–Microevolution, macroevolution, and the stupid party Monday, Oct 12 2015 

Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

Mitchell’s laws:
•Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
•Any monetarily NON-sovereign government — be it city, county, state or nation — that runs an ongoing trade deficit, eventually will run out of money.
•The more federal budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes. .
Liberals think the purpose of government is to protect the poor and powerless from the rich and powerful. Conservatives think the purpose of government is to protect the rich and powerful from the poor and powerless.
•The single most important problem in economics is
the Gap between rich and poor.
•Austerity is the government’s method for widening
the Gap between rich and poor.
•Until the 99% understand the need for federal deficits, the upper 1% will rule.
•Everything in economics devolves to motive, and the motive is the Gap between the rich and the rest..


We are in the year 2015, an enlightened year of science and technology, as contrasted with the Dark Ages, supposedly ruled by superstition and ignorance.

Yet, in this enlightened year:

A major survey of US opinions has revealed that huge numbers of people reject Darwinian evolution, consider GM foods unsafe to eat, and doubt that human activity is warming the planet.

monetary sovereignty

On January 24, 2013, Bobby Jindal, in one of his rare lucid moments said:

“We’ve got to stop being the stupid party. It’s time for a new Republican Party that talks like adults. We had a number of Republicans damage the brand this year with offensive and bizarre comments. I’m here to say we’ve had enough of that.”

To be criticized by Bobby Jindal for being stupid is akin to being criticized by a bear for being furry.

Still, in it’s never-ending efforts to replace science with myth, the religious right continues to promulgate ignorance:

Republican candidate, Ben Carson, the neurosurgeon and living embodiment of mental compartmentalization (i.e., smart in one area; stupid in others), denies Darwinian evolution.

When faced with enormous evidence, Carson backtracked and said: “Microevolution versus macroevolution are two different things.”

What did he mean by that?

Microevolution occurs within a species. For example, arctic bears evolved to be white to blend with the snow, while other bears evolved to be dark to blend with the forest. But they still are bears. They didn’t evolve to become bats.

Carson acknowledges that microevolution happens (though many evolution deniers don’t.) Carson, however, continues to deny that one species can evolve into another species (macroevolution).

The main problem with Carson’s desperate attempt replace science with biblical lore is that “species” is an artificial construct, created by people in an attempt to categorize living creatures. (Humans love to categorize.)

In that sense, nature does not create “species.” People do. And, there is no agreement about exactly what a “species” is.

One common, but sometimes difficult, question is how best to decide which species an organism belongs to, because reproductively isolated groups may not be readily recognizable.

This means that according to one popular definition, “species” refers to sexual reproduction, wherein the dividing line is: One species cannot impregnate another species.

Another common problem is how to define reproductive isolation, because some separately evolving groups may continue to interbreed to some extent, and it can be a difficult matter to discover whether this hybridization affects the long-term genetic make-up of the groups.

So when Carson denies macroevolution exists, he denies not only the tons and tons of scientific evidence, but he doesn’t even know what he is denying. There is no agreement on exactly what a “species” is.

And all of this begs the question, “From where did homo sapiens (that’s us) come?” “Homo” is the species, and presumably it had a beginning. Carson, and others of similar leanings, apparently claim that homo at some point sprang fully formed, as in “So God created man in His own image.”

It’s difficult to do justice to the full range of Carson’s scientific ignorance, but here are some excerpts:

Ben Carson: Evolution Is An Absurd Myth, ‘Give Me A Break’

“They (scientists) are so smart that if they can’t explain how God did something, then it didn’t happen which, of course means that they’re God. You don’t need a God if you consider yourself capable of explaining everything.”

The irony is that it is the religionists like Carson, who claim they can explain everything with the simple declaration: “God did it.”

By contrast, science is based on the admission that we don’t know everything, and the very purpose of science is to discover what we don’t know, and to verify what we may believe.

He claimed that “no one has the knowledge” of the age of the earth “based on the Bible,” adding that “carbon dating and all of these things really don’t mean anything to a God who has the ability to create anything at any point in time.”

Note that his statement has nothing to do with the validity of carbon dating. He merely rejects science in favor of religious faith.

(Carson) said evolution is unable to explain the development of an eyeball: “Give me a break. According to their scheme, it had to occur overnight, it had to be there. I instead say, if you have an intelligent creator, what he does is give his creatures the ability to adapt to the environment so he doesn’t have to start over every fifty years creating all over again.”

The “eyeball” objection has been used by evolution deniers for many years. It is completely untrue, and is a demonstration of Carson’s remarkable ignorance:

Scientists have traced the evolution of the eyeball from a “simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature (that) gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator.

Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight.

In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists’ hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve.

The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist’s calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch.

One well could wonder how a medical doctor could fail to know this. Don’t medical doctors take biology classes? Don’t they have to pass biology exams?

Oh, but it gets better (i.e. worse):

Ben Carson Forgets Baltic States Are in NATO, Dates Islam to Before Christ


But just when it seemed Carson couldn’t move any further from reality, he sat down with TV preacher Pat Robertson’s Christian Broadcasting Network and came up with a brand new fantasy.

Carson said Putin shares a deep historical tie with Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas, suggesting he became acquainted with them during their college days in Moscow when Putin was a young KGB operative.

The Christian Broadcasting Network’s report referred to this as a “little known historical fact.” The trouble is, it’s little known because it’s not a historical fact.

There’s literally no evidence to suggest Khamenei ever studied in the former Soviet Union. And since he and Abbas are several years older than Putin, the timeline doesn’t even make sense – Putin would have been a 16-year-old high school student at the time.

All together, Carson’s abysmal ignorance about evolution, geopolitics, climate change (“There’s always going to be either cooling or warming going on” “It’s ‘irrelevant.’”), gun control (“In case of an invasion by foreign power, the people will be able to aid the military. And also, if we have a time when we have the wrong people in office and they want to dominate the people, the people will be able to defend themselves.”), homosexuality (“It’s a choice.”), poverty (Create a regressive flat tax and eliminate policies sheltering the poor from having to pay taxes.), religious freedom (A Muslim should only be president if he or she “renounces the tenets of Islam.”) and other ideas of similar malodor, make Carson a perfect Republican — a perfect representative of Jindal’s “stupid party.”

The fact that Carson currently ranks #2 (to Donald Trump) says little about Carson and Trump, and much about the Republican electorate.

But then again, what choices do they have? The Republicans have created rules about what constitutes a REAL Republican, and to follow those rules, a candidate first must join the “stupid party.”

For once in his life, Bobby Jindal was right on target

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

Ten Steps to Prosperity:
1. Eliminate FICA (Click here)
2. Federally funded Medicare — parts A, B & D plus long term nursing care — for everyone (Click here)
3. Provide an Economic Bonus to every man, woman and child in America, and/or every state a per capita Economic Bonus. (Click here) Or institute a reverse income tax.
4. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone. Click here
5. Salary for attending school (Click here)
6. Eliminate corporate taxes (Click here)
7. Increase the standard income tax deduction annually Click here
8. Tax the very rich (.1%) more, with higher, progressive tax rates on all forms of income. (Click here)
9. Federal ownership of all banks (Click here and here)

10. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99% (Click here)

The Ten Steps will add dollars to the economy, stimulate the economy, and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and the rest.

10 Steps to Economic Misery: (Click here:)
1. Maintain or increase the FICA tax..
2. Spread the myth Social Security, Medicare and the U.S. government are insolvent.
3. Cut federal employment in the military, post office, other federal agencies.
4. Broaden the income tax base so more lower income people will pay.
5. Cut financial assistance to the states.
6. Spread the myth federal taxes pay for federal spending.
7. Allow banks to trade for their own accounts; save them when their investments go sour.
8. Never prosecute any banker for criminal activity.
9. Nominate arch conservatives to the Supreme Court.
10. Reduce the federal deficit and debt

No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth. Monetary Sovereignty: Cutting federal deficits to grow the economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia.
1. A growing economy requires a growing supply of dollars (GDP=Federal Spending + Non-federal Spending + Net Exports)
2. All deficit spending grows the supply of dollars
3. The limit to federal deficit spending is an inflation that cannot be cured with interest rate control.
4. The limit to non-federal deficit spending is the ability to borrow.

Monetary Sovereignty

Recessions come after the blue line drops below zero.

Monetary Sovereignty

Vertical gray bars mark recessions.

As the federal deficit growth lines drop, we approach recession, which will be cured only when the growth lines rise. Increasing federal deficit growth (aka “stimulus”) is necessary for long-term economic growth.


What is it that all 500 of America’s most powerful people don’t know? Friday, Apr 1 2011 

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.

The United States Senate has 100 members. The United States House of Representatives has 435 members plus six non-voting delegates.

In addition, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget said, “Today (3/31/11), over 64 prominent budget experts and economists wrote a letter to President Obama and Congressional leadership urging them to take action on our debt and deficits.

Add to that the President of the United States and his cabinet and advisors, and we have at least 500-600 of the most powerful people in America, not one of whom has any understanding of Monetary Sovereignty, but who direct our economy. Does that bother you? No?

Well how about the latest Tea (formerly Republican) Party chant, “Cut it or shut it,” meaning if cutting the federal budget won’t do sufficient damage to our economy , let’s just shut down the government and finish the job.

Does that bother you?

No, how about this story from ABC News:

Tea Party Hypocrisy? Some Lawmakers With Tea Party Ties Are on the Government Dole, by Jonathan Karl and Avery Miller, March 31, 2011

The Tea Party swept into the 112th Congress with promises of cutting government spending. But according to a report out today, at least five lawmakers with Tea Party connections have been longtime recipients of federal agricultural subsidies. “There’s nothing too surprising about hypocrisy in Washington,” Ken Cook, president of Environmental Working Group, told ABC News. “This particular group, you not only have to look at the hypocrisy but you need to watch your wallet.”

While the majority of American farmers receive no government money at all, at least 23 current members of congress or their families have received government money for their farms — combining for more than $12 million since 1995 according to a new report from the Environmental Working Group.

The biggest recipient was Rep. Stephen Fincher, a Republican from Frog Jump, Tenn.

While the self-described Tea Party patriot lists his occupation as “farmer” and “gospel singer” in the Congressional Directory, he doesn’t mention that his family has received more than $3 million in farm subsidies from 1995 to 2009, according to the Environmental Working Group.

When asked whether he would be willing to see all his subsidies go away, Fincher would not directly say he would no longer take any more subsidies.

“We need a good, better, we need a better farm program and we need to streamline it,” he said. “We need to look at many many options. And that’s a long way off.”

Frankly, it doesn’t bother me at all, that the Tea (formerly Republican) Party members are taking government money. It’s hypocritical, but it benefits the economy. What bothers me is the universal ignorance of our nation’s leaders.

I’m waiting for just one person in Congress or in the Executive Branch, to demonstrate even a rudimentary understanding of Monetary Sovereignty. Is that too much to ask?

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

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


–News: China must control inflation, exports and GDP growth. But how? Friday, Dec 17 2010 

The debt hawks are to economics as the creationists are to biology. Those, who do not understand monetary sovereignty, do not understand economics. Cutting the federal deficit is the most ignorant and damaging step the federal government could take. It ranks ahead of the Hawley-Smoot Tariff.

On December 17, 2010 Columnist Michael Schuman published an online article saying:

Chinese inflation hit 5.1% in November, the fastest clip since the pre-crisis boom months of 2008. Though much of the increase is in food (up 11.7% from a year earlier), the inflationary pressures are spreading to more aspects of the economy.

By hiking interest rates, the central bank would be increasing the interest burden on borrowers. That, in turn, could intensify a bad loan problem at China’s banks that many economists believe is an inevitable result of the lending boom.

So the Chinese have instead turned to an old favorite, price controls on certain staple foods.

Inflation is the loss in value of money compared to the value of goods and services. The cure for inflation is to increase the value of money and/or to decrease the value of goods and services.

The later is difficult for any government to accomplish, other than with price controls. Sadly, price controls have serious defects. They lead to reduced supply, while allowing demand to increase, which invariably causes pent up demand and black markets.

A second approach is for the government to buy, store then mete out supplies of oil, when prices rise. Because oil is the prime mover of inflation, this can be an effective anti-inflation plan, if the government has the discipline to do it. The plan falls apart when the government becomes reluctant to part with any of its suddenly-more-precious oil.

In all, increasing the value of money seem to be the best prevention/cure for inflation. That can be accomplished by decreasing the supply of money or by increasing the demand for money. Reduced government spending or increased taxation can reduce the supply. However, reducing the money supply not only leads to recessions and depressions, but involves very slow, uncertain and cumbersome processes.

In addition to the difficulty of knowing how much to increase taxes or to reduce spending, the even more difficult question is which taxes to increase and/or which spending to decrease. By the time politicians finish debating and voting on these highly political questions, the situation either may have passed or more likely, worsened appreciably.

Preventing/curing inflation requires agility and incremental response, for which interest rate modification is ideal. Raising interest rates can be done instantly and in tiny increments. It increases the demand for money, which increases the value of money – perfectly anti-inflationary.

China’s reluctance to strengthen its currency probably is tied to its false belief it must continue to build its export business, which relies in part on the weakness of the yuan. The function of exports is to bring money into an economy, but China, being Monetarily Sovereign does not need additional money coming in from outside its borders. It has the unlimited ability to create money.

China also may subscribe to the popular belief that low interest rates stimulate its economy. American history shows this belief to be false. See: Low interest rates do not help the economy. China also may believe high rates increase business costs, and so actually could foster inflation. However, in America at least, high rates have not corresponded with inflation. (See Item 12,) probably because interest is a minuscule part of most companies’ costs..

The Chinese government has the ability to be its nation’s own best customer. It does not need to rely on exports. This is a fact for all Monetarily Sovereign nations. China has the means to prevent/cure its inflation by raising interest rates. It needs only to understand its own powers.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

No nation can tax itself into prosperity. Those who say the stimulus “didn’t work” remind me of the guy whose house is on fire. A neighbor runs with a garden hose and starts spraying, but the fire continues. The neighbor wants to call the fire department, which would bring the big hoses, but the guy says, “Don’t call. As you can see, water doesn’t put out fires.”

%d bloggers like this: