Why you should contact Steve Chapman

There are important reasons why you should contact Steve Chapman. Let me explain.

Monetary Sovereignty is not a difficult concept. It simply says that the federal government, having created the first U.S. dollars from thin air, continues to have the power to keep creating U.S. dollars from thin air.Greenspan quote.png

You are not Monetarily Sovereign, nor am I. Nor is your city, your county, your state, or your business.

We all can run short of dollars. Even Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates can run short of dollars. The U.S. government cannot run short. Unless it wants to.

Even if the U.S. government didn’t collect a single dollar in taxes, it could continue spending forever.

Some countries are not Monetarily Sovereign. The euro nations are not. They did not create the euro; they merely use it. But the European Union, which did create the euro, is Monetarily Sovereign.Bernanke quote.png

Obviously, there are a lot of other pieces to Monetary Sovereignty, but that is the essence: The U.S. federal government’s infinite ability to create U.S. dollars. Simple. Straightforward. Direct. The U.S. government, being Monetarily Sovereign, can create U.S. dollars endlessly.

You might think that anyone writing about or discussing economics would at the very least, understand that simple “1 + 1 + 2” concept. And yet . . .

I’ve spent more than 20 years trying to teach Monetary Sovereignty to anyone who will listen, and even now I am amazed at the brutal, stone-headed resistance.

Much of it is intentional, because drill down through the facts of Monetary Sovereignty, you discover some things the rich, opinion leaders don’t like — for instance a narrowing of the financial Gap between the rich and the rest.

But some of it is just . . . how can I say this kindly? . . . just plain mental blindness.

During my 20+ years mission, I’ve come across some truly wrong, misleading, and downright misguided articles, but today I found one that must be in the top 3.St louis fed quote.png

It was written by a man who is not stupid; I’ve read other of his articles and found them to be enlightening. But this one is, as the kids like to say, awesome — in how wrong it is!

No, this is not the time for fiscal restraint  By Steve Chapman

Steve Chapman is a columnist and editorial writer for the Chicago Tribune. His twice-weekly column on national and international affairs, distributed by Creators Syndicate, appears in some 50 papers across the country. Chapman has been a member of the Tribune editorial board since 1981. A native Texan, he has a bachelor’s degree from Harvard.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Fiscal discipline was once a durable American practice. But in the 1940s, it went out the window. The federal government embarked on a sudden, unprecedented binge of borrowing that put the nation in hock up to its ears.

WRONG: The U.S. federal government does not borrow. Having the unlimited ability to create dollars, why would it?

What erroneously is termed “borrowing” actually is the acceptance of deposits into Treasury Security accounts (T-bill, T-note, T-bond). When you invest in a T-security, you deposit U.S. dollars into your T-security account.

There your dollars remain, gathering interest, until the account matures, at which time the government returns the dollars in your account. The government never uses those dollars or removes them from your account.

The purposes of issuing T-securities are:

  1. To provide a safe place for unused cash, which stabilizes the U.S. dollar
  2. To assist the Fed in controlling interest rates, which helps control inflation.

The government does not issue T-securities to obtain dollars.

From 1940 to 1945, federal spending rose tenfold. The national debt increased sixfold. The public would have to shoulder the burden of paying down that debt for decades to come.

WRONG: The public has not shouldered, and will not shoulder any burden from the so-called, misnamed “debt.”

First, it’s not “debt” in the usual sense. It’s deposits, and the deposits are NOT paid back with taxes. The “debt” (deposits) are paid off merely by returning the dollars that exist in the T-security accounts.

Second, federal taxes do not fund any federal spending. In fact, all federal taxes (unlike state and local government taxes) are destroyed upon receipt.

When the federal government pays a creditor, it creates new dollars, ad hoc. The process is this:

Upon approving an invoice for payment, the government sends instructions (checks or wires) to the creditor’s bank, instructing the bank to increase the balance in the creditor’s checking account.

At the instant the creditor’s bank does as instructed, new dollars are created and added to the nation’s money supply (M1). This is the federal government’s method for creating dollars. No taxes involved. No burden on anyone.

There was, however, a good excuse for this gross budgetary excess: World War II. For a government, as with a person, there is usually no difference between being frugal and being wise.

But when the nation’s survival is at stake, the risks of underspending are far greater than the risks of overspending.

With the phrase “as with a person,” Chapman reveals abject ignorance of economics, for he equates federal (Monetarily Sovereign) finances with personal (monetarily non-sovereign) finances.

Further, he alludes to “gross budgetary excess,” which may be appropriate to individuals, states, and businesses, but is completely irrelevant to the federal government, which has the unlimited ability to create its own sovereign currency.

Finally, Chapman refers to WWII as needing “overspending” but does not mention any adverse effect from the so-called “budget excess.”

US GDP-Components from 1929 to 2011
The vertical gray bars show total GDP (right scale). The other lines show % of GDP (left scale). The black dotted line is government spending.  The blue dotted line is personal consumption.

In fact, increased federal spending created a dramatic increase in GDP.

gdp federal spending.png
’39-’49

A similar imperative exists today, as the new coronavirus endangers lives and causes economic disruption on a scale not seen since — well, since World War II.

Last year, the federal budget deficit soared to nearly $1 trillion , at a time of sustained economic growth and prosperity. It was an atrocious figure, representing the latest fiscal failure by our political leaders.

Chapman does not understand that the “sustained economic growth and prosperity” was a direct result of the federal budget deficit growth.

Deficits pump dollars into the economy, and GDP (the usual measure of economic growth) is a dollar measure.

GDP = Federal Spending + Non-federal Spending + Net Exports

Thus, it makes absolutely no mathematical sense to decry federal deficits while also treasuring GDP growth.

And, in fact, the “economic disruption” demands deficit spending far in excess of the $2 trillion measure recently passed. A spending measure of at least $7 trillion would have prevented the coming recession.

But the spending package forged by Congress and the president to address the fallout of the pandemic will add up to more than double that amount, pushing overall spending to levels never imagined just weeks ago.

The rescue plan is probably only the first of a series of huge spending bills meant to reduce the devastation from a locked-down economy.

Here, Chapman really doesn’t get it. He correctly indicates that “huge spending bills” “reduce the devastation from a locked-down economy.”

Amazingly, he doesn’t understand why that is true.

Of course, the reason is that money grows the economy and federal spending pumps money into the economy. Chapman wants the economy to grow from a “locked-down” position, but he doesn’t seem to want it to grow from a “non-locked-down” situation.

Puzzling.

For more years than I care to remember, under presidents of both parties, I have been a consistent voice — OK, an insufferable scold — on the need for the government to be thrifty and responsible in its budget policy.

I have stressed the importance of living within our means, paying the full cost of what we demand of our government and not piling needless obligations on future generations.

There are many good moments for fiscal restraint. This is not one of them.

He has been insufferable because his scolding has been based on economic ignorance.

The Monetarily Sovereign government has no “means” to live within. It has the infinite ability to pay any bills of any size, instantly.

And with regard to “paying the full cost of what we demand,” Chapman is referring to a balanced budget, or as it alternatively is known, “austerity.”

Here is what austerity looks like:

Vertical gray bars are recessions which begin when federal deficit spending (red line) declines, and are cured by increases in federal deficit spending.

And, if Mr. Chapman prefers federal surpluses (economic deficits), he should look at this:

Every U.S. depression has come on the heels of federal surpluses
1804-1812: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 48%. Depression began 1807.
1817-1821: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 29%. Depression began 1819.
1823-1836: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 99%. Depression began 1837.
1852-1857: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 59%. Depression began 1857.
1867-1873: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 27%. Depression began 1873.
1880-1893: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 57%. Depression began 1893.
1920-1930: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 36%. Depression began 1929.
1997-2001: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 15%. Recession began 2001.

Today, we face enormous dangers. One is that millions of Americans thrown out of work or otherwise deprived of income will be unable to pay their bills, put food on the table or keep their homes.

Refusing to help them through this crisis, which came about for reasons beyond their control, would exact a horrific human toll.

It would also create general chaos that would stymie economic recovery for months, if not years.

Likewise with businesses. In the absence of prompt federal aid, a wave of bankruptcies could wipe out companies that were healthy and profitable before — and have every prospect of being healthy and profitable afterward.

The businesses would be gone, and so would the jobs they provided. People and companies desperately need a bridge across this troubled water.

In Mr. Chapman’s world, apparently the government should wait until “millions of Americans are thrown out of work or otherwise deprived of income, will be unable to pay their bills, put food on the table or keep their homes” before adding dollars to the economy.

He opposes deficit spending to, for instance, institute the Ten Steps to Prosperity (below), grow the economy and/or narrow the Gap between the rich and the rest

Yes, the necessary measures will be shockingly expensive. Yes, they will have to be paid for with borrowed funds. Yes, they will enlarge a national debt that was already in the neighborhood of $24 trillion.

WRONG. They will not be paid for with borrowed funds. But yes, the so-called national debt — which since 1940 has increased 60,000% (from $40 billion to $24 trillion) while the economy has grown massively — will continue to grow.

And further growth in the “debt” will mathematically be necessary for future economic growth.

How could we afford all this new debt?

Through the robust revenue-generating economic activity that will resume if we successfully navigate the crisis. The larger debt burden will be easier to bear in the long run than a smaller debt would be if we let a brief, severe downturn become a prolonged depression.

Mr. Chapman continues to demonstrate ignorance of the differences between federal financing and personal financing.

The federal government can “afford” any debt, simply by creating dollars. That is the way it pays all its debts.

It neither needs, nor uses “revenue-generating economic activity.” Federal taxes do not fund federal spending.

Debts have to repaid with dollars, and dollars are something the Federal Reserve can create in any quantity needed.

The worst case is that we will have to endure an eventual spell of inflation, which would be far preferable to an immediate and total economic collapse.

And there it is, the inevitable, but wrong, “The government always can print money, BUT this would cause inflation.” Again and again, we hear this from the economically ignorant, but NEVER do we see the evidence to back it up.warren buffet quote.png

Here is evidence to the contrary. It is an article titled, Only 450 words answer the question, “Does printing money cause inflation?”

It contains graphs showing that inflation is caused by shortages, especially shortages of food and/or energy:

Graph I Changes in the money supply M3 are NOT predictive of changes in prices (red).
Graph II Changes in the price of oil (which closely reflect supply changes) ARE predictive of inflation.
Graph III Food and energy inflation IS predictive of overall inflation.

After you look at those graphs, look at this one:

While federal deficit spending has risen dramatically (blue line) inflation (red line) has risen moderately, within the Fed’s target range.

Historically, the scarcity of food and/or oil has been the driver of inflation and hyperinflation. See: The Hyperinflation Myth Explained.

In most cases, our politicians deserve condemnation for spending money with wild abandon. In this moment, it’s the best thing they can do.

Steve Chapman, a member of the Tribune Editorial Board, blogs at http://www.chicagotribune.com/chapman .
schapman@chicagotribune.com
Twitter @SteveChapman13

Steve Chapman is widely read and influential. I urge you to contact him with the facts. Perhaps if he receives enough pokes, he may pay attention.

We desperately need more people of influence to spread the word, or we will have more recessions and wider Gaps between the rich 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:

  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

Inflation: The causes and cures

In one sense, inflations (and hyperinflations) must be complex, not only because so many nations have suffered from them and not known what to do, but because so many events can cause inflations.

But in another sense,  many nations have figured out how to prevent and cure inflations, and the causes can be boiled down to just two. This post reveals the two causes of, and the two best cures for, inflation.

Inflation does not exist in a vacuum. It is a change in the relationship between the value of a currency and the average value of goods and services. In short, the value of the currency declines relative to the value of the goods and services.

Image result for hyperinflation germany wheelbarrow
Classic example of hyperinflation — wheelbarrow of money.

Popular wisdom holds that government deficit spending or “money creation” causes inflation. Many examples of inflation, particularly hyperinflation (an extreme form of inflation) do seem to correspond with money creation.

Weimar Republic (Germany) and Zimbabwe are perhaps the most cited examples.

Yet, in the U.S., the money supply has increased markedly with only moderate inflation.

The following graph shows indexes of three money measures, M1 (green), M2 (red), and M3 (blue), along with the consumer price index measure of inflation (purple). All indexes are based on January 1980 = 100.

While all three money measures have risen substantially, inflation has been comparatively modest, and within the Fed’s target of 2.5% annually. Why?

Here is another graph comparing the rise of federal debt (total of T-security accounts) with the consumer price index:

Federal debt grew massively while inflation remained moderate.

Again, there seems to be scant relationship between federal debt growth and inflation.

It would be difficult to look at these data and conclude that federal deficit spending (i.e. money creation) causes inflation. In fact, money creation seems to be a government’s response to inflation, not the cause.

Where does that leave us?

Inflation is based on the value of goods and service vs. the value of a currency. The value of goods and services is based on Demand/Supply. The value of a currency also is based on Demand/Supply.

The formula for the value of goods and services (Demand/Supply) is driven mostly by changes in the Supply side of the fraction. When food or energy are in short supply, inflation is inevitable. The Demand for food and oil (today’s stand-in for energy) is far less variable.

In the formula for the value of dollars, Demand/Supply, both Demand and Supply can be quite variable. The Demand for currency is based on Reward/Risk. The Reward for owning dollars is interest. The Risk would be the reduced “full faith and credit” of the issuer.

Because the full faith and credit of the U.S. essentially is perfect, Risk is not an important variable here.

This means that inflation comes when the Reward for owning dollars (interest) declines and/or the Supply of food and/or energy declines.

A larger economy has more money than does a smaller economy. For instance, California has a larger economy and more money than does Los Angeles. Therefore, to grow an economy requires growing the money Supply. 

That indicates that trying to fight inflation by limiting the money supply (aka austerity), via reduced deficit spending and/or increased taxation, will lead to recession or depression.

Annual % change in Federal Debt shows that reductions lead to recessions (vertical bars), and increases cure recessions.

As for surpluses (i.e. extreme deficit reductions), they lead to depressions (i.e. extreme recessions):

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

Bottom line: Inflation devolves to two variables: The supply of food and/or energy and interest rates.

The prevention and cure for inflation is to make sure the Supply of goods and services (usually food or energy ) is adequate, and the Reward for owning dollars (interest), remains adequate.

Example: Zimbabwe’s hyperinflation began when its leader, Robert Mugabe stole farm land from white farmers and gave it to black people who had no experience farming.

The resultant food shortage caused inflation.  Then, Mugabe’s response was to print currency, which did nothing to solve the fundamental shortage problem. And as the inflation worsened, more and more useless currency printing followed, and it was the currency printing that wrongly was blamed for the inflation.

It was as though someone prescribed wine to cure a cancer. As the cancer progressed, more and more wine was prescribed until the patient died, and the wine was blamed as the cause of the cancer.

 In short, to prevent inflation don’t cut federal deficit spending. Rather, make sure the economy has plenty of food and energy and high enough interest rates.

And so, to cure an existing inflation, you must increase your supply of food and energy, and/or increase interest rates.

Printing more currency is an ineffective inflation cure, as is cutting deficit spending (aka “austerity.) Both exacerbate inflation and lead to recessions and depressions. Instituting austerity to grow an economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia. 

What should a Monetarily Sovereign country do about inflation? Here are the best steps to take:

  1. Increase interest rates to make the currency more valuable. This is the method the Fed uses to control inflation.
  2. Support farmers by cutting farm taxes, passing farm support bills, support farm research to increase crop yields.
  3. Support energy creation: Oil drilling, renewable energy.
  • Do not blame federal deficit spending for causing future inflations
  • Do not begin austerity (reduced deficit spending, increased taxation)
  • Do not print additional currency.
  • Do not borrow a foreign currency

What about monetarily non-sovereign nations like the euro countries, which do not have a sovereign currency?

If the EU cannot be convinced to prevent and cure inflations, while supporting economic growth, euro nations must re-establish their own currencies, and become Monetarily Sovereign, again.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty
Twitter: @rodgermitchell
Search #monetarysovereigntyFacebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

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

The most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the richer and the poorer.

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

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

Ten Steps To Prosperity:

1. Eliminate FICA

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 Gaps between the rich and you.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Yet another economics writer who doesn’t understand the fundamentals.

A fundamental truth of economics: A Monetarily Sovereign nation never unintentionally can run short of its own sovereign currency.

The nation does not need to tax and does not need to borrow. It creates its sovereign currency at will.

To not understand that fact is to not understand economics, for it is the absolute foundation of economics.

THEWEEK Magazine recently published the article, “The big question about Modern Monetary Theory everyone is missing,” by Ryan Cooper.

Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) and Monetary Sovereignty (MS) share many characteristics regarding money in today’s economies.

Here are a few excerpts from the article, together with my comments.

Economists are in the midst of one of the periodic debate flare-ups over Modern Monetary Theory.

On the pro-MMT side we have economists like Stephanie Kelton and Randall Wray, while on the other we have the odd bedfellows of The New York Times’ Paul Krugman and the People’s Policy Project’s Matt Bruenig.

Professor Kelton has been a “pen pal” of mine for several years. I met Professor Wray years ago, when I gave a talk to his class at UMKC.

This intricate debate is about the main merits of MMT, an economic school of thought which has received wide attention for its dismissal of the need for taxes to pay for new spending.

Both MMT and MS agree that unlike state and local taxes, which do pay for state and local government spending, federal taxes do not pay for federal spending.

The reason is that the U.S. federal government is Monetarily Sovereign. It is sovereign over U.S. dollars, which it creates ad hoc, every time it pays a creditor.

Even if the U.S. government collected zero taxes, it could continue spending, forever.

However, there is an important question which has to this point not been raised. The MMT advocates say that inflation should be controlled through fiscal policy, instead of monetary policy conducted by the central bank as is current practice.

In other words, if prices start rising, we can keep them in line by raising taxes.

But does that actually work?

No, it doesn’t work, cannot work and never will work.

Raising taxes is too slow and too political (waiting for Congress), too undirected (which taxes?), not incremental enough (raise taxes how much?), and too damaging to economic growth (taxes reduce the money supply). 

Unfortunately, MMT takes incompatible positions. It says correctly, that federal taxes do not fund federal spending, but incorrectly that federal taxes are necessary to cause demand for U.S. dollars.

During times of recession and economic slack, a state borrowing in its own currency has unlimited capacity to spend, because printing money or borrowing to spend on public works and so on will not cause inflation so long as there are unemployed workers and idle capital stock.

Think, Mr. Cooper. If a state has the unlimited capacity to spend and to “print” money, why would it need to, or even want to, borrow? Think.

Contrary to popular wisdom, the U.S. does not borrow dollars. Instead, it accepts deposits into T-security accounts, the purpose of which are:

  1. To provide the world with a safe place to park unused dollars. This helps stabilize the dollar.
  2. To assist the Fed in controlling interest rates, which control inflation.

But if there is full employment, taxes are needed for new programs — to fund them for the former, or to stave off inflation for the latter.

Here, Cooper reveals he doesn’t understand the differences between monetarily non-sovereign state and local government financing (where borrowing is necessary), vs. Monetarily Sovereign federal financing (that requires no borrowing).

The federal government levies taxes, but not to obtain dollars. It freely produces all the dollars it needs.

The purpose of federal taxes is to control the economy by discouraging certain activities with higher taxes and by encouraging others with tax reductions.

The effect of federal taxes (as opposed to the purpose), is to reduce federal deficit spending which reduces the money supply.

All federal taxes do this — income taxes, FICA, sales taxes, import duties, etc. They all reduce the money supply. Just as tax cuts are economically stimulative, tax increases are recessionary.

And just as increased federal deficit spending helps cure recessions, decreased federal deficit spending causes recessions, and worst case, depressions.

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

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

Now, it should be noted that MMT’s style of argumentation seems to have dented the brainless pro-austerity mindset that dominates much of elite discourse, which is very much to its credit.

Remember the above comment, because later in his article, Cooper unknowingly supports the very austerity he calls “brainless.”

He discusses the key objection to MMT (and MS), inflation:

The way tax-side inflation control is supposed to work is through supply and demand.

Since taxation will leave buyers with less money in their pockets to spend, market competition will force suppliers to cut prices and workers to accept lower wages.

But if markets have become dominated by a few big firms, then business can resist this pressure, because buyers have nowhere else to go.

Taxation reduces the supply of money. Though taxation can support the demand for money, it is not necessary for that purpose.

Interest is a more effective device for supporting the demand for money. While taxes depress an economy, interest stimulates the economy by increasing federal dollar interest input.

Money growth grows an economy.

A good test of this prediction came in the late 1970s, when inflation was at its postwar peak.

Economist John Kenneth Galbraith argued for price controls, but conservative “monetarists” like Milton Friedman argued that (with) a steep hike in interest rates, inflation would come down quickly and easily.

The Fed tried Friedman’s policy, but it turned out Galbraith was right.

The Fed hiked interest rates to an eyewatering 20 percent, creating the worst recession since the Great Depression up to that time.

But inflation only came down very slowly — partly through Keynesian-style spending effects, but partly by badly damaging the labor movement, which cut unionization.

In the past 50 years, since President Nixon took the U.S. off a gold standard, inflation has not been caused by America’s massive federal deficit spending. See: Inflation has been caused by the price of oil.

The Fed wisely has not recommended controlling the price of oil, an action that would lead to an oil shortage, and a recession, if not a depression. That is what price controls do: Lead to shortages.

And what do shortages lead to? Hyperinflations.

So, Cooper writes that Galbraith was right about price controls?? Where did that come from? He provides no evidence.

The true effect of price controls is to reduce economic growth by reducing supply and profits — the economic necessities for growth.

Price control is a feature of the “brainless, pro-austerity mindset” that Cooper properly criticized a few paragraphs ago.

And do increased interest rates really lead to recessions? Or is it simply that recessions lead to decreased interest rates?

Interest rates (red); deficit spending increases (blue); recessions (vertical gray bars)

The above graph shows that sometimes interest rates peak at the start of recessions, sometimes they peak in the midst of economic growth, and sometimes they decline at the start of recessions.

One cannot say that increased interest rates historically have caused recessions.

The real pattern is that decreased deficit spending causes recessions and increased deficit spending cures recessions.

Why? Because a growing economy requires a growing supply of dollars, and deficit spending adds stimulus dollars to the economy.

Federal deficit spending and debt don’t cause inflation.

Since the U.S. went off the gold standard in 1971, the federal debt (blue) has risen massively, while inflation (red) has been moderate.

Most inflations and nearly all hyperinflations are caused by shortages, usually shortages of food, and often shortages of oil.

For instance, Zimbabwe, an oft-mentioned hyperinflation victim, had its hyperinflation begin with a food shortage. (Farmland was stolen from farmers and given to non-farmers.)

One reason inflation control is delegated to the central bank is that it can work quickly, adjusting interest rates in response to economic conditions several times per year.

Congress works extremely slowly at the best of times, and control is usually split between the two parties.

The Fed may have performed poorly over the last decade, but do we really want Mitch McConnell having to sign off on inflation policy?

Exactly. Now that Cooper belatedly has confirmed why price controls and tax increases don’t work and can’t work, we come to the:

SUMMARY

Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) and Monetary Sovereignty MS) describe the realities of economics similarly.

They agree that a Monetarily Sovereign nation, such as the U.S., cannot run short of its own sovereign currency, and neither needs nor uses tax dollars to fund spending.

They differ in many other areas however, one of which has to do with controlling inflation:

Three inflation controls were discussed, only one of which is effective:

  1. Price controls which cut profits and thus cut economic growth, lead to recessions and ultimately cause inflations by causing shortages. They don’t work, and neither MMT nor MS supports this approach.
  2. Tax increases, which are too slow, too political, not incremental, and cause recessions by decreasing the money supply. They don’t work, though MMT supports this approach.
  3. Interest rate increases, which actually increase the money supply (by causing the federal government to pay more interest into the economy, and work by increasing the value of dollars (by increasing the demand for dollars). Works, and has been working since the end of WWII. MS supports this approach.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty
Twitter: @rodgermitchell
Search #monetarysovereigntyFacebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

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

The most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the richer and the poorer.

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

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

Ten Steps To Prosperity:

1. Eliminate FICA

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 you.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

 

A letter to our good friends, the British

Dear friends,

Congratulations on ridding yourselves of the unelected, wealthy bankers who have been running your country without your say so.

We discussed this at “What will Brexit mean”? and at “Brexit: How Obama bailed, then failed”

Be assured that your newfound freedom of self-determination has angered and frightened the above-mentioned wealthy bankers. They will not relinquish you, their cash cow, lightly.

During the weeks and months to come, you will be subject to repeated pressures to reverse your vote.

For example:

(LONDON)— Standard & Poor’s has stripped the United Kingdom of its top credit grade in the wake of the vote to leave the European Union.

The rating agency downgraded the country’s sovereign rating by two notches, from AAA to AA, saying the vote is a “seminal event” that “will lead to a less predictable, stable and effective policy framework in the U.K.”

It is also keeping a negative outlook on the rating, which means it could downgrade the country further.

It added in a report published Monday that the outlook reflects the risk to the economy and public finances, as well as the pound’s role as an international reserve currency.

It also cited “risks to the constitutional and economic integrity of the U.K.” as Scotland’s strong vote to remain in the EU could raise the prospect of another referendum on Scottish independence.

Do you see what is happening here?  S&P, which is owned by the rich, has begun the drumbeat for a reversal of Brexit.

And everything it says is lies.

  1. There is not a “less predictable, stable policy framework.” Quite the opposite, without the EU ruling for itself rather than for the people of Britain, policy should be more predictable.There will be no contradictions of motive. All decisions can be for the people, and the profitability of the ECB will not be an divisive issue.
  2. And here comes the threat: “It could downgrade the country further.” (Come back under our thumb, or else we’ll cut your credit rating — OR ELSE.)
  3. “The pound’s role as an international reserve currency” is a truly ironic concern. Where was this concern when the EU wanted Britain to leave the pound and join those tragic unfortunates who surrendered the single most valuable asset any nations have — their Monetary Sovereignty?In any event, leaving the EU will not affect the pound’s role as an international reserve currency. It actually will boost the pound’s role by strengthening the British economy.
  4. Then even more irony: ” . . . risks to the constitutional and economic integrity of the U.K.” Where in the constitution does it say that unelected, wealthy bankers and their compliant clerks should rule and overrule your constitutionally elected government?What is the “economic integrity” of having foreigners run your government?

S&P supposedly measures creditworthiness, i.e. the ability and willingness to service one’s debts. How has leaving the grasp of the EU bankers reduced Britain’s ability and willingness to service its debts?

(S&P is one of the rating organizations that reduced America’s credit rating below that of corporations domiciled in America! Think of what would befall the credit rating of those corporations should America ever fail to pay its debts.)

S&P relies on the goodwill of the rich for its business.

The S&P action is a fraud, funded by the rich. Any politician, economists or media who claim otherwise, also are frauds.

(As in America, the rich bribe your politicians with campaign contributions; the rich bribe the media via ownership; and the rich bribe the university economists with contributions to schools.)

The rich are afraid that if there are any future exits from the EU, there will begin an exit stampede of cash cows. The bankers will say anything and do anything to continue the milking.

Then, there is this article:

How Brexit Threatens to Turn the UK Into “Borisland”

Brexit is about much more than frustration about the E.U. and immigration.

It is about a shortage of decent and secure jobs; an impossibly precarious labour market; inexplicable inequalities in incomes and wealth; closed access to affordable education, and a terrible deficiency of affordable housing.

And it is about British Chancellor of the Exchequer Osborne’s single-minded austerity economics and the rule-free and tax-free space created for big banks and corporations.

Decision-making in the European Union symbolizes a largely unaccountable, elitist and undemocratic system, which is why Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn was half-hearted in his support for a Remain vote.

The recent examples of Greece, Spain and other southern European countries, all in a Brussels-induced economic lockdown, speak volumes against the political feasibility of “reforming the European Union from within.”

The sovereignty regained at the cost of deeply dividing the nation is unlikely to produce the more socially just and economically inclusive Britain that many voters sought.

The hopes of progressives are likely to be betrayed as Britain is turned into “Borisland” – a deindustrializing nation suffering from sluggish productivity growth, growing in-work poverty and rising inequalities, and with government in permanent austerity mode.

At long last, Britain has regained its Monetary Sovereignty.. Your leaders have the ability to benefit only you.

They do not need to cowtow to the greedy, foreign bankers, who care nothing for the people, but only for their own purses.

Sadly, your leaders have lied to you that austerity is necessary for economic growth, when exactly the opposite is true.

A growing economy requires a growing money supply. Austerity is like applying leeches to cure anemia.

To accomplish economic growth and citizen wellbeing, the national government of a Monetarily Sovereign government must add to the money supply. That is, your government always must run deficits, and larger the deficits the greater will be your Gross Domestic Product.  

GDP =  Government Spending + Non-government Spending + Net Exports

You will be told falsely that deficits are “unsustainable” and will cause inflation. But for a Monetarily Sovereign nation, no deficit of any size is “unsustainable,” and inflation is contained via interest rate control.

You have won the first battle, but the war remains in jeopardy. You will have to fight those outsiders, who wish to subjugate you, and to resume bleeding your economy.

And you will have to fight those insiders,  who will try to impose austerity.

The outsiders and the insiders are directed by the rich, whose sole motive is to brainwash you into allowing them to line their pockets with British gold.

Don’t allow it to happen.

Good luck to you.

=Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

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

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

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

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

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY