Dumb Donald and the Foxconn con.

Regular readers of this blog may remember our post of more than two years ago, Who put the “con” in WisCONsin? Foxconn, that’s who Friday, Sep 15, 2017.

It was followed many months later by our post, How Trump got outfoxed and conned by Foxconn, Thursday, Jan 31,  2019.

And it was followed by our post, Oh, Wisconsin. The Foxconn, GOP con continues. Friday, Oct 25, 2019.

Well, here’s the latest part of the story:

CRONY CAPITALISM
Study Says Foxconn Deal Cost Wisconsin $20 Billion in Lost Economic Growth
Once again, government-subsidized projects fail to deliver
VERONIQUE DE RUGY | January 9, 2020

In June 2018, President Donald Trump attended the groundbreaking ceremony for a Foxconn factory in Wisconsin.

Ever exuberant in his comments, he called the project the “eighth wonder of the world” and “one of the great deals, ever.”

Always a bragger, his praise was directed at himself for orchestrating the use of state subsidies and tax credits to bring the Taiwanese multinational electronics company to Wisconsin for it to manufacture high-resolution LCD screens.

You should know that the author, Veronique de Rugy, according to her own biography:

“Veronique de Rugy is a Senior Research Fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University and a nationally syndicated columnist.

“Her primary research interests include the US economy, the federal budget, homeland security, taxation, tax competition, and financial privacy.

“Her popular weekly charts, published by the Mercatus Center, address economic issues ranging from lessons on creating sustainable economic growth to the implications of government tax and fiscal policies.

She has testified numerous times in front of Congress on the effects of fiscal stimulus, debt and deficits, and regulation on the economy.” 

And like the rest of the people at the Mercatus Center, she has zero understanding of Monetary Sovereignty, the financial differences between state vs. federal deficits and debt.

Further, Trump is a lousy business operator, who has destroyed many businesses, with numerous bankruptcies, and has made most of his money passively, by lending his name to businesses run by people who actually know how.

Image result for trump foxconn
February 1, 2019: Foxconn says it is returning to its plan to build a new plant in Wisconsin following an appeal from President  Trump.

To make this deal happen, the state legislature offered a subsidy package of $4.5 billion, mostly in direct cash payments, and lower-priced land acquired through eminent domain.

In exchange, Foxconn promised to create more than 13,000 middle-class manufacturing jobs, a revived manufacturing sector and loads of tax revenue—the combination of which was projected to produce economic returns ranging from $39 billion to $78 billion over the next 15 years.

If these returns sound like a great deal, you’ve been conned.

You had read all of the above in the above-mentioned posts, as early as September, 2017.

A year and a half after Trump paraded at the site with his golden shovel, the reality isn’t as bright.

Before the ceremony, Foxconn announced that the factory would ultimately be smaller than the one initially promised.

It would also be highly automated, with almost all of the assembly work done by robots, and would only require 3,000 employees—90 percent of them “knowledge workers” such as engineers, programmers, and designers.

There’s nothing wrong with such a modern factory, except that it’s not what Trump and other government officials thought they were buying with taxpayers’ money.

Unlike federal spending, the dollars for which are created out of thin air, at the touch of a computer key, state and local spending is indeed funded by taxpayers.

All things considered, the Foxconn fiasco cost every man, woman, and child in Wisconsin something like $4 thousand each, and about $100,000 per new job –assuming even those relatively few jobs materialize.

An by the way, Wisconsinites, the citizens of Illinois thank you, because a large percentage of the jobs will be taken by residents of nearby Chicago. And it didn’t cost Illinois one cent.

And what about the promised economic growth? Even under the deal’s original terms, there’s no way it would have produced much growth.

That’s because, as is often the case, the original projections offered by economic development consultants only considered the expected benefits from the subsidies; the costs were ignored.

In the real world, however, these subsidies don’t fall from the sky. Every single cent comes from additional taxes paid by actual people. When you consider these costs, the economic outlook for the project dims quite a bit.

And that is why you will see Donald Trump nowhere in the vicinity of the site. He is very big on taking credit, even for things he hasn’t done, but he never, ever will admit to being wrong.

In a recent paper on the issue, my Mercatus Center colleagues Matthew Mitchell and Michael Farren did the math and found that “the $3.6 billion in taxes needed to fund the subsidies will likely decrease Wisconsin’s long-run GDP by about $20 billion over the 15-year life of the handout.

And this estimate doesn’t include the local utility infrastructure, and federal subsidies that total another $1.4 billion.” These numbers are harder to sell to taxpayers than the la-la land ones we hear about before every big subsidy deal.

The Wisconsin Republicans, who foisted this deal on the people of Wisconsin, apparently were incapable of, or loathe to, “do the math.”

Many might have assumed that this particular deal was going to be a disaster because it was orchestrated by Trump and Scott Walker, Wisconsin’s Republican governor at the time.

Yes, it’s true that our current president believes in economic engineering and cronyism—which is another way to describe this kind of deal.

Trump has failed elsewhere when trying to spark growth with subsidies. Take, for instance, the Carrier air conditioner plant in Indianapolis, which received large state handouts under Trump’s pressure, only to end up laying off hundreds of workers.

And so, it would be a mistake to assume that this debacle is specific to Trump or to Foxconn.

It might be a mistake “to assume that this debacle is specific to Trump,” except for the fact that the creator of Trump University and Trump Foundation has the unfailing ability to surround himself with the most dishonest and incompetent people:

Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, HUD Secretary Ben Carson, Campaign manager Paul Manafort, Deputy campaign manager Rick Gates, National security adviser Michael Flynn, Personal lawyer Michael Cohen, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, mobster Salvatore Testa, mobster Fat Tony Salerno, Roger Stone, Jeffrey Epstein, Secretary of Labor Alexander Acosta, Trump Campaign Foreign Policy Adviser George Papadopoulos, and Konstantin Kilimnik.

You might wonder how I, a relative stranger to the project, easily was able to foretell its failure, while the team of Trump/ Walker couldn’t.

Easy. Given Trump’s lack of common and business sense, and Walker’s dubious achievements, their assurances about the project were bound to be wrong.

A new paper in the Journal of Economic Perspectives by Cailin Slattery of Columbia University and Owen Zidar of Princeton University looks at state and local business tax incentives and finds yet again that narrow, firm-specific tax breaks aimed at attracting businesses and boosting employment aren’t the way to go.

The study shows that the largest deals benefit the recipients, but not the overall state economy.

Lower-income states also tend to be more generous with their handouts, only to jack up the cost per job created, sometimes up to as much as $400,000 per job.

Unfortunately, a slogan like “subsidized projects aren’t worth the money you pay for them” doesn’t make for a great sound bite at ribbon-cutting ceremonies.

Now we shall see whether the good citizens of Wisconsin, who were among those supporting Trump at the last Presidential election, are smart enough to stop supporting a man who conned them into an expensive, worthless project.

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

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

The most important problems in economics involve:

  1. Monetary Sovereignty describes money creation and destruction.
  2. Gap Psychology describes the common desire to distance oneself from those “below” in any socio-economic ranking, and to come nearer those “above.” The socio-economic distance is referred to as “The Gap.”

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 Monetary Sovereignty and The Ten Steps To Prosperity can grow the economy and narrow the Gaps:

Ten Steps To Prosperity:

1. Eliminate FICA

2. Federally funded Medicare — parts A, B & D, plus long-term care — for everyone

3. Provide a monthly economic bonus to every man, woman and child in America (similar to social security for all)

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

As though there was not already enough evidence, here is more.

[People tend to support those who are like them.
Blacks are more likely to support blacks; Jews are more likely to support Jews; Latinos are more likely to support Latinos; and stupid, immoral, close-minded, bigoted liars are more likely to support stupid, close-minded, immoral, bigoted liars.
T
he fact that New Yorkers don’t support New Yorker, Donald Trump, tells it all.]

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

As though there was not already enough evidence, here is more.

New Evidence Shows Pressure Campaign Started Earlier With Prior Ukraine Prez
By Josh Kovensky, February 5, 2020 4:05 p.m.

As the Senate votes to acquit President Trump over his bid to extort the Ukrainian government into providing him with domestic political help, TPM has new evidence suggesting that the pressure campaign came far closer to succeeding and at an earlier stage than was previously known.

Months before President Trump pressured Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky to open investigations during the infamous July 25 phone call, henchmen working for his attorney nearly succeeded in doing the same with the previous Ukrainian leader.

  Hannity and “news” friends.

Text messages obtained by TPM show that former Ukraine President Petro Poroshenko was scheduled to announce investigations into the Bidens and the 2016 election to John Solomon of The Hill in March 2019.

Ultimately, Poroshenko backed out of the interview at the last minute.

The plan was for an investigation of the Bidens to be announced to right-wing “news”man, John Solomon.

Clearly, the motivation for such an announcement was a political plum for Trump, and had nothing to do with American security.

The planned appearance came in the wake of a late February meeting that the then-Ukrainian leader held with Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, in which they offered what Parnas has described as a “quid pro quo” on behalf of Rudy Giuliani and his client, President Trump: announce investigations into the Bidens and the 2016 election, and receive in return a state visit to the U.S. that could bolster Poroshenko’s re-election chances.

It was, quite simply, a plot involving a foreign government to skew the American elections. The GOP sees nothing wrong with this.

Poroshenko’s planned appearance suggests that he had, at least initially, agreed to the deal, before backing out.

It also highlights that the campaign to turn Ukraine into a domestic political bludgeon for Trump began far earlier than Giuliani’s aborted May 2019 dirt-digging trip to Kyiv.

“This was not just the July 25 call, it was a months-long scheme, or effort, or whatever you wanna call it put together by the President, Giuliani, and others,” Parnas told TPM in a telephone interview with his attorney Joseph A. Bondy.

It took Trump and Giuliani months of pressure to convince Poroshenko’s successor, Zelensky, to agree to a TV news appearance,w on CNN in September. Zelensky also backed out at the last minute. e

Trump, Giuliani, and Parnas had the entire show scripted. Trump’s “perfect” phone call came near the end of the plot.

Parnas sent Poroshenko’s press secretary a list of questions ahead of the planned interview: “this will be questions,” Parnas said in an accompanying text.

The questions, obtained by TPM, goad Poroshenko into describing the allegations that Trump would later want Zelensky to investigate.

The questions cover two distinct topics: allegations that Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch was bad-mouthing President Trump in Kyiv and allegations that Joe Biden had abused his position to have a Ukrainian prosecutor fired in a bid to protect his son Hunter Biden from an investigation.

One question on the Yovanovitch portion appears to reference a May 2018 letter sent by Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX)to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, demanding the ambassador’s removal.

Even GOP members of Congress were in on the scheme.

“I recently was shown a letter from a member of Congress who suggested Ambassador YO-van-NO-witch was saying derogatory things about president Trump. Do you have any evidence that has happened?” the question reads.

The line of questions about the Bidens conclude in the following sequence:

“Did VP Biden have an interest personally in the prosecutor’s office and its activities?” “Was the VP’s son and his company Barisma Holdings under investigation and how serious were the allegations?” “What happened to that case after the vice president’s intervention?”

The scheme was planned so closely, that even the sequence of questions was predetermined.

Parnas told TPM that Solomon formulated the questions. The topics do not cover allegations of Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election — a right-wing hobbyhorse raised on Trump’s call with Zelensky, and a story in which Poroshenko is supposedly implicated.

Parnas’ allegations about the Poroshenko pressure campaign are supported by contemporaneous Russian-language texts between Parnas and Yuriy Lutsenko, Ukraine’s prosecutor general at the time.

A series of texts beginning in early March shows Parnas attempting to arrange the Poroshenko interview through Lutsenko, who was present at the February meeting in Kyiv.

The House Intelligence Committee released the texts the week before the Senate began the third impeachment trial in U.S. history. Parnas supplied the panel with the texts after receiving them from Manhattan federal prosecutors as discovery in his criminal campaign finance case.

That information was ignored by the GOP-led Senate,

On March 8, Parnas sent Lutsenko the names of Solomon and Fox News’ Sean Hannity along with a March 5 Washington Post article that took a critical look at “the feedback loop between Fox News and the Oval Office.”

When a news medium is in cahoots with politicians, to set up a political story on behalf of a political party, it no longer is a news medium. It is a lobbying organization masquerading as a news medium.

In response to the messages, Lutsenko began to complain about Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch and the State Department’s support for her as a response.

But then, Parnas told Lutsenko, using a diminutive for Yuriy, that, “Yura, we’re aware of everything.”

“Try to do an interview tomorrow at one,” Parnas added, apparently referring to an interview that Lutsenko later had with Solomon.

Lutsenko replied that he would try to call, and then wrote that an unnamed person “will definitely be in the Administration,” apparently referring to the Presidential Administration, which houses Ukraine’s executive offices. “I will try to connect you earlier.”

One minute later, Parnas wrote “and be sure that this will be a friendly interview with the President of Ukraine, a state partner of America !!!” Parnas added in a later text that “we will try to agree that that they do an interview with you tomorrow as well.”

Parnas wrote that “we are now in the [studio] and will now call the President’s secretary.” He followed up with screenshots of what appeared to be Solomon interviewing Nazar Kholodnytsky, a Ukrainian prosecutor whose firing Yovanovitch demanded.

TPM obtained texts between Parnas and Darya Khudakova, Poroshenko’s foreign media press secretary.

In the March 8 exchange, Khudyakova asked Parnas if it would be possible to schedule an interview that Tsegolko had made her “responsible to negotiate.”

Khudyakova described the interview to Parnas as “an important moment for us.”

Parnas sent her an image showing a document with the list of questions, covering allegations against both Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch and Joe Biden.

Khudyakova told Parnas that she received the questions, and initially agreed to have Poroshenko do the interview on Monday, March 11, after Parnas proposed the day.

But something happened in the intervening time, and Poroshenko called it off.

Lutsenko told Parnas “these are not questions for an acting President — in the heat of the campaign he cannot respond to questions about the ambassador, Biden, etc.”

Khudyakova wrote to Parnas on the day that the interview was supposed to be held that “it seems that a probability of interview with the President late tonight today is very unlikely.”

It would appear from the texts that Poroshenko’s team chose at the last minute to walk away from the interview, perhaps sensing it unwise.

Or, as Lutsenko wrote a few days later, “I’m ready to screw your competitor, but you just want more.”

It would appear from the context that Lutsenko is referring to “Biden” as the “competitor,” but it’s unclear from the text itself.

Could it be any clearer? They were after Biden, and there was no talk of Ukraine “corruption,” as the White House claimed.

Trump saw how well the threat of an FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton worked. He wanted to use the same ploy on Biden.

Interestingly, a proposed FBI investigation of Trump would not have the same effect, because everyone already knows he is a liar and a crook — and his cult followers don’t care.

But Lutsenko himself eventually spoke to Solomon and got his end of the deal, or at least part of it: Yovanovitch was removed from her post as ambassador in late April, and formally removed from Kyiv in early May.

Lutsenko told Bloomberg in a May 16 interview after Yovanovitch’s departure that there was no evidence to suggest wrongdoing on Biden’s part.

“I do not want Ukraine to again be the subject of U.S. presidential elections,” Lutsenko told Bloomberg. “Hunter Biden did not violate any Ukrainian laws — at least as of now, we do not see any wrongdoing.”

To Trump supporters, none of the above means anything. Trump indeed could shoot someone on 5th Ave. and not lose any of his evangelical followers.

Jim Jones, American cult leader promised his followers a utopia after proclaiming himself messiah of the Peoples Temple, an evangelist group.

He ultimately led his followers into a mass suicide, which left more than 900 dead.

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

Only 450 words answer the question, “Does printing money cause inflation?”

Does “printing” money cause inflation? Or is so-called “printing” money the best way to cure inflation?

1. The federal government does not print money. It prints
Federal Reserve Notes (FRN), which are not dollars, but rather are bearer certificates: Titles to dollars.

Only a small percentage of dollars are represented by FRNs.

2. Dollars are balance sheet numbers. They have no physical existence. You cannot feel, see, hear, smell, or taste dollars.

3. The government, being Monetarily Sovereign, has the unlimited ability to create dollars. The government never unintentionally can run short of dollars.

4. Printing FRNs does not cause inflations. The reverse is true. The printing of FRNs results from inflations.

5. The cause of inflations — a general increase in prices — is shortages, generally scarcities of energy and/or food.

Scarcity causes prices to rise, and widespread scarcities of food and/or oil, cause widespread price increases.

6. Federal deficit spending actually can prevent or cure inflations, if the spending cures the shortages.

Case in point: Zimbabwe’s inflation came when its government seized farmland from farmers and gave it to non-farmers, who could not grow enough food.

The resultant food shortage caused hyperinflation, which the government could have cured by deficit spending to purchase food from other countries.

The graph below compares changes in the U.S. money supply (Green – M3) to changes in inflation (red).

Changes in M3 (green) are NOT predictive of changes in prices (red).

The graph below compares changes in the price of oil (blue) (which closely reflect shortages) to changes in inflation. (red).

Changes in the price of oil ((blue — which closely reflect supply changes) ARE predictive of inflation.

The graph below compares the overall Consumer Price Index (Red) to the price index of food and energy (gold). Food and energy prices (which reflect availability) are predictive of overall inflation.

Food and energy inflation (gold) IS predictive of overall inflation (red).

Discussion of federal projects generally lead to the question, “How will you pay for it.” The correct answer never is, “by raising taxes” or “by cutting other spending.”

The correct answer always is, via federal deficit spending.

In summary:
Prices rise (inflation) because of scarcity, usually a scarcity of food and/or energy. Curing the scarcity reduces prices.

Scarcity can be cured by federal deficit spending to purchase the scarce items and distribute them into the economy.

The amount of deficit spending is not the key to inflation or its cure. The key is how the deficit spending is used.

Deficit spending, to purchase the scarce items, cures inflations. Poorly directed deficit spending that does not cure the scarcity, will worsen inflation.

A Monetarily Sovereign government cannot run short of the sovereign currency needed to cure an inflation.

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

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

The most important problems in economics involve:

  1. Monetary Sovereignty describes money creation and destruction.
  2. Gap Psychology describes the common desire to distance oneself from those “below” in any socio-economic ranking, and to come nearer those “above.” The socio-economic distance is referred to as “The Gap.”

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 Monetary Sovereignty and The Ten Steps To Prosperity can grow the economy and narrow the Gaps:

Ten Steps To Prosperity:

1. Eliminate FICA

2. Federally funded Medicare — parts A, B & D, plus long-term care — for everyone

3. Provide a monthly economic bonus to every man, woman and child in America (similar to social security for all)

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

I just received an advertisement for Trumpcare. Should I join?

I just received an advertisement for Trumpcare. Should I join?

The advertisement was in the form of an Email. It came with a nice logo, featuring a symbolic American flag, and looked quite official.

It resembles what I might receive from a federal agency:

Trumpcare logo.png

Alas, like all things associated with Donald Trump, Trumpcare is mostly BS, a non-existent “program” designed and named solely to stroke the endlessly needy ego of Donald J. Trump and his fact-blind followers.

There is no Trumpcare. There only is a group of proposed modifications to Obamacare (ACA) that provide less care, and cost more than the original.

One of the most important features of Obamacare is the ban on discrimination against pre-existing conditions.

Here is what the site “TrumpCare and Pre-Existing Conditions” says:

TrumpCare weakens (not eliminates) key protections for women, seniors, low-income Americans, and those with pre-existing conditions, which could result in tens of millions (including those with pre-existing conditions) being excluded to from the market or placed in a high-risk pool due to cost.

If one wants to speak truthfully without diving into the whole explainer above, they can simply say, “TrumpCare/ The American Healthcare Act weakens pre-existing conditions protections.”

Or more generally, “TrumpCare/ The American Healthcare Act weakens protections for women, seniors, low-income Americans, and those with pre-existing conditions.”

If one wants to add more detail they can say, “The state waivers, paired with reduced cost assistance, a fee for re-entering the market, less employers offering health plans, and the freezing of Medicaid expansion could lead to many being effectively excluded from insurance due to having a pre-existing condition (the effect is indirect, not direct).”

FACT: As many as 1 in 2 Americans have a condition that could count as a pre-existing condition and, although not every possible pre-existing condition would be excluded, a portion of those 50% with pre-existing conditions could see new hurdles under TrumpCare.

FACT: The plan (before the Amendments) had a price tag that came in under the ACA according to the Congressional Budget Office, saving $337 billion (for the federal government) over the decade (according to their first report).

However, it did this by leaving 52 million without coverage by 2026 (it increases the uninsured by 24 million by 2026 for a total of 52 million).

The cost and uninsured rate are subject to change based on changes to the bill.

Much like Trump University and Trump Foundation, Trumpcare is a bit of sleight-of-hand that seems to promise much, but in reality, it is a figment of Trump’s imagination.

The changes from Obamacare mostly involve turning over to the states, decisions about benefits.

Those of you who live in “red” states know what that means: If you’re middle- or lower-income, you’re about to be cheated by right-wing, “states rights” bologna.

Continuing with the article:

Very simply, TrumpCare/ The American Healthcare Act weakens pre-existing conditions protections.”

Or more generally, “TrumpCare/ The American Healthcare Act weakens protections for women, seniors, low-income Americans, and those with pre-existing conditions.”

If one wants to add more detail they can say, “The state waivers, paired with reduced cost assistance, a fee for re-entering the market, fewer employers offering health plans, and the freezing of Medicaid expansion could lead to many being effectively excluded from insurance due to having a pre-existing condition (the effect is indirect, not direct).”

FACT: As many as 1 in 2 Americans have a condition that could count as a pre-existing condition and, although not every possible pre-existing condition would be excluded, a portion of those 50% with pre-existing conditions could see new hurdles under TrumpCare.

FACT: The plan (before the Amendments) had a price tag that came in under the ACA according to the Congressional Budget Office, saving (the federal government) $337 billion over the decade (according to their first report).

However, it did this by leaving 52 million without coverage by 2026 (it increases the uninsured by 24 million by 2026 for a total of 52 million).

The cost and uninsured rate are subject to change based on changes to the bill.

In summary, so-called “Trumpcare,” if it ever existed, would save money for the Monetarily Sovereign U.S. government (which can afford anything and never run short of dollars), while shifting a massive health burden to the middle- and lower-income people.

By the way, as a lark, I went through that website advertising the non-existent “Trumpcare,” and came to this page  ———————->

Trumpcare Obamacare.png
“Here’s Trumpcare.”

Apparently, “Trumpcare is Obamacare. Surprised?

If you liked Trump University, Trump Foundation, Trump Steaks, Trump Airlines, Trump Vodka, the Trump Casinos, Trump Mortgage, Trump Magazine, Trump Tower Panama, GoTrump.com, Trump: the game, and my very favorite,  Donald Trump, the fragrance (for those of you who wish to smell like Trump), all of which were failures (and some illegal), perhaps you also will enjoy Trumpcare — if it ever passes.

But as with all things Trump, hang on to your wallet.

And by the way, none of the business failures was Trump’s fault. Ask him.

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

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

The most important problems in economics involve:

  1. Monetary Sovereignty describes money creation and destruction.
  2. Gap Psychology describes the common desire to distance oneself from those “below” in any socio-economic ranking, and to come nearer those “above.” The socio-economic distance is referred to as “The Gap.”

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 Monetary Sovereignty and The Ten Steps To Prosperity can grow the economy and narrow the Gaps:

Ten Steps To Prosperity:

1. Eliminate FICA

2. Federally funded Medicare — parts A, B & D, plus long-term care — for everyone

3. Provide a monthly economic bonus to every man, woman and child in America (similar to social security for all)

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