Common debt myths in economics and why they exist

Economics is filled with myths that might make one think it is taught at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. A discipline that loves to use statistics often seems to disregard them in favor of intuition and confused semantics.

The majority of economics revolves around two key concepts: Monetary Sovereignty and Gap Psychology.

Monetary Sovereignty is the historical truth that the federal government created the first dollars from thin air through legislation. The government retains the unlimited authority to continue passing laws and those laws can produce as many dollars as the government desires for any purpose it chooses.

Gap Psychology suggests that the terms “rich” and “poor” are relative. To become richer, one must widen the gap in income, wealth, and power below, while narrowing the gap above. This can be achieved either by increasing one’s own earnings or by reducing others’ earnings.

Currently, the federal government creates dollars by this process:

  1. Congress votes to fund something.
  2. The President approves
  3. Computer keys are pressed
  4. The money is credited to the appropriate accounts.

This means the federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign:

  1. Cannot run short of dollars.
  2. Cannot become insolvent or go bankrupt
  3. Does not need to, and indeed does not, borrow dollars.
  4. Neither needs nor uses tax dollars to pay its obligations

Due to the monetary non-sovereignty of state and city governments, businesses, and individuals, there are many misunderstandings and myths about federal finances.

Federal “debt.” It isn’t what most people know as “debt.” The federal government is not “in debt.” It does not borrow. It does not owe. It merely accepts deposits into U.S. Treasury savings accounts.

Those deposits are owned by the depositor, not by the government. To pay off the “debt,” the government returns the deposits plus interest. Federal taxes and taxpayers are not involved in any way.

The purpose of those accounts is not to provide the government with funds for spending. Instead, those accounts:

  • Assist the Federal Reserve in managing interest rates by establishing a “base” rate.
  • Provide a secure location for unused dollars to stabilize and enhance their value.

Here are the most common myths about T-securities deposits (aka “debt”).

1. “The debt is a burden on future generations.” Future generations are not responsible for repaying past federal debt. When Treasury securities are bought, the purchaser deposits dollars into their T-security account. Upon maturity of those securities, the buyer is paid with the dollars in that account. Future tax dollars are not involved in this process.

Future generations will benefit from the government’s interest payments.

2. “The federal government could become insolvent.” Many people believe federal finances resemble a family budget. This comparison is intuitively appealing and for some, politically advantageous.

A monetarily sovereign government creates all the currency it owes. It cannot run out of dollars any more than a scorekeeper runs out of points. It can generate the dollars required to fulfill any obligation.

3. “China ‘owns’ us and can demand repayment.” China holds U.S. Treasuries because it seeks a secure way to save in dollars. It does not have the power to make demands regarding these securities. Repayment occurs only at maturity and involves an electronic transfer from China’s T-security account at the Federal Reserve to other Chinese accounts at the same

4. “Interest will crowd out federal programs.” Paying interest simply credits bank accounts. It doesn’t deplete federal funds; the government creates the funds it pays out. Additionally, paying interest generates dollars for economic growth. Even if the government paid trillions of dollars in interest, it would not affect the government’s ability to fund its programs — not by one penny.

5. “High debt causes inflation.” Federal debt differs from personal debt. It is created when dollars are accepted into Treasury accounts, which are settled at maturity simply by returning those dollars. Inflation is related to resource shortages, not to federal debt.

There is no relationship between federal debt (red) and inflation (green). The peaks and valleys of the two lines differ substantially.

6. “High debt raises interest rates.” The Federal Reserve sets interest rates arbitrarily. Since the federal government does not have a financial need to accept T-security deposits, the demand for these investments does not influence interest rates.

The peaks and valleys of interest rate changes (gold) do not match those of federal debt, indicating that interest rate changes are not associated with changes in federal debt. One even could argue that increases in federal debt lead to lower interest rates.

7. “Our grandchildren will be saddled with the debt.” Every dollar of debt corresponds to a dollar of someone’s savings. Future generations will own both the Treasuries and the interest dollars used to service them. There is no intergenerational burden. The “debt” is not a taxpayer liability.

8. “The level of debt is too high compared to the GDP.” Japan is at 260% and has had almost no inflation and near-zero interest rates for decades. The Debt/GDP ratio tells nothing about the government’s credit or ability to pay its obligations. It is an often quoted, but useless ratio.

Here are the lowest and highest ratios. By analyzing these ratios, could you determine which nations you would prefer to lend to? Which nations are strongest financially? Which nations are least likely to default?

You can’t, because the Debt/GDP ratio is meaningless.

There is no relationship between the Debt/GDP ratio and financial strength.

9. “Large debt hurts economic growth.” Higher government debt correlates with stronger GDP growth because federal deficits and interest payments add growth dollars to the economy.

The following graph illustrates the parallel paths of Gross Domestic Product and Federal Debt. This parallelism is not coincidental. The most crucial equation in economics is GDP = Federal Spending + Nonfederal Spending + Net Exports. Federal spending adds dollars to the private sector and is necessary for economic growth.

Federal expenditures and GDP move essentially in parallel.

10. “We must reduce debt so interest payments don’t explode.” Interest payments act as a fiscal stimulus by adding growth funds to the private sector. When interest payments increase, private income also rises.

Our government, as a monetarily sovereign entity, easily manages any level of interest payments.

Interest rates (yellow, dashed line) and GDP (blue) rise and fall together.

11. “It’s irresponsible to let debt grow forever.” The federal debt is the difference between federal spending and revenue. Thus, debt adds growth capital to the economy, allowing for continuous economic growth, which is beneficial.

The federal debt has grown for 85 years, belying the repeated false claims that it is a “ticking time bomb.” 

12. “Eventually, no one will buy our debt.” The Federal Reserve and primary dealers are obligated to purchase Treasury securities; however, the federal government has no financial need for anyone to buy its debt.

The purpose of federal debt is not to provide spending funds to the government. T-securities provide dollar users with a safe place to store unused dollars. The dollar-using world wants the insurance that T-securities provide.

13. “High deficits mean higher taxes later.” Federal taxes do not pay for the federal debt. Instead, the Treasury creates new dollars to cover the interest, and each debt account is settled at maturity by returning the dollars in that account.

Tax rates: The Highest bracket (green dashed line) and the lowest bracket (blue dashed line) are compared with annual changes in federal deficit spending (red). Tax rates have fallen as deficit spending has increased.

14. “We should have a balanced budget.” This means the federal government would not provide additional funds to the economy, which would result in a depression.

Even President Barack Obama, who should have known better, said in 2011, “We have to reduce our deficit, and we have to get back on a path that will allow us to pay down our debt.” 

Paying down the debt requires running surpluses, which historically have led to depressions. Throughout U.S. history, every depression has been preceded by federal surpluses.

1804-1812: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 48%. Depression began in 1807.
1817-1821: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 29%. Depression began in 1819.
1823-1836: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 99%. Depression began in 1837.
1852-1857: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 59%. Depression began in 1857.
1867-1873: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 27%. Depression began in 1873.
1880-1893: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 57%. Depression began in 1893.
1920-1930: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 36%. Depression began in 1929.
1997-2001: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 15%. The recession began in 2001.

When federal deficit spending decreases, recessions tend to occur, which are resolved by increasing federal deficit spending. See the following graph:

Every recession (vertical gray bars) followed a decline in federal deficit spending, and all were cured by an increase in deficit spending.

15. “The federal debt is not sustainable.” This is a non-specific false claim encompassing all of the other false claims about federal debt. The term “sustainable” frequently is used by individuals opposed to debt and leaning toward Libertarian views.

However, they seldom clarify why a Monetarily Sovereign nation cannot “sustain” any level of debt, especially when the situation in question isn’t even a debt. (It’s deposits.)

And all the false claims boil down to the one underlying false claim:

16. The government and taxpayers cannot afford Medicare for All, Social Security for all, housing assistance, food assistance, or any other benefits for the middle class and the poor. The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, can afford anything without needing taxpayer funds.

Despite the fact that tax loopholes for the wealthy cost the government money, Congress and the President rarely oppose them. The reason: wealthy people are major campaign contributors.

Given this situation, why is Washington hesitant to provide those benefits? Why do we have “debt ceilings” and government shutdown battles over spending?

The answer: Gap Psychology.

The very wealthy still want to become wealthier. It is human nature. To become wealthier, one must widen the income/wealth/power Gap below and narrow it above.

To do that, one must increase one’s own income or decrease the income of others. The rich do both by bribing the most important information sources:

  1. They bribe politicians via campaign contributions and lucrative jobs in “think tanks.”
  2. They bribe economists via university endowments and promises of lucrative jobs and assignments
  3. They bribe the media via advertising dollars and outright ownership

All are expected to promulgate the myths about federal debt so as to reduce or eliminate entirely spending for social services.

That is why it is said that the Social Security and Medicare trust funds are running out of money, when in reality, there are no actual trust funds, and the necessary funds would be available if Congress simply voted for them.

It is why Congress forces the states to fund social programs, knowing that the states are monetarily non-sovereign and often unable to fund programs properly.

SUMMARY

The federal “debt” is not real debt in the traditional sense. It refers to deposits that are essentially repaid by returning them. This process does not impact taxpayers.

The federal government, as a monetarily sovereign entity, does not borrow dollars. Instead, the purpose of this so-called debt (or deposits) is to help the Federal Reserve manage interest rates and provide a safe option for unused dollars, thereby protecting dollar users.

In summary, the federal debt does not threaten the federal government’s solvency nor hinder economic growth. In fact, it serves the opposite purpose.

 

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

Monetary Sovereignty

Twitter: @rodgermitchell

Search #monetarysovereignty

Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell;

MUCK RACK: https://muckrack.com/rodger-malcolm-mitchell;

https://www.academia.edu/

……………………………………………………………………..

A Government’s Sole Purpose is to Improve and Protect The People’s Lives.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

And all were pardoned

You may have heard about the “law and order” Republican outrage when some Democratic politicians reminded service members that they could refuse to obey illegal orders.

Is It Illegal to Urge Troops to Refuse Unlawful Orders?

Chantelle Lee

All six of the lawmakers—Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona, Sen. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, Rep. Jason Crow of Colorado, Rep. Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania, Rep. Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire, and Rep. Chris Deluzio of Pennsylvania—either served in the military or in national security positions before they were elected to office.

In a video they shared last week, they reminded members of the military and intelligence community that they “can refuse illegal orders” and that “no one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution.” 

The Republicans claimed that the warnings amounted to treason.

In contrast, they do not view the events of January 6 as treasonous.

While the Democrats’ comments, which were sound legal advice and did not lead to any injuries, many people were physically harmed during the January 6 riots.

The actions taken that day were so severe that Trump denied having encouraged anyone to attack the Capitol.

Nevertheless, Trump pardoned every one of the rioters, no matter the severity of their actions, while the Democrats who merely quoted the law are being investigated. We should remember that had Hitler’s minions refused his orders to murder innocents in gas chambers, millions of lives might have been spared.

I asked ChatGPT about injuries during the insurrection. Here is the response:

Publicly Documented January 6 Injuries (Named Individuals)

Name Agency / Role Injuries (Known/Public) Long-Term / Notes
Aquilino Gonell U.S. Capitol Police (USCP) Beaten with a flagpole; crushed in a doorway; chemical spray; hit with a speaker; hand lacerations Surgery on right foot; likely shoulder surgery; ongoing trauma/PTSD
Michael Fanone Metropolitan Police Dept. (MPD) Beaten; dragged; repeatedly stunned; heart attack; concussion; TBI PTSD: long-term neurological and psychological effects
Daniel Hodges MPD Crushed in doorway; head bashed by removal of gas mask; chemical spray; concussion Psychological trauma; continued public testimony
Caroline Edwards USCP Hit by a bike rack, thrown back onto a handrail, suffered a skull fracture, concussion, and lost consciousness Returned to fight after injury; chronic effects
Brian D. Sicknick (died next day) USCP Pepper-spray exposure; physical confrontation Death ruled “natural causes” (strokes), following riot involvement
Unnamed Officer #1 USCP (reported in Senate doc) Two cracked ribs, two smashed spinal discs Career-threatening injury
Unnamed Officer #2 USCP Eye injury was severe enough that he was “going to lose his eye.” Outcome unclear publicly
Unnamed Officer #3 USCP Loss of fingertip (tip torn off) Permanent disfigurement
Unnamed Officer #4 MPD Stabbed with a metal fence stake Serious but recoverable
Unnamed MPD female officer MPD Hit in the head with bats/poles/pipes; concussion; knocked unconscious Off duty for recovery
Various officers (≈140 total) USCP + MPD Bruises, lacerations, chemical burns, head trauma, fractures, concussions, sprains, contusions A number remained on medical leave for months

Notes on completeness

  • The table above includes all named individuals whose injuries are verifiable in public testimony, court filings, congressional reports, or major news sources.
  • The remaining ~135 or so injured officers are not publicly named and appear only as aggregated totals.
  • There is no public list of rioters injured (other than deaths), because injuries to rioters were not tracked, and private medical info is not released.

During the Nuremberg Trials, many Germans convicted of war crimes argued that they were “just following orders,” a claim that may have been true in some instances.

However, following illegal orders does not absolve individuals of responsibility for their actions.

According to The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) a soldier is not only allowed to refuse an illegal order — he is legally obligated to refuse it.

U.S. military doctrine (e.g., Army Regulation 190-14, FM 27-10) explicitly state that troops have a duty to disobey unlawful commands.

An order is unlawful if it violates U.S. law, the UCMJ, the Constitution, or the Geneva Conventions, directs a war crime, violates rules of engagement, is not related to a legitimate military purpose, or requires immoral or criminal conduct.

If a soldier follows an illegal order, he may face criminal liability for any resulting offense, even if it was ordered.

If a soldier believes an order is illegal, he may be punished for disobedience (Article 92) unless his belief is reasonable. The soldier should seek clarification when the legality is uncertain.

There is no law against telling a soldier to “disobey illegal orders,” as this statement merely reiterates the soldier’s legal duty. It does not constitute incitement, unlawful influence, or insubordination; it is simply a reflection of what U.S. military law already mandates.

So, if any Democrats are charged with the crime of treason or sedition, it is highly likely that nearly all judges, with the possible exception of Trump’s favorite judge, Aileen Cannon, will dismiss these frivolous cases.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

Monetary Sovereignty

Twitter: @rodgermitchell

Search #monetarysovereignty

Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell;

MUCK RACK: https://muckrack.com/rodger-malcolm-mitchell;

https://www.academia.edu/

……………………………………………………………………..

A Government’s Sole Purpose is to Improve and Protect The People’s Lives.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

How to screw the public by making the simple and affordable, complex and unaffordable.

The problem: Healthcare costs are high. Many Americans can’t afford even basic healthcare.

The simple, affordable solution: Recognize that the U.S. government is Monetarily Sovereign, meaning it never can run out of dollars to cover its expenses.

Also recognize that federal spending creates economic growth and costs taxpayers nothing.

With this understanding, we should implement comprehensive, no-deductible Medicare for all Americans, regardless of age, income, or pre-existing health conditions.

We already know how to navigate the difficult task called “Medicare.” Expanding coverage to the entire nation is a straightforward step that requires money — of which the federal government has an endless supply.

It’s simple and affordable.

The government’s complex, unaffordable non-solution is described in the following article:

Uncle Sam sitting on a huge pile of cash
It cost me nothing to print this. But I don’t want to help the poor and middle classes, so I’ll just claim that I’m spending taxpayers’ money. The dummies will believe it.

Premium Reports from Epoch Times Spiraling Costs and a Broken Insurance Market—What Went Wrong With Obamacare   By Lawrence Wilson, November 23, 2025

The government shutdown might be over, but the political and financial problems that dog Obamacare haven’t gone away.

Congress is now debating a second extension of the temporary tax credits that have shielded Obamacare users from rising costs for five years.

Without the subsidies, Democrats say millions of Americans will be priced out of the health insurance market at the stroke of midnight on New Year’s Eve.

President Donald Trump and other Republicans don’t want an extension; they want a transformational change that eliminates what they say are the unworkable policies and perverse incentives that have plagued the program from the beginning.

The policies are unworkable because the Republicans and the Democrats don’t really want a solution. The Republicans don’t want to help the poor. The Democrats want to help the poor, but are afraid to spend what’s required to help all the people.

The Republicans will not come up with a “transformational change” unless it transforms something that is worse for the poor and better for the rich.

(As an aside, Stephanie Kelton once was an advisor to the Democratic Party, and probably told them the government could afford to spend the money, though even she had unfounded worries about inflation.)

It isn’t just Republicans who say Obamacare went awry. Many experts and even some Democrats recognize that while the program did make health coverage more affordable for 24 million Americans at one point, it has essentially backfired.

It could and should be free to all Americans.

Here’s how they think Obamacare went off course, how it might be overhauled, and how it upended the wider health insurance market.

Failed Aims The Affordable Care Act aimed to make health insurance affordable for everyone and lower health care costs across the board.

“The reality of the [Affordable Care Act] could not be more different,” Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of the think tank American Action Forum, said in written comments to a Senate committee on Nov. 19.

Republicans have said the system was poorly designed from its beginning in 2014. Now, some Democrats agree it has not been successful.

Keep in mind that the Republicans have been saying this from the beginning, yet in all that time, they never have come up with a “well-designed” program. It comes down to one truth: The party of the rich does not want to help the poor. Period.

Sen. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) said as much in a Nov. 6 speech imploring colleagues to extend the temporary tax credits, which expire in December.

“I owe you an answer on why it is I am standing here today asking to extend something that was temporary,” Welch said. “Here is the reason: We did fail to bring down the cost of health care.”

Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) said on Nov. 19: “I think there’s remarkable agreement between Democrats and Republicans. Obamacare failed to give access to all Americans to health care, and Obamacare failed to control health care costs.”

The Republican “solution” is to give access to as few as possible.

When Obamacare was proposed, the Congressional Budget Office projected that enrollment would reach 29 million by 2019 and that the percentage of uninsured adults would drop from 17 percent to 6 percent.

That didn’t happen. By 2019, enrollment had plateaued at around 11.4 million, and about 11 percent of adults remained uninsured.

The reason: It cost too much. Healthcare for all Americans should be free. (Unless the politicians are satisfied with the poor using the hospital emergency room as their free, all-purpose, healthcare facility.)

A year later, Congress altered the program in 2020 to help Americans cope with the economic downturn caused by the COVID-19 state of emergency.

The key change was the addition of “enhanced” tax credits that made middle-income households eligible for subsidized health care and allowed some low-income households to get coverage with a zero-dollar premium.

This should have been done for all Americans, not only because of COVID, but because the federal government’s purpose is to protect and improve the lives of all the people, not just the wealthy.

The enhanced credits were offered for two years, beginning in 2021, then extended through 2025.

Enrollment skyrocketed, doubling in five years. But the cost was climbing rapidly, too.

Even before the enhanced tax credits came online, premiums had more than doubled since 2013, the year before Obamacare began. By 2025, the increase reached nearly 133 percent, about four times the rate of inflation.

Health care costs generally rose dramatically in that decade, partly because of rising wages, consolidation within the industry, an aging population, and the popularity of new and expensive medications, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

Meanwhile, some analysts say Obamacare is the key driver of higher premiums.

The premiums should be, and easily could be, $0.00.

Market Disruption With traditional health insurance (and other forms of insurance), the price to the customer is based on the risk to the

Obamacare is different, however. insurer and the type of coverage they choose.

A key selling point of Obamacare was that it largely ended the practice of excluding people from health coverage due to preexisting conditions. No one would be denied coverage due to illness, and all plans were required to offer the same set of minimum benefits.

That is an excellent program.

As this one-size-fits-all system treats high- and low-risk customers the same, many younger, healthier people left the market, leading to higher premiums.

Healthier people would not leave the market if premiums were free.

And because preexisting conditions are not a barrier to coverage, those consumers enter the market only when they become ill, raising costs even higher, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) told The Epoch Times.

Again, this would not happen if premiums were free.

Those increases spread across the industry because the Affordable Care Act requires insurers to offer Obamacare compliant policies to individuals and small groups in the commercial market.

The solution, Johnson said, is to cover those with existing illnesses in high-risk pools, which allow groups of people within Obamacare to be priced and subsidized separately.

The Johnson so-called “solution” is high-risk pools, which will change unaffordable premiums — a perfect right-wing approach.

“You have to reestablish those,” Johnson said. “You have to start by covering people with preexisting conditions.

“You bring as much free market back into health care as possible, so people are actually competing for customers with price, customer service, and quality.”

Johnson doesn’t say how high-risk pools would make insurance companies compete for customers without raising prices sky high.

A Spiral Masked by Subsidies Gross federal subsidies of Obamacare now stand at an estimated $138 billion per year, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

Those subsidies have masked the rise in premiums, allowing them to rise virtually unchecked, according to Brian Blase, founder of think tank Paragon Health Institute.

The subsidies have not “masked” anything. They have paid premiums that otherwise would be unaffordable.

“When enrollees pay only a small slice of the premium or no premium at all, insurers face almost no price discipline,” Blase told Senators on Nov. 19.

Blaise’s “price discipline” does not exist. The consumer simply does without, sickens, and dies.

By 2024, 80 percent of Obamacare customers qualified for plans costing them no more than $10 per month, according to the Treasury Department.

A better rate would be $0.00 a month, a rate the government could absorb without collecting a penny in taxes

That created a spiral that kept pushing the cost up, Blase said. “Higher premiums created pressure for still more subsidies. More subsidies lock in a high-cost system and permit large insurers and hospital systems to remain inefficient.”

Someone please ask Johnson and Blaise why their theories don’t seem to apply to Medicare, where preexisting illnesses are covered and there is little evidence of a cost spiral.

That rising premiums also drove out general market consumers who did not qualify for a subsidy, causing even further increases, said Dr. Mehmet Oz, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

That wouldn’t happen if the federal government paid all the premiums as it now does with Medicare.

The Obamacare market was designed for a 50/50 mix of private-sector customers, and those who need financial help, Oz said in a Nov. 16 interview with CNN.

“We have priced the systems now so heavily with government subsidies that it crowds out the private shopper,” Oz said.

So instead, Oz wants to crowd out the poor, leaving them no alternative but the emergency room, thus shifting the price burden from the government (which can afford anything) to hospitals, which must raise prices to the private-sector customers. See the irony?

Perverse Incentives in the Workplace Large employers, those with more than 50 employees, face a $2,900 fine for each full-time worker who receives an Obamacare subsidy. That’s to encourage companies to offer employer-sponsored health insurance.

Who pays when the companies offer employer-sponsored health insurance? Only two groups: Consumers and employees. In short, the private sector pays for health care rather than the federal government, which has limitless dollars.

In reality, it may have the opposite effect for employees earning below a certain level, according to Holtz-Eakin.

“You could do the math and figure out that … it made a lot of sense for employers to just stop being in the insurance business, put their workers in the exchanges, and both the worker and the employer could come out ahead,” Holtz-Eakin said.

And this supposedly is a bad thing — for workers and employers to come out ahead. Isn’t that exactly what Obamacare was designed to do?

That appears to have happened in many smaller companies, which have no threat of a fine to induce them to buy insurance for employees.

The year before Obamacare began, 85 percent of companies with 25 to 49 workers offered health insurance for their employees. By 2025, that had fallen to 64 percent.

Ripe for Fraud When the enhanced tax credits were introduced in 2021, 42 percent of the uninsured population qualified for a policy with a zero-dollar premium. To boost and maintain enrollment during the health emergency, eligibility checks were relaxed, and reenrollment was automated.

Also, insurance brokers receive a commission for each person they enroll.

Those factors made the program ripe for fraud and abuse, Blase said.

Offering free health care insurance would eliminate eligibiity check and brokers commissions, two unnecessary expenses.

“Many enrollees were signed up without their knowledge or consent,” Blase said. He noted that some unscrupulous vendors promised enrollees cash benefits, and others were moved from one plan to another without their consent.

Approximately 2.8 million people were dually enrolled in Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program in multiple states in 2024, or simultaneously enrolled in one of those programs and an Obamacare plan, according to federal data.

Also, 40 percent of those enrolled in a zero-premium plan in 2024, more than 4 million people, filed no medical claims.

All those problems would disappear with a Medicare-for-All, single-payer plan.

The national average for zero-claim health insurance customers is 15 percent, according to Paragon Health Institute, which estimates that taxpayers spent $35 billion in 2024 to insure people who were unaware they had coverage.

Isn’t that exactly how insurance is supposed to work? That’s why it’s called “insurance,” not salary.

While Democrats acknowledge that rising health care costs are a problem, they say it’s not related to Obamacare. Proposed solutions generally involve increasing corporate taxes and cracking down on corporate abuses.

Or better yet, single payer health care that covers everyone.

“Insurance premiums are skyrocketing,” Rep. Jonathan Jackson (D-Ill.) told The Epoch Times on Nov. 20. He named government negotiations on drug prices and higher corporate taxes as partial solutions.

Both of those “solutions” take growth dollars out of the economy and give them to the federal government, which has no use for them.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said on Nov. 19 that reducing health care costs “means reining in insurance company abuses across the health care system.”

Ever since the politicians learned the word “abuse,” they have described anything that benefits the economy, especially what benefits the poor, as abuse. You seldom hear them call tax loopholes for the rich, “abuse.”

Republicans generally favor market-based reforms that give consumers more control over their health care spending.

“More control” is a right-wing synonym for: “The poor pay.”

“The free market guarantees three things,” Johnson said. “The lowest possible price and cost, the best possible quality, and the best level of customer service.”

The free market guarantees that the wealthy will pay less and the poor will pay more. Isn’t that why we have anti-trust laws?

Trump has proposed a direct cash payment to low- and middle-income Americans to be used for health care expenses. Cassidy and Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) have proposed similar ideas.

Yes, Republicans Trump, Cassidy, and Scott want to give people $2,000 a year. How generous. Here is what ChatGPT’s massive information sources say about healthcare insurance costs:

Average Annual Health Insurance Cost in the U.S.

  1. Employer-Sponsored Insurance (2024)
    • Average annual premium for single coverage: $8,951
    • Average annual premium for family coverage: $25,572
    • On average, workers contribute: $6,296/year toward family coverage.
  2. Affordable Care Act (ACA) / Marketplace Plans
    • According to Insurify, the average annual premium for a single person on a mid-level (marketplace) plan is $5,964.
    • Forbes Advisor estimates that for ACA marketplace plans (before accounting for subsidies), the average premium is about $590/month~$7,080/year.
    • According to Fidelity, a 40-year-old on a typical Silver ACA plan would pay around $497/month~$5,964/year.
  3. Other Data
    • MoneyGeek reports that, on average, health insurance costs $599/month for an adult on a marketplace plan → ~$7,188/year.
Oh, those Republicans are so clever. They’ll give you $2,000 and cost you $6,000 to $26,000 or more. Be sure to give them your vote.

Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) named direct primary care, health sharing ministries, and expanded Health Savings Accounts as ways to empower patients to make their own health decisions.

Trump sitting on a huge pile of dollars
No problem. My friends and I are OK. Crypto, anyone?
“Empower” is another current right-wing synonym for “charge.”

“I want to free up individuals to have better options,” Roy told The Epoch Times. “If you’re starting there, then you’re going to be transformative, and that will drive prices down,” Roy said.

Yes, more right-wing synonyms. “Free up” means “cost.” “Better options” means “unaffordable options.”

Congress is expected to vote in mid-December on an extension of enhanced subsidies and possibly other health care reforms.

No matter what happens, so long as the current right wing has voting power, the middle- and lower-income will be screwed, and the rich will do just fine, thank you.    

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

Monetary Sovereignty

Twitter: @rodgermitchell

Search #monetarysovereignty

Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell;

MUCK RACK: https://muckrack.com/rodger-malcolm-mitchell;

https://www.academia.edu/

……………………………………………………………………..

A Government’s Sole Purpose is to Improve and Protect The People’s Lives.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

The Search for Reality

I have poor rote memory. Names, dates, places, faces — they all disappear into a fog, and it only has become worse with age.

I learn by analogy.

Gravity & Einstein: Assessing the Rubber Sheet Analogy in Undergraduate Conceptual Physics
Visual analogy of how mass affects light.

In school, I passed tests not by memorizing the material but by analyzing all the questions and trying to imagine what the test creator was trying to acomplish.

This worked especially well with multiple-choice (usually four) question tests, because I had hundreds of questions to compare all at once.

When I was asked, “What is your favorite book?” my answer was the “Miller Analogy Test.” I have a copy on my desk. It contains fourteen hundred questions of this form: “A is to B as C is to ?

We all learn by analogy. You learned the alphabet with a poem that began, “A, B, C…” and our learning was aided by the fact that “G” rhymed with “P.”

Rhyming is a kind of analogy in that words are connected by a similarity of sound. “Beat” is like “meet,” is like “feet.”

We love analogy so much that part of the appeal of poetry is analogy, even when the poems don’t rhyme. It’s not just analogy, but also metaphor and simile that attract us and help us remember.

In school, we learned that an atom is like a miniature solar system, with electrons flying in orbit around the nucleus. Later, we learned that gravity can be compared to a rubber sheet with a bowling ball suspended at the center,

While those analogies helped us visualize, they ultimately were misleading. (All analogies are imperfect, which is what makes them analogies and not the actual thing.)

Learning requires comparisons, which makes quantum mechanics a baffling subject. Physicists speak of the “wave function” and its “collapse,” but there is no wave and nothing collapses. We cannot visualize the quantum world; it is so different from our macro world that our analogies don’t work.

The irony is that we pursue reality through analogies, which, by definition, are not reality.

The primary purpose of this blog is to present economic reality in a world that teaches economic fantasies, such as:

  1. The federal government’s finances are similar to  personal finances
  2. Federal taxes help pay for federal spending
  3. Medicare and Social Security are supported by FICA
  4. The federal government can run short of dollars
  5. The federal debt is unsustainable.

I’ve spent more than two decades presenting facts to counter these fantasies — an attempt at reality — and that is why I often question even the existence of reality.

What is reality?

3 types of optical illusions are a union of science and art - Big Think
What Is Reality?

Your brain creates reality via its translation of stimuli.

You do not see an object. Instead, your brain translates photons into a meaning that it creates. It translates sound waves, odor molecules, and taste molecules into meanings. We call those meanings “reality,” but they are illusions, the opposite of reality.  

Phosphenes as Reality

Phosphenes

Close your eyes. What do you see? Not nothing. You see patterns of light called “phosphenes.”

They are not “real” in the sense of something physical, but they are real to you.

Your brain invents them just as your brain invents everything else you see, hear, taste, or believe.

The patterns of light you see with your eyes closed are a direct demonstration that the brain does not passively receive reality. It generates reality from internal rules and signals.

There is no fundamental reality, at least not one that the human brain can comprehend.  There is an old story that makes the point. (Please don’t stop me if  you’ve heard this one.)

A scientist gives a lecture, explaining that the Earth orbits the Sun, and the Sun is part of the Milky Way, and the Milky Way is part of the Local Group, etc.

Afterward, a person stands up and says: “What you’ve told us is wrong. The world is actually a plate resting on the back of a giant turtle.”

The scientist asks, “What is the turtle standing on?”

She replies: “It’s turtles all the way down.

It illustrates infinite regress — the idea that an explanation depends on another explanation, which depends on another, and so on without end. It tries to explain the nature of reality and answer the question, “What is everything made of?”

If the answer is “atoms and fields,” the question becomes, “What are atoms and fields made of?”

Today, the answer given by many physicists is that a field is the fundamental entity — the thing other things are made of, not the other way around.

A field is a value assigned to every point in space and time.  Not a substance, not a fluid, not particles smeared out — just a function that tells you “what is the value here?”

Examples: Gravitational field: assigns an acceleration vector to each point. Electromagnetic field: assigns electric and magnetic components. Quantum fields: assign amplitudes that tell you the probabilities of particle interactions.

Particles are excitations of fields. Electrons aren’t made of “stuff.” They’re quantized ripples in the electron field. Photons are ripples in the electromagnetic field. Higgs bosons are ripples in the Higgs field.

The fields themselves are the substrate. A field is a mathematical object with physical effects. As far as current theory goes, it has no parts, no internal structure, and no medium carrying it.

Are you able to imagine something that is not composed of anything? A wave that has no substrate? Can you imagine a wave where nothing is waving or a field that is not made of anything, yet has effects?

Think of a magnetic field. It is so strong it can lift cars and trains, but it is not made of anything. And how does the Higgs field give mass to anything?

If you can visualize them, you’re far better than I am, for I cannot. Nor can I visualize how speed can affect time and dimension, yet it does both.

I don’t believe fields are the funamental reality because there are various fields, with various properties, which seems at odds with the notion of “funadmental.” So what is?

I have speculated that gravity is the fundamental substrate and that everything is “made of” gravity. Gravity is everywhere, It affects, and is associated with, everything. It never completely disappears.

The most disatant star feels the gravity associated with you (though the effect is extraordinarly slight). That distant star also feels the gravity associated with every other thing in the universe. It’s an incalculable blend of gravitational effects that we ignore but for the most prominent. However, “incalculable” does not mean “nonexistent.”

Gravity may be the base layer of the universe and needs no further explanation except its rules. The “turtles all the way down” ends with gravity, and we have not yet created the language to answer the question, “What is gravity made of?”

A topological effect can be described by a mathematical formula, that itself is not physical.

Each type of particle and field effect represents a distinct mathematical “twist” on gravity, which is analog, not quantum. It exists everywhere as it is fundamental to existence.

Digital measurement is used not because the universe itself is digital, but for several practical reasons.

Digital systems allow for easy error correction, tolerate noise effectively, and can be easily scaled. Additionally, they are easier to design at large scale.

Most importantly, digital technologies give an impression of precision.

I say “impression” because most measures cannot be exact. “Pi” and “e” cannot be exact digital numbers, nor can the Golden ratio and the square root of any number that is not a perfect square

The entire universe is analog, not quantum. Quantum mechanics is our attempt to describe continuous fields and continuous geometry using discrete conceptual vocabulary: Particle, spin, energy level, measurement

In reality (always searching for “reality”), the universe does not have edges, true discreteness, digital bits, or perfect integers. Mathematicians even say that 1 is equal to .9999999999999999 . . .

(We should remember that “equal to” is not the same as “identical with,” an important distinction in some cases. For example, trying to measure the gravitational effect of a distant star on a earthbound grain of pollen.)

We presume that spacetime (gravity?) is curved, and we have no exact digital measure for that curve. Geometry is the visible pattern; information is the substrate that produces the pattern.

Even a single electron a million light years away exerts a tiny, nonzero influence here. Discrete particles exist as patterns, but their effects are continuous.

The universe is analog at its core; discreteness is only a convenient interpretation.

Every particle and field in the universe is part of a single, continuous analog network.

Discrete particles, energy levels, and quantum states are patterns emerging from this analog substrate, and apparent discreteness is a convenient human abstraction.

Entanglement pervades this network, but nearly all of it lies beyond our ability to measure. Measurements, whether with rulers, detectors, or digital devices, are analog approximations of these underlying continuous effects.

The Black Hole Singularity

The universe is fundamentally analog. All fields and particles — gravitational, electromagnetic, electron, quark, and so on —  permeate every point in space.

Every excitation of these fields is a concentrated pattern, a region of higher amplitude that gradually trails off as a smooth gradient, extending infinitely.

No particle has a hard edge; no object is truly separate. What we call an electron, a proton, or a photon is a stable, concentrated pattern in its respective field, with its influence fading continuously into the surrounding space.

Because these fields overlap everywhere, everything is interconnected. The peak of one excitation may appear localized, but its gradient merges subtly with all other excitations, across both near and cosmic distances.

Gravity, as the curvature of spacetime, is universal: it couples to all forms of energy and momentum, connecting every pattern and establishing a global substrate.

From this perspective, the universe is not made of discrete substances, but of patterns of instructions: configurations of field amplitudes, gradients, and interactions.

Everything in the universe affects every other thing.

Mass, charge, spin, and all measurable properties are emergent features of these patterns.

Reality, as we perceive it, is a manifestation of overlapping, concentrated gradients in an analog, globally connected network, with gravity providing the scaffolding upon which all other patterns arise.

The black hole “singularity” is not a point, not a particle, not a substance.

It is the unity of the continuous field itself: an infinitely overlapping substrate from which all localized patterns — all particles, all excitations, all phenomena — emerge.

In one sense, it is related to a universal “butterfly effect,” where a small effect can travel through many iterations to create a significant effect

Our classical experience of distinct objects, boundaries, and separation is  a high-amplitude manifestation of this underlying continuous analog reality.

Gravity and The Unified Field: Patterns, Gradients, and Degrees

Because the fields overlap everywhere, everything “touches” everything, and classical notions of separation lose their absoluteness. What we measure as “distance” is better understood as a degree of influence: how strongly one pattern affects another across the continuous substrate.

A peak far away (i.e., of lesser influence) may exert a subtle effect; a peak “nearby” exerts a strong one. Classical space, with its rigid coordinates, emerges from these degrees of interaction, not the other way around.

Gravity, as the curvature of spacetime, is the universal analog substrate: it couples to all forms of energy and momentum and organizes the global network of patterns.

The universe is a group of instructions for gravity.

From this perspective, the universe is not composed of discrete substances, but of instructions manifested as overlapping gradients.

Mass, charge, spin, and other measurable properties emerge from the structure and dynamics of these patterns. Our classical experience of distinct objects, boundaries, and distances is an emergent perception of high-amplitude configurations in a globally connected, analog field.

A singularity, then, is not a point, particle, or substance. It is the unity of the continuous field itself: an infinitely overlapping substrate from which all excitations emerge.

Reality is a unified concentration gradient of information and degrees of influence.

Concentration Gradients
A concentration gradient looks impossibly complex, but visualize it not as a gradient of distance but of information, where one physical location contains the information that describes the entire gradient — akin to a mathematical formula like Fick’s laws of diffusion.

Distance is not fundamental. What we perceive as distance is the brain’s rendering of an underlying information distribution described by a mathematical object (a formula, field, or rule-set).

A “singularity” looks paradoxical only if we assume distance is real; once distance is seen as emergent, the paradox disappears. All the information that becomes the universe can be encoded in a single informational structure.

The Universe is an Informational Field With Emergent Space

Start with a single underlying thing: an informational field. Not space, matter, energy, or particles. Just information describing structured relationships.

This field is not “in” anything. It does not occupy space, because space hasn’t emerged yet. Physics already accepts some versions of this idea: The universal wavefunction, the holographic principle, the Wheeler–DeWitt view (timeless universal information).

These all are attempts to describe reality without assuming space or distance are fundamental.

I propose a similar idea. Start with the information, not the spacetime. Space, time, matter, and “location” are translations of that mathematical information. This is the key philosophical and scientific step and it is a difficult one because we don’t think about information as a separate entity.

The reality we perceive is a translation of information into experience. Phosphenes—the lights and patterns we see with our eyes closed—show that the brain can generate an entire “world” from nothing.

Quantum mechanics seems strange because we assume information must describe pre-existing objects. However, information comes first, and what we call particles, space, and time emerge from it.

The universe isn’t weird; our intuition about how it “should” work is, because we believe intuit that information has to be about something, not the something itself.

What we experience as distance, size, duration, velocity, mass, fields, and curvature are not fundamental. They are interpretations produced by the informational field itself, the structure of our nervous system (or whatever we define as observers), the rules that make physics appear classical at human scale.

Just as color is a brain’s interpretation of wavelengths, heat is an interpretation of molecular motion, solidity is an interpretation of electromagnetic repulsion, space is an interpretation of informational relationships, and distance is how our brains visualize certain patterns in the underlying field.

Viewed this way, the “singularity problem” disappears. A singularity looks weird only if things need room, points must be separate, and volume must scale with information content.

But if distance is not fundamental, nothing needs to “fit,” nothing collapses to “zero size,” and no paradox arises from “infinite density.”

The singularity is a place where the space-based translation breaks down, not a breakdown in the underlying information.

Everything — past, present, future — is encoded in the informational field

A single rule-set (call it “the universal equation”) contains the contents of the universe, the dynamics of change, all events, and relations. apparent randomness, observers, interpretations

Consider it a form of informational compression similar to how RNA encodes a living body, how a physical law encodes motion, or how a computer program generates a world.

Life does not arise from the four nucleotides of RNA themselves, but from the information encoded in the constraints that determine how those nucleotides can interact.

Mixing A, U, C, and G alone yields no results; what is crucial is the precise ordering and regulatory framework that guides chemical reactions along allowed pathways.

RNA, therefore, is already several steps removed from the true origin of organization—it assumes an underlying informational framework that shapes chemistry into functional structure.

This distinction illustrates a broader principle: reality emerges not from material components, but from the rules that govern their possible arrangements.

Every scientific theory rests on axioms that cannot be derived from anything deeper. Gödel’s incompleteness theorems guarantee that any sufficiently powerful system must contain irreducible assumptions.

Thus, the laws of physics are not “created” or “derived”; they are the primitive informational constraints from which everything else follows.

Physics does not explain why the universe has the rules it does; it only describes the rules of the informational structure we happen to inhabit.

At the most fundamental level, the “laws of nature” are the constraints of this system. There is no deeper layer from which these constraints are derived—they are the bottom turtle, the primitive informational grammar on which all further structure depends.

The universe is the unfolding of the rule. The rule doesn’t need space. Space needs the rule.

Determinism and “the illusion of distance” become the same idea. If everything is encoded in one informational structure, nothing is truly separate, and causation is internal, not spatial. “Near” and “far” are interpretations, not realities.

The whole “movie” of the universe is already in the rules. Distance is a story the brain tells itself so it can navigate information.

Just as consciousness is a response to stimuli, distance is merely a visualization of relational structure. Nothing actually travels anywhere. Information describes merely a transition.

Thus, quantum behavior stops looking weird. If everything is relational information, entanglement is natural. “Instantaneous” correlations are instantaneous because there is no distance. Superposition is a basic property of the information field. Measurement is the process of translating information into classical perception.

Nothing spooky is happening. It only looks spooky if we assume spatial separation is real. The “turtles all the way down” problem is resolved. You don’t find infinite layers of explanation.

You have the informational field (fundamental), the emergent spacetime (our translation), the emergent objects and particles (our further translation), and the emergent consciousness (our perceived responses to stimuli).

While I posit that gravity is the fundamental “substance,” it is created by something even more basic: Information.

Gravity feels fundamentally unique because it is the earliest and simplest way our brains interpret the universe’s informational structure. The four compounds that make up DNA do not create life on their own; it is the instructions that these compounds follow that give rise to life. Similarly, it is the instructions that gravity follows that shape the universe.

Gravity does not require a particle, charge, or medium; it is the shape of what we call “space.” This makes gravity appear as a genuine substance—an all-pervading field that everything else depends on.

And in a sense, that is true: gravity is the first physical phenomenon to appear when raw information is translated into a coherent universe. It is the first emergent property, the first way that the underlying informational relationships become visible when rendered as geometry.

What we perceive as curved space is the structural pattern of information as interpreted by our sensory and cognitive systems. In this interpretation, mass does not create gravity; instead, gravity creates mass by following the instructions for an informational architecture.

Gravity is the group of rules by which information arranges itself when viewed through the lens of spacetime.

This explains why gravity appears universal, smooth, and unavoidable—it is the baseline translation of information into physical law. To us, gravity looks like the “stuff” the universe is made of.

At the most basic level, gravity is no more fundamental than the shapes we see when our eyes are closed. Both are interpretations created by a brain (or an observer) processing an underlying informational pattern.

Gravity is real in the same way that space is real: as an emergent feature of how information is organized.

SUMMARY of REALITY?

As we have discussed, what we see, indeed, all we sense by any means, is not real. It all is an illusion. What then is the basis for reality? What is the bottom “turtle”?

I suggest that the basis of reality is not physical, but rather the rules — the information — that determines the illusions of the universe in which we live.

Perhaps there are other universes with different rules, yielding different illusions. There may be infinite other universes with infinite other rules and infinite other illusions.

It is the rules — the information — that differentiates our universe. Change any rule, and the universe would be vastly different. If gravity, the strong force, the weak force, or any other field were even slightly different, our universe would be unrecognizable.

Science only can attempt to discover the rules and then accept them as they are. Asking “why” or “how” may prove fruitless. It’s enough to learn “what.”

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

Monetary Sovereignty

Twitter: @rodgermitchell

Search #monetarysovereignty

Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell;

MUCK RACK: https://muckrack.com/rodger-malcolm-mitchell;

https://www.academia.edu/

……………………………………………………………………..

A Government’s Sole Purpose is to Improve and Protect The People’s Lives.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY