Tag: chartalism

–Interview with Abby Romaine on WNZF. Is she the smartest lady on the air?

The debt hawks are to economics as the creationists are to biology. Those, who do not understand Monetary Sovereignty, do not understand economics. If you understand the following, simple statement, you are ahead of most economists, politicians and media writers in America: Our government, being Monetarily Sovereign, has the unlimited ability to create the dollars to pay its bills.
==========================================================================================================================================================

Today, Abby Romaine again interviewed me on her WNZF show, Center: Uncensored. From what I can tell, Abby is the only radio broadcaster in existence who understands Monetary Sovereignty. This is particularly frightening, as Monetary Sovereignty is the basis for all modern economics.

The two things I puzzle about: How did she come to understand, and why is she the only one? Yes, there are MMT economists who get it, but if anyone out there knows of another media person, whether radio, TV or newspaper, who understands Monetary Sovereignty I sure would like to know his/her name. The editors of the WSJ and the Chicago Tribune don’t get it. No newsperson gets it. No columnist gets it. But Abby does.

Those interested in writing to this brilliant lady can reach her at: abby.romaine@gmail.com

Anyway, today she and I discussed Ron Paul, perhaps the nation’s leading architect of economic ignorance, and the Tea Party (formerly known and the Republican Party) and John (“America is broke”) Boehner, and the deficit and the debt.

I enjoy talking with Abby, because I like talking with smart people, but I probably mouthed off too much (Old people do that). My only concern is that Abby gets it. She understands that a growing economy requires a growing money supply, and federal deficits are the federal government’s method for growing the economy. She understands that federal debt could be eliminated tomorrow, simply by crediting the bank accounts of T-security holders. She understands that federal debt is not the accumulation of federal deficits, but rather that debt could exist without deficits and vice versa. And she understand that a nation with the unlimited power to create money never can be “broke.”

Why am I concerned? Because not being a radio guy, I don’t know if listeners would rather hear two people argue, and she and I don’t argue. She does play excerpts from Tea Party speeches, and perhaps that provides enough counterpoint. But Ron Paul? This guy is so ridiculous, even staunch conservatives find him an embarrassment. Maybe she should play some excerpts from an Obama speech. He at least sounds more rational, though he too is ignorant about our economy.

By the way, I thought Obama, coming from the rough ‘n’ tumble of Chicago politics would be endowed with major testosterone. But, he seems to be wimping out. The Tea (Republican) Party has a plan: Cut federal spending, which will slow the economy. Obama and the Democrats will be blamed for the poor economic performance, and in 2012, the Teas will be able to foist their own guy or gal on the American public, which by the way is exactly how the Teas won the House last year.

Never mind that executing this plan will hurt America. That isn’t a Tea concern. Cynically, they are interested solely in power. Paraphrasing my question of Abby: “What do you call American citizens who knowingly hurt America?” Then I answered my own question: “I’d call them traitors.” The irony is, the Teas love to wrap themselves in the America flag.

Second thought: That’s not irony; it’s marketing. Address the negative head-on, and turn it into a positive. Remember when cigarette advertising featured doctors telling us how healthful smoking is? Or Volkswagon bragging about how ugly the Beetle was? The Teas make a virtue out of cutting the benefits Americans enjoy.

Anyway, Obama has allowed the Teas to define the discussion. He doesn’t argue, as he should, that cutting federal spending is the dopiest idea since taxing Social Security benefits. Instead, he forlornly whines that yes, the deficit is too big, and we should cut it — only please cut it less. Just when we need leadership, we get groveling. As a Chicagoan, I’m embarrassed. Mayor Daley never groveled. He lied (They all do), but he never groveled.

If Daley were president, I suspect he’d look the reporters in the eye and say, “To cut federal spending is just, plain stupid.” And he’d be right.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com

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

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

–My predictions for Japan and for the U.S. economists

The debt hawks are to economics as the creationists are to biology. Those, who do not understand Monetary Sovereignty, do not understand economics. If you understand the following, simple statement, you are ahead of most economists, politicians and media writers in America: Our government, being Monetarily Sovereign, has the unlimited ability to create the dollars to pay its bills.
======================================================================================================================================================================================

My predictions:
To cope with its tsunami problems, the Japanese government will be forced into massive spending. This will increase Japan’s debt/GDP ratio from its current 200%. That ratio could reach 300%, 400%, 1,000% — who knows how high.

The results will be:

–On-line “debt clocks” madly will tick ominous warnings.
–John Boehner and the Tea Party, who have no understanding of Monetary Sovereignty, will tell everyone Japan is “broke,” just as they have been telling everyone the U.S. is “broke.”
–If Japan does not have a debt ceiling, some in their government will insist they institute one, to prove they know as little about economics as U.S. politicians.
–The Japanese economy will recover.
–Sometime in the very distant future, Paul Krugman, Charles Krauthammer, Barry Rithholtz, Robert Samuelson, Stephen Gandel, Joseph Stiglitz and the editors of the Wall Street Journal will proclaim they always knew federal deficit spending was necessary for a growing economy, and that, in 2011, the so-called “debt” really was not too high.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com

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

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

–Why even the GAO is part of the movement for economic ignorance.

The debt hawks are to economics as the creationists are to biology. Those, who do not understand Monetary Sovereignty, do not understand economics. If you understand the following, simple statement, you are ahead of most economists, politicians and media writers in America: Our government, being Monetarily Sovereign, has the unlimited ability to create the dollars to pay its bills.
======================================================================================================================================================================================

Excerpt from a March 1, 2011 article in the “Federal Eye” by Ed O’Keefe, titled: “Government overlap costs taxpayers billions, GAO reports”

. . . according to a Government Accountability Office report released Tuesday. The U.S. government has more than 100 programs dealing with surface transportation issues, 82 monitoring teacher quality, 80 for economic development, 47 for job training, 20 offices or programs devoted to homelessness and 17 different grant programs for disaster preparedness. Another 15 agencies or offices handle food safety, and five are working to ensure the federal government uses less gasoline.

“Reducing or eliminating duplication, overlap, or fragmentation could potentially save billions of taxpayer dollars annually and help agencies provide more efficient and effective services,” the GAO said. Merging or terminating operations as recommended in the report could save up to several billion dollars.

You who understand Monetary Sovereignty are aware that taxpayers do not pay for federal spending. In fact, there is no relationship between federal taxes and federal spending (unlike the situation with monetarily non-sovereign governments, where taxes do pay for spending.) By using the words “taxpayer dollars,” the GAO demonstrates it does not understand the realities of federal finances. If you think this is amazing, bordering on the impossible, for the Government Accountability Office, not to understand federal finances, you may be right.

Without subscribing too deeply into conspiracy theory, one might conclude the GAO actually does understand, but has an axe to grind. Consider their decision to use the word, “taxpayer.” Why do they refer to “taxpayer dollars,” rather than just to “dollars”?

Clearly, they are attempting to make the point appear more shocking. We are not the government, but we all are taxpayers. So spending government dollars would not seem nearly as serious as spending yours and my (aka “taxpayer”) dollars.

According to the GAO website:

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) is known as “the investigative arm of Congress” and “the congressional watchdog.” GAO supports the Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and helps improve the performance and accountability of the federal government for the benefit of the American people. The agency examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other data to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

We all know Congress loves to point with pride and view with alarm, and the GAO gives them the opportunity to do both. The GAO works for Congress and its purpose is to give Congress ammunition to criticize, and this ammunition is based on the believing federal dollars are limited, so must be used “efficiently” (i.e. minimally). Since, in fact, Monetarily Sovereign federal dollars are not limited, but taxpayer dollars are limited, referring to “taxpayer” dollars provides Congress with much greater alarm for viewing.

Now, consider this GAO press release:

U.S. GOVERNMENT’S 2010 FINANCIAL REPORT SHOWS SIGNIFICANT FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND FISCAL CHALLENGES

WASHINGTON (December 21, 2010) – The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) cannot render an opinion on the 2010 consolidated financial statements of the federal government, because of widespread material internal control weaknesses, significant uncertainties, and other limitations.

“Even though significant progress has been made since the enactment of key financial management reforms in the 1990s, our report on the U.S. government’s consolidated financial statement illustrates that much work remains to be done to improve federal financial management. Shortcomings in three areas again prevented us from expressing an opinion on the accrual-based financial statements,” said Gene Dodaro, Acting Comptroller General of the United States.

The main obstacles to a GAO opinion were: (1) serious financial management problems at the Department of Defense (DOD) that made its financial statements unauditable, (2) the federal government’s inability to adequately account for and reconcile intragovernmental activity and balances between federal agencies, and (3) the federal government’s ineffective process for preparing the consolidated financial statements.

[. . . ] Dodaro also cited material weaknesses involving an estimated $125.4 billion in improper payments, information security across government, and tax collection activities. He noted that three major agencies—DOD, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Labor—did not get clean opinions.

Not only does this report provide Congress with plenty of ammunition to view with alarm, but more importantly (for the GAO), it demonstrates the importance of the GAO. One almost can hear Congress sighing, “Thank God for the GAO.”

In short, it is in the GAO’s interest to make its reports seem as troubling as possible. The more grim its revelations, the more likely will the GAO receive increased funding, and the more likely will Comptroller General, Gene L. Dodaro, not only keep his job, but be hailed by Congress as a true guardian of the public domain. Imagine Mr. Dodaro coming before Congress and saying, “Everything is O.K.” They’d boot him out of town.

So why should Mr. Dodaro state concern about federal dollars, when the federal government has the unlimited ability to create dollars? Who cares about saving something that is endlessly available? Better he should talk about “taxpayer” dollars, and give the (false) impression innocent Americans are being injured by federal spending.

The myth of federal deficits and debt benefits so many vested interests, is here any wonder the plain facts are ignored?

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com

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

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

–Charles Krauthammer’s scary misinformation on Social Security

The debt hawks are to economics as the creationists are to biology. Those, who do not understand Monetary Sovereignty, do not understand economics. If you understand the following, simple statement, you are ahead of most economists, politicians and media writers in America: Our government, being Monetarily Sovereign, has the unlimited ability to create the dollars to pay its bills.
================================================================================================================================================================================

Recently, the noted commentator, Charles Krauthammer, wrote an article titled, “Et tu, Jack Lew?” In this article, he said:

The Social Security trust fund is a fiction. If you don’t believe me, listen to the OMB’s own explanation (in the Clinton administration budget for fiscal 2000 under then-Director Jack Lew, the very same). The OMB explained that these trust fund “balances” are nothing more than a “bookkeeping” device. “They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits.”

In other words, the Social Security trust fund contains – nothing.

I was amazed. Krauthammer actually gets it? He’s right, of course. There are no dollars in the so-called “trust fund,” simply because FICA, and indeed all federal tax money, is destroyed upon receipt. This is one of the features of a Monetarily Sovereign government. It has the unlimited ability to create money, so it has no need to store money.

But alas, Krauthammer’s understanding was not to be, for in the very next paragraph he said:

Here’s why. When your FICA tax is taken out of your paycheck, it does not get squirreled away in some lockbox in West Virginia where it’s kept until you and your contemporaries retire. Most goes out immediately to pay current retirees, and the rest (say, $100) goes to the U.S. Treasury – and is spent. On roads, bridges, national defense, public television, whatever – spent, gone.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Our Monetarily Sovereign federal government does not spend tax money on anything. In fact, there is no relationship whatsoever, between federal taxes and federal spending. This has been true since 1971, the end of the gold standard, and Krauthammer et al have not yet noticed the most influential economic change in our lifetimes. Today, even were federal taxes to fall to zero, this would not affect by even one dollar, the federal government’s ability to spend. (This is not the case for the states, counties and cities, which are not Monetarily Sovereign and so do spend tax money.)

Krauthammer goes on to say:

In return for that $100, the Treasury sends the Social Security Administration a piece of paper that says: IOU $100. There are countless such pieces of paper in the lockbox. They are called “special issue” bonds.

Special they are: They are worthless. As the OMB explained, they are nothing more than “claims on the Treasury [i.e., promises] that, when redeemed [when you retire and are awaiting your check], will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures.” That’s what it means to have a so-called trust fund with no “real economic assets.”

Wrong again. Federal spending is not financed by raising taxes or borrowing.

When you retire, the “trust fund” will have to go to the Treasury for the money for your Social Security check.

Yes, the Treasury will do what has been doing and is designed to do: Create the dollars to pay Social Security benefits.

So when (Office of Management and Budget Director Jack Lew) tells you that there are trillions in this lockbox that keep the system solvent until 2037, he is perpetrating a fiction certified as such by his own OMB. What happens when you retire? Your Social Security will come out of the taxes and borrowing of that fiscal year.

No, federal taxes and borrowing do not fund federal spending. Both could be eliminated, and the federal government could continue to spend trillions. Yes, there can be inflation implications, but the federal government neither needs nor uses tax money for anything.

Think about it. If you had a money-printing press in your basement, and had the unlimited ability to print money, would you borrow the money you previously had printed, and could continue to print, forever? Would you ask for tax money so you could pay your bills? Would you have any unpaid debts? Would creating money cause a “deficit”?

Krauthammer’s (as well as politician’s, other media writers’ and mainstream economists’) confusion comes from three sources:

1. Prior to 1971, when the federal government was not Monetarily Sovereign, it did spend borrowed and tax money.
2. The states, counties and cities, being monetarily non-sovereign, do spend borrowed and tax money.
3. You and I and all businesses, are not Monetarily Sovereign. We do need a source of income before we can spend.

In short, Krauthammer et al, do not realize the federal government is completely different from all the monetarily non-sovereign entities. He confuses federal “debt” and federal “borrowing” with personal debt and personal borrowing.

So when your Social Security benefits are cut needlessly, you’ll understand why. It’s the Krauthammers of the world, ignorant of economic reality, who are driving our economy. And this indeed is scary.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com

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

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY