesses.

See anything wrong here?

The U.S. federal government is Monetarily Sovereign. It has the unlimited ability to create its own sovereign currency, the dollar. It never unintentionally can run short of dollars.

The federal government neither needs nor uses tax dollars for spending. Even if all federal tax collections were $0, the federal government could continue spending, forever.

A bit of analogy by means of biblical paraphrasing:

In the beginning,  sovereign Men created the Laws of America. Now America was formless and empty.

So the Men said, “Let there be money, and there was money. The Men saw that this was good, so the Men created as much money as they wished, and named the money “dollars,” and the Men gave the dollars whatever value they wished.

And the Men commanded the Dollars: “Go forth and multiply.”

In the years that followed, the Men changed the Laws many times. Dollars were commanded to multiply and the value of the Dollars was commanded to change. Many times.

Today, sovereign Men continue to create new Laws, and the new Laws continue to determine the number of Dollars and the value of Dollars. And whenever more dollars are needed, Men say, “Let the laws change and let there be more dollars.” And there are more dollars. 

As you can see, the men in the federal government were, and are, absolutely sovereign over the dollar.

By contrast, the State of Kansas, like all other states in the U.S., as well as all other counties and cities, is monetarily non-sovereign with regard to the U.S. dollar. Kansas does not have the unlimited ability to create dollars. It can (and has) run short of dollars.

Kansas does need and use tax dollars for spending.

Financially, no two entities can be more different than the federal government and Kansas.

A recent study concluded that the business tax cuts at the heart of Brownback’s plan had little if any impact on the state’s economy. Meanwhile, the state’s fiscal condition fell off a cliff: Tax revenue plunged, creating huge budget shortfalls and leading ratings agencies to downgrade the state’s credit rating.

The budget shortfalls should come as no surprise to you who recognize the name, Arthur Laffer, promoter of what became known as the “Laffer curve.” As an advisor to President Ronald Reagan, Laffer predicted that lowering tax rates would increase tax revenue.

It didn’t happen for Reagan, and it didn’t happen for Brownback. The difference was that Reagan’s federal government could continue creating dollars. Brownback’s state government could not.

Some conservatives have argued that Brownback’s experiment isn’t a fair test of their economic theories because Kansas didn’t pair its big tax cuts with equivalent reductions in government spending.

No, the experiment isn’t a “fair test” (in addition to the fundamental fault with the Laffer curve) because the Kansas government is not representative of the federal government.

Members of the public might not like paying taxes, but they do like the services those taxes pay for.

When it looked like Kansas’s budget gap would lead to big cuts to education and highway spending, voters responded by throwing conservative legislators out of office and replacing them with the Democrats and moderate Republicans who this week overrode Brownback’s veto.

Had exactly the same experiment done with federal taxation, there would have been no need for “big cuts to education and highway spending,” or to any other federal programs.

Though state taxes fund state spending, federal taxes do not fund federal spending.

Whether Republicans in the U.S. Congress learn the economic lessons of the Kansas experiment remains to be seen. But you can be sure that they’ll be studying the political lessons closely.

You can be sure that after all the studying, Congress will learn the wrong lessons.

Being ignorant of, or more likely, reluctant to acknowledge,  Monetary Sovereignty, Congress will “learn” that tax cuts must be balanced with spending cuts — exactly the opposite of the facts.

Ignorance of Monetary Sovereignty has far-reaching, often disastrous outcomes:

Climate change: 

When he announced that the U.S. would be withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, Trump said he had based his decision on data that showed how much the accords, which are designed to slow the pace of climate change, would hurt the U.S. economy.

“The cost to the economy [by 2040] would be close to $3 trillion in lost [gross domestic product] and 6.5 million industrial jobs, while households would have $7,000 less income and, in many cases, much worse than that,” Trump said.

Those numbers come from a single report prepared in March by National Economic Research Associates, an independent consulting firm.

But the report comes with a key caveat: It’s not a cost-benefit analysis. The estimates Trump cited don’t take into account any financial gains, jobs created or costs avoided as a result of implementing energy regulations related to the Paris Agreement.

It’s a gross, not a net.

Thus, not understanding that the federal government has the unlimited ability to create dollars (and thereby stimulate the economy, while paying for carbon reduction, threatens the future of the world.

That similar wrong belief also has greatly damaged the health of Americans:

The totally unfounded belief that federal spending and federal taxes somehow should “balance,” leads to austerity — a process that always, always, always leads to recession.

FiveThirtyEight, is a good site, an excellent site, really. But like the vast majority of sites that include comments about economics, their ignorance about Monetary Sovereignty negates much of what they say about economics.

Health care:

In a speech earlier this week, Trump once again described a grim scene where “premiums are skyrocketing, insurers are fleeing, and the American people are paying much more for much worse coverage.”

While there is little doubt that premiums will go up again this year in many states, or that insurers are leaving the markets, there is also growing evidence that the Trump administration is largely to blame this time around.

In Ohio, for example, Anthem announced it would stop selling plans on the ACA marketplace, potentially leaving people in more than a dozen counties without a way to buy subsidized insurance.

The insurance giant cited market volatility and uncertainty, not a failure to turn a profit, as its reason for leaving.

All, and I mean all, of the conflict about the Affordable Care Act, centers on money — the ability to cover all Americans at the lowest cost possible.

But, because the federal government can afford anything, cost should be the least of our worries. Our attention should be focused on the quality of Care, not on Affordability.

America should institute a comprehensive, federally funded “Medicare for All” plan (Step #2 of the Ten Steps to Prosperity [below]).

Education and Jobs:

Trump’s proposed $59 billion budget slashes the Education Department’s overall spending by $9.2 billion.

The department faces widespread reductions to meet that spending goal. One area of bipartisan opposition was the budget’s proposed cuts to career and technical training programs.

Slashing funding for technical education is a bit of an odd choice for Trump, who campaigned on a promise to create jobs for blue-collar workers — exactly the people these programs are meant to help.

Trump’s education budget proposes a $166 million, cut to state grants for vocational education programs in high schools, technical schools and community colleges.

It also includes a $95 million cut to state grants for adult education programs that teach literacy and provide training in other basic skills people need to find jobs.

Related programs from other departments also face cuts; the Labor Department budget, for example, would cut job training programs by 36 percent.

Everywhere you look — taxation, climate change, health care, jobs — you see ignorance about Monetary Sovereignty diminishing America.

The people of the upper 1% income, wealth, and power foster this ignorance in order to widen the Gap between the rich and the rest.

The rich bribe the politicians via campaign contributions and promises of lucrative employment later; they bribe the media via ownership and advertising money; they bribe the economists via “think tank” employment and contributions to universities.

Tennis players need nothing like the protections of football players, and monetarily non-sovereign Kansas is nothing like the Monetarily Sovereign U.S. government

Until America learns that, we will drift down, down, down to 2nd class status.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

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

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

Wide Gaps negatively affect poverty, health and longevity, education, housing, law and crime, war, leadership, ownership, bigotry, supply and demand, taxation, GDP, international relations, scientific advancement, the environment, human motivation and well-being, and virtually every other issue in economics.

Implementation of The Ten Steps To Prosperity can narrow the Gaps:

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

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

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

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

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

How meanness and zigzaggery jeopardize your lifestyle Thursday, Jun 15 2017 

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

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

Here is how the meanness and zigzaggery of leadership jeopardizes your health, your income, and your lifestyle.

Introduction:

The U.S. federal government is different from state and local governments. It is different from businesses. It is different from you and me.

The federal government uniquely is Monetarily Sovereign.  It is sovereign over the U.S. dollar.

The federal government, 240 years ago, created from thin air, the laws that created the dollar from thin air. The government created as many dollars as it wished, and gave those dollars the value it wished — an arbitrary number of grams of silver.

Image result for press computer key to create money

Yes, it really is this simple for the federal government.

 

Today, the government still creates dollars, now at the press of a computer key, and still controls the value of the dollar (i.e. inflation), now by changing interest rates.

Being the absolute sovereign over the dollar, the federal government never can run short of dollars. It has no need to collect taxes. Even if all federal tax collections were $0, the federal government could continue creating and spending dollars, forever.

It also has no need for borrowing and indeed does not borrow. The so-called “debt” is not the result of borrowing, but rather the acceptance of deposits in Treasury security accounts at the Federal Reserve Bank — similar to your deposits in your bank savings account.

The federal government easily could provide comprehensive, no-deductible, health care insurance coverage for you and for every other man, woman, and child in America (Medicare for All), and do it while eliminating FICA and controlling inflation.

That is how much power the federal government has over its sovereign currency, the dollar.

Why then must you see articles like this:

Medicaid cuts could be catastrophic for Idaho schools
By Julie Wootton, Times-News | Posted Jun 14th, 2017 @ 1:40pm

Beyond the typical classroom setting, some of the teenagers also receive services at school such as speech, physical or occupational therapy.

School districts pay for that mostly by using reimbursements from Medicaid, a federal program that provides health coverage to low-income Americans and people who have disabilities.

But the new federal American Health Care Act aims to cut Medicaid over 10 years by $880 billion — a total reduction of 25 percent.

Cutting Medicaid funding would place more financial responsibility on local school districts, said Sherry Bingham, special services director for the Minidoka County School District.

Cuts by the federal government in reducing the amount of Medicaid monies to already underfunded special education programs would be disastrous.

Spending by local school districts is paid for by local taxpayers. By contrast, federal spending does not cost taxpayers one cent. So, why would the politicians want to replace federal spending with local spending?

GOP Medicaid cuts to hit rural America hardest, report finds
by Phil Galewitz, Kaiser Health News @CNNMoney June 7, 2017: 3:52 PM ET

Trump Country it may be, but rural counties and small towns also make up Medicaid Country — those parts of the nation whose low-income children and families are most dependent on the federal-state health insurance program, according to a Georgetown University report released Wednesday.

Medicaid’s enrollment has swollen to more than 72 million in recent years, and the ranks of uninsured Americans has fallen to 9% in 2015 from 13% in 2013. That’s largely due to the Affordable Care Act, which allowed states to expand Medicaid eligibility with federal funds. Thirty-one states, plus the District of Columbia did so.

Those gains may be in jeopardy under the House GOP health care bill that would replace major parts of the ACA — known as Obamacare — and dramatically cut federal funding for Medicaid.

Why do the politicians, who were elected by the lower-income, rural families, now put forth plans to hurt the people who elected them?

CNNMoney Reports
Medicaid cut could put jobs in Kentucky at risk

Cuts to Medicaid have far-reaching effects, not only on your health but on your income. Medicaid payments support hundreds of thousands of healthcare-related jobs in such disparate industries as manufacturers of hospital supplies and equipment to ambulance builders to drug stores and pharmaceuticals.  And let’s not forget all the medical personnel that are paid, in part, by Medicare.

Every dollar the federal government pumps into Medicaid circulates into the economy as a job-creating stimulus dollar.

Your Money, Your America
In Texas, people with erratic incomes risk being cut off from Medicaid
by Shefali Luthra, Kaiser Health News @CNNMoney, June 15, 2017: 6:08 AM ET

To qualify for Medicaid in her home state of Texas, most children must come from families with incomes at or below 138% of the federal poverty level. In 2017, that’s $33,948 for a family of four.

Texas also has one of the country’s strictest Medicaid verification systems: It runs regular checks on family finances after children are enrolled to make sure they continue to qualify.

Poole and her husband work in seasonal industries. She’s an hourly employee in agriculture and he’s in oil. Their hours and incomes have changed on a monthly, even weekly basis. That means their nine children, five of whom were adopted, and all of whom have complex health conditions, could lose health insurance one month but then qualify the next, even though the family’s total income for the year does not exceed the eligibility threshold.

States, being monetarily NON-sovereign,  and limited in their spending ability, look for ways to cut benefits.  The federal government has no such need.

Medicaid Cuts In Wisconsin Would Undermine Training For Adults With Disabilities
June 14, 20172:32 PM ET

And, it’s not just the cut themselves that are destroying Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act (ACA) program; it’s the uncertainty.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of NC spells out how much Trump-fueled uncertainty hikes premiums
POSTED 12:31 PM, MAY 27, 2017, BY CNN WIRE

Many insurers say that the uncertainty emanating from Washington D.C. is prompting them to request even steeper hikes in premiums for 2018.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina is spelling out just how much it could cost consumers.

The insurer is requesting a rate hike of nearly 23% for next year. But it said it would have only asked for an 8.8% bump if President Trump and House Republicans agreed to fund the Obamacare cost-sharing subsidies through 2018.

The mere fact that the GOP wants and threatens to cut federal Medicaid payments is sufficient to sabotage ACA. As the Trump administration warns about cuts, these threats alone weaken the program, which the politicians then use as further “proof” the program should be cut.

It is a self-fulfilling, repeating act: Threaten, weaken, cut; threaten, weaken, cut.

And then, to add to the uncertainty, we have the zigzaggery of a confused administration:

Trump, in Zigzag, Calls House Republicans’ Health Bill ‘Mean’
By THOMAS KAPLAN, JENNIFER STEINHAUER and ROBERT PEARJUNE 13, 2017

President Trump bluntly derided a House attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act as “mean.” and in doing so, injected himself in a brewing Senate battle that his fellow Republicans had prayed he would avoid.

At a White House lunch, Mr. Trump alerted his guests that a bill passed by the House this spring — one he lauded last month as a “great plan” that was “very, very incredibly well-crafted” — was now “mean.”

“I really appreciate what you’re doing to come out with a bill that’s going to be a phenomenal bill for the people of our country: generous, kind, with heart. That’s what I’m saying. And that may be adding additional money into it.

We have written about meanness, before: The Meaning of America — now worse.

Now suddenly, the entire thrust of the GOP — to cut benefits for the poor and to save taxes for the rich — a thrust that has caused insurance companies to raise rates or to leave the plan altogether — now the “Party of the Rich” has become the “Party of the Zigzaggery” with no real direction other than to destroy everything, Obama and to widen the Gap between the rich and the rest.

Of course, both parties can share the blame for spreading “the Big Lie” — the lie that federal “debt” (deposits) must be reduced, and federal deficits cut (when exactly the opposite is true).

So you, the public, will suffer from their lies and zigzaggery, if you accept without question, their dishonesty and their incompetence.

The solution is simple and straightforward: FEDERALLY FUNDED MEDICARE — PARTS A, B & D, PLUS LONG TERM CARE — FOR EVERYONE (Step #2 of the Ten Steps to Prosperity.)

Anything else is “mean.”

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

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

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

Wide Gaps negatively affect poverty, health and longevity, education, housing, law and crime, war, leadership, ownership, bigotry, supply and demand, taxation, GDP, international relations, scientific advancement, the environment, human motivation and well-being, and virtually every other issue in economics.

Implementation of The Ten Steps To Prosperity can narrow the Gaps:

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

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

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

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

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Taking the wrong path won’t get you to the right destination Sunday, Jun 11 2017 

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

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
It takes only two things to keep people in chains: The ignorance of the oppressed and the treachery of their leaders..
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Science is a search for facts. But often, agreed-upon facts can lead to diametrically opposing conclusions.Related image

Consider the differences between Monetary Sovereignty (MS) and Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). Both are attempts to demonstrate the superiority of facts over intuition.

They agree on the same set of basic economic facts, some of which seem to be so counter-intuitive, that even many economists are confused:

  1. The U.S. federal government is sovereign over its currency, the dollar. The U.S, cities, counties, and states are not.
  2. Being sovereign over its currency, the U.S. government cannot unintentionally run short of U.S. dollars. The U.S. cities, counties, and states can and do unintentionally run short of dollars.
  3. To pay its bills, the U.S. federal government needs no income.  The cities, counties, and states do need income.
  4. The federal government creates dollars ad hoc, each time it pays a creditor. The cities, counties, and states do not.
  5. Needing no income, the U.S. federal government does not need to tax or to borrow. Even if all federal tax collections were $0, the federal government could continue paying its creditors, forever.
  6. Unlike the cities, counties, and states, the federal government does not borrow. What misleadingly is termed “borrowing” and “debt” actually is the acceptance of deposits in T-security accounts by the Federal Reserve Bank, i.e bank deposits. The Bank pays off this “debt” every day, by transferring the dollars that already exist in T-security accounts, back to the checking accounts of the T-security holders. The federal government could pay off its entire “debt” today, if it chose, without creating a single, new dollar.
  7. Because the federal government never unintentionally can run short of dollars, no agency of the federal government can run short of dollars unless Congress and the President will it. Despite what you may have been told, Social Security, Medicare, the military, the White House, Congress, the Supreme Court et al, being federal agencies, cannot run short of dollars unless Congress and the President want them to.

These are the absolute Truths of the U.S. economy, on which both MS and MMT agree. Yet from these Truths, the two philosophies diverge, notably regarding what actions the federal government should take.

The very heart of MMT beats at the University of Missouri, Kansas City (UMKC), where the professors have created a monument to their beliefs, an organization called The Center for Full Employment and Price Stability.

As you might imagine, an organization bearing that title must foster the belief that the two most important problems facing the American economy, or any economy, are a lack of jobs and inflation.

Regarding jobs, consider these excerpts from an article in the May 27th, 2017 issue of NewScientist Magazine:

Technology for Tomorrow, a manifesto for change
Put workers before robots, p. 21 by Matt Reynolds

If robots aren’t already lining up to take your job, they will be soon. A much-cited study from the University of Oxford found that 47 percent of U.S. jobs are at risk of being automated over the next 20 years.

Automation is set to affect everyone from cashiers to credit analysts: even if your job can’t be fully automated, there is a good chance parts of it can be.

The implementation of Artificial Intelligence (AI), buttressed by “machine learning,” means that in the future, precious few jobs will not be done, wholly or in part, by machines — and this even includes the conceptual creation of those machines.

“Intelligent” machines already have taken jobs from humans, and will do so at an accelerated rate. If nothing is done, this looming lack of human jobs will impoverish the populace. So, what should be done?

MMT believes the problem can be stated very simply as “lack of jobs.”

MS believes the real problem is “lack of money.”

To solve what it considers to be the “lack of jobs” problem, MMT suggests implementing a “Jobs Guarantee” (JG) by which the federal government guarantees that everyone who wants a job will be given a job.

However, in reality, there is no shortage of jobs, nor has there been since the Great Depression. If you go to the Monster.com employment site and click “Chicago,” you will see: Jobs in Chicago, Illinois, 1000+ Jobs Found

The site doesn’t say how many more than 1000 jobs it lists, but the question is: Why are there so many jobs available if the problem is “lack of jobs”?

Is it because Chicago is such a big city?  Not really. Consider little Mullen, NE, pop. 501, and near no other cities. Here is what Monster.com said on June 11, 2017: Jobs within 10 miles of Mullen, NE:  65 Jobs Found.” 

Then we have the thriving metropolis of Harlem, MT, pop. 830, where 52 jobs within 10 miles were found by Monster.com.

Would you consider 65 jobs available within 10 miles of a town having 501 residents, or 52 jobs close to a town of 830, to imply a “lack of jobs”?

And these are not special cases. They are typical. Go to Monster.com, and prowl around.

And those are just the jobs listed on one web site, Monster.com. Think about all the other job sites, and the classified sections of newspapers and the employment agencies, and the charitable organizations devoted to helping people find jobs, etc.

Yes, there is no shortage of jobs; there are plenty of available jobs, thousands of jobs, millions of jobs. But, for any individual job seeker, the vast majority are not the right jobs.

Look at all the jobs in your local paper, and see how few are appropriate for you.

And therein lies the problem — or one of the problems.

The MMT JG program does not, cannot offer the right jobs; it just offers jobs, any jobs.

There is no possible mechanism for JG to offer the right jobs to every resident of Mullen, NE and Harlem, MT, and every other Mullen and Harlem resident in America, who wants a job.

Think about the staffing and design of a federal agency capable of:

  1. Finding and offering the right job for every job seeker in every Mullen and Harlem around America
  2. Watching over those jobs (for ongoing working conditions, comparable benefits and pay, etc.), and most importantly,
  3. Making sure those are additional jobs, not just replacement jobs.

As technology reduces, year-by-year,  the availability of those “right” jobs, JG will look less and less like a solution to anything.

And the MMT folks know it.

So why do they persist with JG? Here is what the article’s author, Matt Reynolds, says, and what MMT believes:

Work isn’t just about money. It gives us a sense of purpose and identity, which is why using technology to track workers to enforce optimal performance is so dehumanizing.

There you see a mashup of the nonsense promulgated by the rich: You masses cannot feel a sense of purpose and “identity” (whatever “identity” means) unless you labor. Presumably, the harder you labor, the more “purpose and identity” you will feel.

The rich, by contrast, feel just fine minimizing their own labor by employing people like you to do the work, while they lounge on yachts. Apparently, we should be thankful to the generous rich, who forego their own “purpose and sense of identity,” and give it to us workers.

And, if work gives us a sense of purpose and identity, why is tracking workers to enforce optimal performance “dehumanizing”? Wouldn’t optimal performance be what provides that purpose and identity?

And by the way, why do you buy labor-saving devices if labor gives you a sense of purpose and identity?

Yes, some jobs — jobs that make people rich, famous, and revered — can provide some measure of purpose and identity, but for the vast majority of us working stiffs, jobs are for money and hobbies are for pleasure, and we still look forward to weekends and vacations away from work.

Not many people on their deathbed say, “I wish I had spent more time digging in the coal mine or sitting in my office cubicle, answering ‘Yes, sir’ to my boss.”

The MMT professors seem to believe, deep within their souls, that the poor need to labor to fulfill their destinies, so they should be thankful to receive any job, no matter how onerous or empty.

The MMT professors are creatures of graphs, numbers, and formulas: A thousand unemployed and a thousand available jobs; put them together and poof(!) problem solved.

No, MMT, the problem is not a lack of jobs; the problem is a lack of money.  And that is what the Ten Steps to Prosperity is designed to address,  Particularly Steps #1, 2, 3, 5, and 7.

Finally, we must mention two comments from the article:

Bill Gates has suggested a robot tax, for instance, which firms would shell out when they supplant humans with machines.

Gates’s suggestion is a perfect example of why money and brains don’t always go together. A robot tax simply would hinder the development and implementation of robots, a bad idea for many reasons. (Why not a tax on all machinery, not just robots, so that thousands of people must be employed to do what a handful do now? Back to the pre-industrial age.)

As the author says:

The EU rejected a robot tax proposal in February, and such simplistic measures don’t get to the heart of the problem.

That’s partly why a universal basic income — a guaranteed small monthly income from the state — has been gaining interest; it lets people pursue their own priorities, including caring for relatives or running their own business.  We have preliminary evidence that this can work.

That suggestion is Step #3 of the Ten Steps to Prosperity.

The MMT professors understand the facts of the economy; they should teach them to the populace. If only MMT would forget about JG and join MS in promoting the Ten Steps. Taking that path would lead to a better world.

And MMT, please begin your trip into the 21st century by changing the name from The Center for Full Employment and Price Stability to the Center for Prosperity.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

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

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

Wide Gaps negatively affect poverty, health and longevity, education, housing, law and crime, war, leadership, ownership, bigotry, supply and demand, taxation, GDP, international relations, scientific advancement, the environment, human motivation and well-being, and virtually every other issue in economics.

Implementation of The Ten Steps To Prosperity can narrow the Gaps:

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

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

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

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

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Is the House of Representatives obsolete? Friday, Jun 9 2017 

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

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

The House of Representatives long has stood on questionable philosophical ground, but lately, it has been acting like the bad kid in the playground.

The fact that Representatives serve 2-year terms enshrines an “always-running” mentality, providing little time or inclination for intelligent lawmaking.

In the House, slogans pass for communicating and catchphrases pass for thought. Representatives spend most of their waking hours dialing for dollars, and making deals to keep challengers out.

Image result for paul ryan

Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House

This sophomoric existence has manifested in “quick-and-dirty” legislative attempts. The House moral seems to be, “Let’s get something passed — anything — no matter how illegal, immoral, or inane, then turn the problem over the the ‘parents’ of Congress, the Senate, to do the real thinking.”

Consider the House’s disgraceful “repeal & replace of Romneycare er, ah, Obamacare:

House Republicans have passed their ambitious plan to repeal and replace Obamacare, sending the measure to the Senate, where it is expected to be significantly revised. (ABC News’ John Parkinson and Mary Bruce contributed to this report. )

The House passed a bill they knew was no good, sent it to the Senate to be “significantly revised,” then crowed about what a great job they did.

Following the House vote, House Republicans celebrated with a press conference at the White House Rose Garden with President Donald Trump, Vice President Mike Pence, and Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price. Trump touted the bill as a “great plan” even though they got “no support from the other party.”

They also got no support from the majority of the nation, who found the elimination of 24 million of Americans from health care coverage to be morally and economically repugnant.

(Trump) congratulated and thanked House Speaker Paul Ryan and praised House Republicans for coming together. “What we have is something very, very incredibly well-crafted,” Trump said of the bill.

So well crafted, even the Republican-dominated Senate couldn’t stand the stench of it.

Trump added. “As much as we’ve come up with a really incredible health care plan, this has brought the Republican Party together. We’re going to get this finished.”

They got it “finished,” all right — finished and dumped, never again to see the light.

And on Thursday night, he tweeted, “It was a GREAT day for the United States of America! This is a great plan that is a repeal & replace of ObamaCare. Make no mistake about it.”

If this was a great plan, one wonders how miserable a plan would have to be for Trump to consider it bad.

“It’s going to be an unbelievable victory when we get it through the Senate and there’s so much spirit there,” Trump said.

“Unbelievable” is the appropriate word for Trump’s announcement. Few believed it.

Republicans, who have been promising to repeal and replace Obamacare for seven years, said they planned on keeping their promise to constituents.

And that is all they cared about, keeping the promise of “repeal & replace.” So, having created a pile of dung, and patting themselves on the back, the House held its nose and decided to create more dung — another ill-considered “repeal & replace” — this time, of Dodd-Frank.

House votes to kill Dodd-Frank. Now what?
by Donna Borak @donnaborak

House lawmakers effectively gutted the Dodd-Frank financial regulations that were put in place during the Obama administration.

The bill passed despite vehement objections by Democrats to preserve the sweeping law aimed at preventing another financial crisis and protecting American consumers.

The bill would give the president the power to fire the heads of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), a consumer watchdog agency created under Dodd-Frank, and the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which oversees mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, at any time for any — or no — reason.

Remember, it was malfeasance by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, along with the banks, that led to the great recession. The CFPB was designed to prevent that malfeasance.

It also gives Congress purview over the CFPB’s budget, meaning lawmakers could defund the agency entirely.

The GOP proposal would also bar the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. from overseeing the so-called living will process, which requires banks to write up plans on how they would safely be unwound in the event of a collapse.

Steny Hoyer, the House minority whip said the bill would repeat recent history and put Americans at risk of losing millions by taking “referees off the field.”

Minority lawmakers also argue the bill would gut consumer protections and allow banks to make risky investments that required taxpayers to come to the rescue of the nation’s largest financial institutions almost a decade earlier.

Now the bill’s destiny will be in the hands of the Senate.

Those who closely follow the debate believe there’s no chance the bill would pass the Senate as is. Rather, they expect the upper chamber to advance a separate regulatory relief bill of their own.

By killing Dodd-Frank, the House would create the same “Banks, do whatever the hell you want” situation that led to the Great Recession of 2008. Apparently, nothing has been learned.

Why did the bad kids of the House do it? Because they expected the adults of the Senate to step in and clean up the mess.

The motto of the House seems to be: “Pass anything, then get back to soliciting campaign funds. Let the Senate fix it.”

How is the House designed to fail?

  1. The abovementioned 2-year term, which puts Representatives into an everlasting election cycle, leaving little time or energy for actual legislating.
  2. Gerrymandering, which almost guarantees re-election of incumbents, which gives Representatives little motivation for legislating.

The 2-year term and the population-based representation were supposed to make the House more responsive to the people, when compared to the Senate with its 6-year term and state-based representation.

The opposite has occurred:

Reelection Rates Over the Years

Few things in life are more predictable than the chances of an incumbent member of the U.S. House of Representatives winning reelection. With wide name recognition, and usually an insurmountable advantage in campaign cash, House incumbents typically have little trouble holding onto their seats

Senate races still overwhelmingly favor the incumbent, but not by as reliable a margin as House races.

Thus, House Representatives, lacking the time, energy, and motive to legislate in any sensible manner or to respond to constituents, has become an anachronism, virtually worthless — no, less than worthless —  an impediment.

It repeatedly vandalizes the legislative process by producing amateurish, noxious bills it knows cannot be passed, then steps back to let the Senate scrub the walls of their graffiti.

The House either should be eliminated or repaired. I suggest two fixes:

  1. Institute a 4-year term to coincide with the Presidential election. This not only would allow more time for legislating and for challenges to House seats, but it would save election costs for the states.
  2. Institute strict rules and definitions to reduce, as much as mathematically feasible, Gerrymandering.

These fixes would help return the House to being a “for the people” organization.

Or, we should just get rid of the House altogether, and let the Senate officially take over.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

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

THOUGHTS

•All we have are partial solutions; the best we can do is try.

•Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.

•Any monetarily NON-sovereign government — be it city, county, state or nation — that runs an ongoing trade deficit, eventually will run out of money no matter how much it taxes its citizens.

•The more federal budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes..

•No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth.

•Cutting federal deficits to grow the economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia.

•A growing economy requires a growing supply of money (GDP = Federal Spending + Non-federal Spending + Net Exports)

•Deficit spending grows the supply of money

•The limit to federal deficit spending is an inflation that cannot be cured with interest rate control. The limit to non-federal deficit spending is the ability to borrow.

•Until the 99% understand the need for federal deficits, the upper 1% will rule.

•Progressives think the purpose of government is to protect the poor and powerless from the rich and powerful. Conservatives think the purpose of government is to protect the rich and powerful from the poor and powerless.

•The single most important problem in economics is the Gap between the rich and the rest.

•Austerity is the government’s method for widening the Gap between the rich and the rest.

•Everything in economics devolves to motive, and the motive is the Gap between the rich and the rest..

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

« Previous PageNext Page »

%d bloggers like this: