Will people still work if the government gives them money?

There is a rather widespread belief that if the government simply gives people money, they won’t work. Instead, they will be satisfied with the money they are given.

Long days, hard labor another day at the office for Oregon firefighters - CNN.com
Forest Fire Fighter: Median pay, $40,815 a year.

The variables in this hypothesis are: The amount of money, the people’s needs, the jobs available, the salaries available, and perhaps most importantly, the psychology of the people with regard to work.

There is a strange paradox that the people who labor hardest or at the least appealing jobs are paid the least.

It’s a paradox only because, for instance, one would think an employer would have to pay more to get someone willing to dig in a windowless, damp, dark, dreary, dangerous mine than to a teacher sitting in a comfortable, clean, often air-conditioned room, with windows to the outside.

Where would you rather be: A mine or a classroom?

Yet the median coal miner’s salary is about $29 per hour and the median elementary school teacher’s salary is about — right, that same $29 per hour.

When those coal miners, school teachers, forest fire fighters, et al are out of work, Modern Monetary Theory(MMT) refers to them as “buffer-stock.”

When you are nothing more than “buffer-stock,” you have no ambitions, preferences, or human needs.

You are just a peg to be fitted into an appropriately-sized government hole.

And having none of those aforesaid ambitions, preferences, or needs, you will be satisfied with whatever amount of money you have and/or receive.

So, if you are a buffer-stock person formerly making $50,000 a year, and the government was to pay you $30,000 a year, you will be satisfied, and not work to earn even more. At least, that is the belief of MMT and others with similar views.

California construction firm buys Lunda Construction
Highway construction worker: Median pay: $45,940 per year

And that is why MMT suggests its Jobs Guarantee.

Rather than having the government simply give you money, MMT et al would give you a minimum wage job, that you may or may not (probably, not) like, to prevent you and the other lazy slugs from just lolling about, doing nothing but collecting the dole.

The MMT rationale is that having any job, even a crap job, will look good on your resume, and help you find a job.

Puleeeze! I personally have hired hundreds of people, and never have found that make-work on a resume was more attractive than no-work.

Quite the opposite.

The myth of the lazy poor is rampant and ignores the reality that pay scales tend to be inverse to effort or benefit to society.

The laziest people on earth probably are the billionaires who resent having to walk, drive, lift, wash a dish, make a bed, set an appointment, wait in a line, fill out a form, or rear a child.

For those rich, their primary contribution to society is to give falsely appreciated property to charity, thereby gaining more in tax deductions than the cost of the property. (Hello, Donald Trump, who hasn’t paid taxes in most of the past 20 years).

These entitled few are given tax breaks that allow them to pay little or nothing against millions or even billions of annual income.

Yet there is annoyance, even among your fellow buffer-stocks, when a poor person receives any sort of free ride. Taking a few dollars in food stamps receives sneers even from the middle classes.

When there is a mention of Step 3. of the Ten Steps to Prosperity (below) [Provide a monthly economic bonus to every man, woman and child in America, similar to social security for all], there is heard in our land, plaintive moans, “Who will pick up our garbage; who will pave our streets; who will mow our lawns, who will do the dirty work the rest of us can’t bear to touch?”

The whole notion of the “buffer-stock” not caring to earn more and lift their standard of living is demeaning, ridiculous, and ignorant.

BUT, let’s say it’s true. Let’s say that if you simply give all those road construction workers the equivalent of their salary, and they decide not to work, what would happen?

First, it would stimulate the economy. When state and local governments pay bills, they use existing, recirculated dollars. No stimulus there.

But when the federal government pays bills, it uses newly created dollars, which increases the nation’s money supply and stimulates Gross Domestic Product.

Second, there would be a shortage of road construction workers, which would lift their salaries, and that would narrow the Gap between the richer and the poorer. A narrow Gap benefits the masses, which should be both a moral and economic goal of any nation.

In Summary, people are not “buffer-stock.” They are humans with hopes and dreams for themselves and their children. Whatever they have, they want more.

If unemployed people need money, give them money, not junk jobs.

Don’t pretend it is morally unsavory to do for the poor exactly what the government does for the rich. The less affluent need money, so give them money.

The inverse relationship between effort and reward is an abomination. If being given money means fewer people will accept junk jobs, good.

That will help force employers to make the jobs less “junky.” Work environments will improve and the pay will increase. Those are good results.

Every man, woman, and child in America should receive Social Security, and the benefits themselves should be increased. The result would be greater economic growth and a narrower Gap between the richer and the rest.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

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

THE SOLE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT IS TO IMPROVE AND PROTECT THE LIVES OF THE PEOPLE.

The most important problems in economics involve:

Ten Steps To Prosperity:

  1. Eliminate FICA
  2. Federally funded Medicare — parts A, B & D, plus long-term care — for everyone
  3. Social Security for all or a reverse income tax
  4. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone
  5. Salary for attending school
  6. Eliminate federal taxes on business
  7. Increase the standard income tax deduction, annually. 
  8. Tax the very rich (the “.1%”) more, with higher progressive tax rates on all forms of income.
  9. Federal ownership of all banks
  10. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99.9% 

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

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

The monstrous Supreme Court myth of “originalism”

What is the purpose of the Supreme Court?

That simple question has no simple answer, and the Constitution is mostly silent about it.

Here are some not-so-simple answers:

The best-known power of the Supreme Court is judicial review, or the ability of the Court to declare a Legislative or Executive act in violation of the Constitution, is not found within the text of the Constitution itself.

The Court established this doctrine in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803).strict teacher | Yogi Mehtab

Thus, in 1803, the Supreme Court arbitrarily decided what its power will be.

That circular reasoning gives the Court whatever power it wishes to exercise on any given day.

(Remember the words, “not found within the text of the Constitution itself.” We’ll return to those words later.)

If you were a justice on the Supreme Court, how would you judge cases? Would you judge according to your interpretation of”

  1. the plain, 1780s language in the Constitution?
  2. the words of the Constitution as they are used, today?
  3. what the framers of the Constitution meant in the 1780s?
  4. what the framers would have meant had they known about today’s realities?
  5. what you believe is best for America, today?

Today, as the Senate “debates” the fitness of Amy Coney Barrett, these questions become important.

Here is what Judge Barrett claims to believe:

Much of the hearing focused on such matters as Barrett’s judicial philosophy of Constitutional “originalism” and “textualism.”

She believes the Constitution should be interpreted with the original intent of the founding fathers in mind and statutes should be interpreted in accordance with the actual words or “text” used by legislators.

Judges should not impose their own policy beliefs to advance changing cultural norms.

Perhaps she thinks this is what she believes. Perhaps this is an honest answer, but I doubt it, for it is a lie.

Begin with the fact that the founding fathers did not know of today’s science: electronics, atomic energy, weapons of mass destruction, medicine.

Add to that the fact that 1780’s morality is quite different from today’s, especially with regard to women, people of color, and children.

By today’s standards, the founding fathers were blatant, selfish bigots, who believed that they were superior human beings, and the rest of us were inferior.

And add to that the fact that yesterday’s words often mean something quite different, today.

There is not a single paragraph, not a single sentence or word in the Constitution, that is not subject to interpretation.

Let us parse, for instance, just one sentence in the Constitution, the 2nd Amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

A well regulated: How “well” is well? How is “well” to be evaluated and who does the evaluation? Specifically, what is meant by “regulated”? Whose regulations must be followed — city, county, state, or federal?

Militia: What is a “militia”? Is it the U.S. army? Is it the National Guard? Is it the state police, county police, city or village police? Or is it some other, unidentified group, and if so, what are its powers?

being necessary: This phrase can mean “is necessary,” or it can be conditional, as in “when a well-regulated militia is necessary,

to the security of: What exactly does “security” mean? Does it have to do with foreigners who might attack us? Or does it refer to internal security from lawbreakers? Or does it have to do with individuals’ protection from an unfair government?

Currently, the United States, depending on interpretation, does not have any well-regulated militias, and if such are “necessary, we are not . . .

. . . .a free State,:  What then, is a “free state.” Free from what? Every law that ever has been, or ever will be passed, diminishes in some way, some citizen’s freedom, though it may enhance others’.

Not only are all of these words debatable, but just within the past few years, the entire 13-word phrase has been effectively eliminated.

We now come to the only part of the Amendment that has been left intact.

the right of the people: Which people? Does this include children of any age? Criminals? Non-citizens? And where can this “right” be exercised? In Congress? In a court of law? In jail? On the street?

to keep and bear: Where does “keep” mean? In a house? In a safety-deposit, bank vault? In a pocket? And where may one bear an Arm? In one’s hand? In one’s clothing? In one’s car?

Arms: What are “arms”? Atomic bombs? Fighter planes? Cannons? Machine guns? Poison gas? Tanks? Or does “Arms” include only what the founders knew about (i.e. “intended”): Swords? Muskets? Flintlock pistols?

shall not be infringed. Currently, “infringe” means to limit or undermine. So does this phrase mean there are to be no limits at all?

When Amy Coney Barrett claims she will follow “original intent” and the “actual words,” she either is lying or is naive, or both. She will do exactly what she claims she will not do: She will advance her own policy beliefs according to her own view of cultural norms.

Barrett, and other so-called originalists, like to paint themselves as innocent, blank slates, whose only information comes from the indisputable words of the Constitution.

They use the “I-can’t-help-it; that’s-what-the-Constitution-says” (or doesn’t say) excuse for doing exactly what they want to do.

Here is an example of that devious, originalist thinking:

Justice Clarence Thomas, who rarely speaks at all, issued a joint statement with Justice Samuel Alito, that the Court’s 2015 ruling “read a right to same-sex marriage…even though that right is found nowhere in the text” of the Constitution.

He wrote it had “ruinous consequences for religious liberty” of those who might object.

Justice Thomas, who has spent his inferior career denying he is black, now uses the “nowhere to be found in the text” line as his excuse for ruling that his own religion‘s interpretations of civil law are to be found in the text.

(Remember, that the purpose of the Supreme Court itself is “nowhere to be found in the text,” so is Justice Thomas issuing a defacto objection to all his rulings?)

Despite related references in the Constitution, Thomas apparently believes religious dogma trumps the law.

There is a widespread notion, especially strong among conservatives, that Justices should not create new law. Rather, law-making is to be left to Congress and to the President.

Supposedly then, the Supreme Court should pretend America remains in the 17th Century, pretend to ignore the real world around them, and pretend to be robots who, without compassion, mercy, or care, judge only as our omniscient founding fathers would have judged.

Originalism is a myth, a monstrous myth, perpetuated through the years by an overly Christian, overly white, overly male, overly old Court. It is a myth that has excused and created numerous cruel, thoughtless legal opinions that have devastated millions of American lives.

The originalists sit on high, looking down, both literally and figuratively, divorced from the human needs of real people, and coldly rendering decisions destined to inflict pain.

I do not respect the “originalists” on the Court. They are callous, heartless, cold-blooded, archaic machines, who have forgotten the fundamental purpose of government: To improve the lives of the people.

Originalists are the strict disciplinarian, “anti-Ginsburgs” of our generation.

Amy Coney Barrett may be an intelligent woman, but without compassion she has no reason being put in a position of such power.

We only can pray, the harm she does will be short-lived and soon forgotten.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

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

THE SOLE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT IS TO IMPROVE AND PROTECT THE LIVES OF THE PEOPLE.

The most important problems in economics involve:

Ten Steps To Prosperity:

  1. Eliminate FICA
  2. Federally funded Medicare — parts A, B & D, plus long-term care — for everyone
  3. Social Security for all or a reverse income tax
  4. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone
  5. Salary for attending school
  6. Eliminate federal taxes on business
  7. Increase the standard income tax deduction, annually. 
  8. Tax the very rich (the “.1%”) more, with higher progressive tax rates on all forms of income.
  9. Federal ownership of all banks
  10. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99.9% 

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

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Planned Parenthood vs. Guns. Which do you favor? Which do you oppose? The very odd paradoxes.

Zygote - Wikipedia
Zygote: At this stage a human being?

.

Objections to abortion come in two “flavors.” The moral objection is that the fetus is a living human being, and anything done to terminate a fetus is murder.

This question devolves to timing. When does a human life begin?

Is an egg a human being? Most people would say, “No,” although the human egg, the largest cell in the body, contains almost everything required to make a human; the sperm, the smallest cell in the body, adds very little.

Is a human created the moment the egg is fertilized? Is a human created the moment a heartbeat can be detected?

Or when the fetus reacts to some stimulus — touch, sound, chemical? At what point during the pregnancy should the termination of a fetus be considered the murder of a human being?

Or, does human life begin only when the fetus emerges?

Despite the fury with which those questions are debated, there is no “right” answer. You can argue and present evidence until you turn blue, and you will not be able to prove anything. It’s all subjective.

We don’t even know how to define life, let alone determine when or if the end of a fetus should be defined as “murder.”

The other “flavor” is religious. Religions have rules that are couched in “morality,” but often have very little moral theme. Attending mass, eating kosher, covering your head, protecting the Qur’an, are not moral conscripts. They merely are religious rules, arbitrarily changeable, more akin to club rules than to morality.

Abortion is not even mentioned in the Old or New Testaments or in the Qur’an, though religious scholars have debated abortion for at least two thousand years, perhaps longer:.

Laws that prohibit absolutely the practice of abortion are a relatively recent development.

In the early Roman Catholic church, abortion was permitted for male fetuses in the first 40 days of pregnancy and for female fetuses in the first 80-90 days.

Not until 1588 did Pope Sixtus V declare all abortion murder, with excommunication as the punishment.

Only 3 years later a new pope found the absolute sanction unworkable and again allowed early abortions. 300 years would pass before the Catholic church under Pius IX again declared all abortion murder.

In 1920 the Soviet Union became the 1st modern state formally to legalize abortion.

In the early period after the 1917 revolution, abortion was readily available in state operated facilities. These facilities were closed and abortion made illegal when it became clear that the Soviet Union would have to defend itself against Nazi Germany.

After World War II women were encouraged to enter the labor force, and abortion once again became legal.

Strangely, some people even object to the use of condoms, which seems to indicate they believe a sperm is a human being. Others object to “the pill,”  indicating the egg itself must be considered a human.

In sum, abortion laws have little to do with morals or with god. They are man-made (as opposed to woman-made) rules related to genital power and national interests.

I mention all this because of an odd paradox.

Consider Planned Parenthood. It is an organization reviled by some because it provides abortions. But it also:

“. . . provides a wide range of confidential, safe, expert health care. The majority of Planned Parenthood’s services are preventive: care that helps prevent unintended pregnancies with birth control and sex education, reduce the spread of STDs through testing and treatment, and screen for cervical, breast, and other cancers.”

Think of Planned Parenthood as a tool people can use, not only to end pregnancies, but to prevent pregnancies, and to educate themselves about many aspects of human reproduction and health. In this sense, Planned Parenthood does not abort; people abort.

Why do I phrase it that way? Because of guns, and the oft-heard defense of guns: “Guns don’t kill; people kill.”

There are several reasons why people own guns: For self-protection, for sport, to prevent and commit crimes. Guns are but a tool, the primary purpose of which is to threaten or kill. As a tool, the purpose of a gun is determined by the user.

So here we have two tools, Planned Parenthood and guns, that are tools, and as tools, their use is not determined by the tool but by the user.

The purposes of Planned Parenthood primarily are educational and self-protection, and secondarily to kill. The purposes of guns secondarily are entertainment and self-protection, but primarily to threaten and kill.

A real weirdness is revealed when you realize that the people who most avidly defend guns often are the same people who most avidly oppose Planned Parenthood. 

Another interesting thought: Those people who favor guns, while opposing Planned Parenthood, seem to care nothing about the aftermaths.

That is, what do gun owners do about people who have been shot?

What care is provided by, for instance, the National Rifle Association (NRA) or any gun-owner group, for the people who survive a shooting, but are left with horrible disabilities, disfigurements, and terrible pain? What care is provided by gun owners for the families of people who are shot?

Similarly, what care is provided by abortion opponents, for unwanted children who sadly often suffer a lifetime of parental neglect? What care do pro-lifers provide to impoverished parents trying to care for those unwanted children? What care do anti-abortionists provide to mothers whose health is damaged by an unwanted pregnancy?

Ironically, it is the abortion providers, not the abortion opponents, who are more active in “sex education, reducing the spread of STDs through testing and treatment, and screening for cervical, breast, and other cancers.”

NRA Applauds Barrett. As a “pro-lifer” she opposes abortion, yet she favors anti-life guns. 

Guns and Planned Parenthood: So different, yet oddly parallel, like two trains on adjacent tracks, running in opposite directions.

Do you favor all types of guns? Do you oppose Planned Parenthood?

Why?

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

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

THE SOLE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT IS TO IMPROVE AND PROTECT THE LIVES OF THE PEOPLE.

The most important problems in economics involve:

Ten Steps To Prosperity:

  1. Eliminate FICA
  2. Federally funded Medicare — parts A, B & D, plus long-term care — for everyone
  3. Social Security for all or a reverse income tax
  4. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone
  5. Salary for attending school
  6. Eliminate federal taxes on business
  7. Increase the standard income tax deduction, annually. 
  8. Tax the very rich (the “.1%”) more, with higher progressive tax rates on all forms of income.
  9. Federal ownership of all banks
  10. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99.9% 

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

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

When did stupidity become courage, and following science become weakness?

A bit of personal history: My wife, the true leader of our family, would warn our daughters, “Don’t go without your jacket. If it rains you’ll get wet and cold.”

So, of course, when my children went without their jackets, it did rain and they did get wet and cold.

This sort of thing happened so frequently that the warnings became known as “The Voice Of Mother.” Over time my daughters learned this lesson: Ignore mother’s warnings at your own peril.

The point is, after a few such lessons, these young girls did learn, and they stopped ignoring the Voice Of Mother. In fact, they sought out her advice for important decisions, which they, now as adults, still do.

Learning is what you expect from intelligent adults. And that is what you also expect from a leader.

Today, we are caught in a pandemic. More than 200,000 people have died, and perhaps double that number probably will have died by year’s end.

There are several steps intelligent people can take to reduce their chances of enduring COVID-19, but if we were to rank them, the single most effective would be for everyone to wear a face-covering — a mask.

The second most effective method is social distancing — keeping a least 8-12 feet away from anyone whose lack of contagiousness is not known for certain.

So one can ask two questions: Why are these people in the Rose Garden not wearing masks or social distancing, and why is their leader encouraging them not to wear masks and not to social distance?

Notre Dame student: Father Jenkins, Trump failed COVID-19 leadership test - Business Insider
September 26, 2020: Rose Garden Ceremony introducing Amy Coney Barrett. Nearly none of the people wore masks. Why?

.

White House declines to conduct contact tracing for Rose Garden event: NYT - Business Insider
Following the ceremony, the maskless people stood close to each other, spoke right into each other’s faces — even embraced. Why?
Trump Pays Mussolini-Like Attention to His Own Image - The Atlantic
Later, President Trump, now having been diagnosed and treated for COVID-19, left the hospital, and in a dramatic scene, fearlessly exited a helicopter, bravely mounted White House steps, and heroically posed on the balcony. There, he valiantly removed his mask, and without isolation or quarantine, bravely marched into the White House, gallantly to infect the workers. Why?

By October 10, 2020, at least 35 people had become infected by the virus, as a result of the Rose Garden event. It has become known as a “superspreader.”

Returning to the questions: Why are these people not wearing masks or social distancing, and why is their leader encouraging them not to wear masks and not to social distance?

VP Pence’s rationale: “President Trump and I trust the American people to make choices in the best interests of their health.”

Nonsense. Pence says what Trump want him to say, and Trump does not trust anyone. That “choices in the best interests” lie is just another way of saying, “We super-heroes are too tough for COVID, so do as we tell you. Go without masks to prove how macho you are.”

Intelligent people learn from experts and from experience, neither of which is named “Trump” or “Pence.”

Vice Presidential Debate Highlights: Kamala Harris rips Trump over Covid as Pence hits Biden on taxes, court | World News,The Indian Express
Prior to the debate between Mike Pence and Kamala Harris, Pence strongly objected to having plexiglass barriers installed between participants. Pence finally relented, but his spokeswoman Katie Miller sneered: “If Sen. Harris wants to use a fortress around herself, have at it.” Miller herself tested positive for the virus in May.

Ironically, Pence is the head of the White House Coronavirus Task Force.

Question: Why are these people not wearing masks or social distancing?

Answer: They are political lemmings. They will follow their leader over a cliff, for no other reason than he tells them to. They have surrendered their own decision-making to that of the leader.   This is comparable to the actions of mindless cult members.

Why has their leader, Donald Trump, discouraged mask-wearing and social distancing?

Answer: Donald Trump is emotionally week and morally spineless. As a proven psychopath, he needs continual ego reinforcement, which is why he is so frightened about appearing weak in any way.

Being both physically and morally flabby, Trump likes to pretend he is tough, despite his famous bone-spurs.

At various times, Trump has befriended or complimented the leader of the KKK, white supremacists, North Korean dictator, Kim, Philippine dictator, Duterte, and Russia’s dictator, Putin. Whether he owes money to Putin, or hopes Putin will sponsor a Trump Moscow, he clearly has become Putin’s handmaiden.

I have news for the Trumps and the Pences of the world. The majority of America is not impressed. Intelligent people understand that stupidity is not courage, and following science is not a weakness.

You may be able to bully refugees at our border, or cheat your employees at Trump casinos, but the American people are onto you.

Soon, your foolish, false bravado will earn you a jail cell and/or a Darwin Award.

Meanwhile, don’t take the country down with you.

And we end with this bit of unhinged ranting. Listen to what President Unfit-To-Be-President says:

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

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

THE SOLE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT IS TO IMPROVE AND PROTECT THE LIVES OF THE PEOPLE.

The most important problems in economics involve:

Ten Steps To Prosperity:

  1. Eliminate FICA
  2. Federally funded Medicare — parts A, B & D, plus long-term care — for everyone
  3. Social Security for all or a reverse income tax
  4. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone
  5. Salary for attending school
  6. Eliminate federal taxes on business
  7. Increase the standard income tax deduction, annually. 
  8. Tax the very rich (the “.1%”) more, with higher progressive tax rates on all forms of income.
  9. Federal ownership of all banks
  10. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99.9% 

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

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY