–J’accuse mainstream economists

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.
==========================================================================================================================================================================================

America struggles, has struggled and will struggle, unless one fundamental changes, and that fundamental is economics. We have had an average of one recession every five years. The recovery lags. Again and again, our people lose their homes, their livelihoods, their lives. Who is at fault for our repeated economic problems?

I accuse you mainstream economists, with special mention of those who have won prestigious awards, for leading America astray. I accuse you mainstream economists for lying to America. I accuse you mainstream economists who:

1. Refuse to understand Monetary Sovereignty, which reveals that the federal government has the unlimited ability to create money, restricted not by taxes nor by borrowing, but only by inflation. You who do not understand the implications of Monetary Sovereignty do not understand economics, yet the nation relies on your ignorance for leadership.

2. Refuse to acknowledge that the so-called federal “debt” merely is the total of outstanding T-securities created at will, from thin air, a process that has become unnecessary since August 15, 1971, when President Nixon took America off the gold standard. Rather than creating T-securities from thin air, then trading them for dollars previously created from thin air, all federal debt could be eliminated if T-bill creation were eliminated. The Treasury is required by law to create T-bills in an amount equal to the federal deficit, the difference between taxes and spending. This is not a financial need; it is a legal requirement, made obsolete in 1971. You mainstream economists don’t explain this to the people.

3. Refuse to adapt your philosophies to post 1971 economics. Ask many of you mainstream economists a question about federal debt, deficits, taxes, spending, inflation, deflation or stagflation and your answers today likely will not differ in any fundamental way from your answers pre-1971, though coming off the gold standard made a vast change in economics. It’s as though physicists gave all the same answers post-Einstein as they had given pre-Einstein.

4. Refuse to acknowledge that a balanced federal budget would mean disaster for America. A large economy, by definition, has more money than does a small economy. Therefore a growing economy requires a growing supply of money. And federal deficit spending creates the money to grow the economy.

5. Equate federal debt with personal debt. You tell the populace a large federal debt is “unsustainable” and a “ticking time bomb,” when neither is true. Because the U.S. government creates money by clicking a computer key, which it can do endlessly, any amount of federal debt is sustainable. While personal debt is a danger to the debtor, requiring income to service, federal debt is no danger to the federal government, and its service does not require income. You mainstream economists fail to explain this.

6. Insist that federal initiatives be “revenue neutral,” depriving Americans of the benefits federal spending can provide. Example: You falsely tell us America cannot afford universal health care, and that paying for universal health care would require tax increases for our children and grandchildren, when neither is true. U.S. government spending is not constrained by taxes. Thus, you mainstream economists deprive millions of our children and grandchildren of their health and their lives.

7. Equate financial problems in the euro nations with America’s finances. The euro nations are not Monetarily Sovereign; they cannot create euros at will. America is Monetarily Sovereign. It can create dollars at will. The difference is as black is to white.

8. Fail to reveal that our monetarily non-sovereign governments — the states counties and cities — cannot survive long-term on taxes alone, and must have money coming in from outside their borders. Monetarily non-sovereign governments, unlike the federal government, do pay their bills from tax money received. But because their citizens also pay federal taxes, which remove money from the local government, substantial federal input is needed, else the local government continually will lose money. Yet the federal government, misled by you mainstream economists, asks state governments to pay for such things as Medicaid, housing, schooling, security, infrastructure, etc. – all responsibilities that could and should be met by the federal government.

9. Fail to reveal that Social Security and Medicare are not supported by FICA and will not go bankrupt when FICA payments don’t equal benefit payments. Medicare and Social Security are but two of the more than 1,000 federal agencies, all supported by the federal government, and not by taxes. Among the other 1,000+ agencies, not supported by taxes, are all federal courts including the Supreme Court, the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, the Army Corps of Engineers, Justice Department, Bureau of Prisons, Census Bureau, Congress, Consumer Products Safety Commission, Customs and Border Protection, CIA, FBI, Department of Energy, Department of Education, Treasury Department, EPA, Federal Reserve System, FDA and on and on. We don’t hear about these federal agencies going bankrupt. Yet you mainstream economists continually warn us about the impending bankruptcy of Social Security and Medicare, warning that result in reduced benefits and higher taxes.

10. Fail to acknowledge the need to eliminate business taxes. Such taxes hamper business –our economic engines — while providing nothing useful for a Monetarily Sovereign government that neither needs nor uses taxes.

11. Fail to inform the American public that recessions and depressions are not part of a normal economic “cycle,” but rather are the result of errors made by our political leaders, who take their lead from misinformation supplied by you mainstream economists.

12. Fail to explain that for a Monetarily Sovereign nation, exports are not better than imports. When China exports to America, it expends massive amounts of energy, manpower, time and scarce resources to create products, which it sends to us in exchange for dollars, which we create at no cost, by touching of a computer key. Thus, China is our slave, working and sweating essentially for nothing.

13. Fail to explain that immigrants do not take jobs from citizens nor do they commit more crimes nor take federal benefits from taxpayers. Immigrants, being consumers, create jobs by buying. They are not more likely to be criminals, for fear of being deported. And taxpayers’ money does not pay for federal benefits, the simple reason being that taxes do not pay for federal benefits. You mainstream economists do not explain this to an innocent public motivated by fear-mongering politicians.

14. Fail to speak against the federal debt ceiling, when such not only is unnecessary but harmful to economic growth.

15. Fail to inform the public that nearly every recession and depression has resulted from a series of years in which federal debt growth declined.

Yes mainstream economists, Nobel-winning, article-writing, much admired and much feted mainstream economists, I accuse you of harming America, harming our children and our grandchildren. You have done us more damage than all the Communists, all the Fascists, all the drug dealers and murderers, all the terrorists and traitors. You have undermined our nation at its very economic core.

Why do you do this to us?

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

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

–Big government is bad. It takes our freedoms. Let’s eliminate it.

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.
==========================================================================================================================================================================================
When people become frustrated and angry, they seek a focus for their anger. Often a scapegoat will do. It doesn’t matter whether the scapegoat is the primary cause of their anger, so long as a quasi-logical case can be made for the scapegoat’s culpability.

Aliens are frequent scapegoats, because the quasi-logical cases can be made that they take jobs from citizens, commit crimes, don’t pay taxes, and will mongrelize the true patriotic mores and beliefs of our fair nation. Minority religions (Jews in Germany, Christians in Muslim nations) are frequent scapegoats for all the above reasons and for fears of proselytizing, whether these fears are invented or real.

Air travelers become angry at the airline personnel behind the desk, though these workers seldom are at fault for the travelers’ problems. We get angry at that customer support guy in India, who neither understands, nor has the power to cure, our problems, when the real fault may lie with the president of the company he represents.

Today, people are angry and frustrated by the recession and the slowness of recovery. The Tea Party has used this anger to finger-point at “big government.” Yes, some of our political leaders are at fault. The ignorance about Monetary Sovereignty, surely has exacerbated, if not outright caused, the recession.

But the United States is a huge country, which has a huge government, and not all elements of our “big government” should be eliminated. We need the army. We need the roads and bridges our big government builds. Shall we eliminate the Medicare and Social Security paid for by our government? (No, FICA doesn’t pay for these programs. See: Ten Reasons to Eliminate FICA,) Shall we eliminate food inspection, drug inspection, weather forecasting, the Coast Guard, the FBI, the CIA, Homeland Security, the FDIC to insure our deposits or the SEC to supervise investing? Shall we eliminate the police and the fire department? Shall we eliminate all laws? There are more than 1,000 federal agencies and a thousand times that number of state and local agenies. Shall we eliminate them all, or just some of them, and if some of them, which?

Most rational people understand the need for a big country to have a big government. But for personal gain, the political parties have tapped into the irrational part of our psyches, and have condemned all federal initiatives as taking away our “freedoms.”

Yes, laws take away freedoms. You are not free to steal, murder, rape and pillage. To have a viable society, we give up many freedoms. It’s the tradeoff most of us willingly make.

Now, there are those who wish to eliminate the new health insurance program in its entirety. Why? Some say it is because of the requirement that everyone have health insurance. If you already have health insurance, this requirement doesn’t affect you. If you are poor or don’t have insurance because of a pre-existing condition, it doesn’t affect you, either. In fact, it affects only those few who either are so wealthy they can afford to be self insuring, or those who plan to cheat their doctor and hospital, when they need medical help. If you’re not in one of those two groups, you have no problem.

Or, are you merely standing on the principle that all government is bad, and whenever you see government you want to eliminate it? Is this vague, anarchist principle so powerful it overrides the needs of America’s millions who are too poor to afford health care insurance? Does your anarchist principle override the needs of Americans whose existing illness prevents them from obtaining insurance? Does your anarchist principle override the needs of Americans who lose their insurance because they have lost their jobs?

The “I-don’t-like-big-government” screamers really are saying, “I have mine and I don’t give a damn about anyone else. I want the freedom to do whatever I want, and the hell with you.” How ironic that these selfish “freedom only for me” people actually portray themselves as patriots and fly the flag at every opportunity. Some patriots they are.

Yes, like any organization, large or small, our government has good points and bad points. But to take out your spite on the health care law – to throw out the baby with the bathwater – is selfish, un-American and misguided. Anarchy is ugly.

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

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

–Can you be forced to buy insurance?

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.
==========================================================================================================================================================================================

Washington (CNN) — A federal judge in Florida has ruled unconstitutional the sweeping health care reform law championed by President Barack Obama, setting up what is likely to be a contentious Supreme Court challenge over the legislation in coming months.
Monday’s sweeping ruling came in the most closely watched of the two dozen separate challenges to the law. Florida, along with 25 other states, filed a lawsuit last spring seeking to dismiss a law critics labeled “Obamacare.”

Message to Republicans: Be careful what you wish for. Despite what the Tea Party and the polls may tell you, voters probably will not like having their benefits taken from them. And if this ruling is upheld, it opens the door to a single payer system, which you supposedly hate.

The issue was whether the government could force people to purchase insurance from a private company. So, one thing puzzles me: My state requires all drivers to have insurance. Is this too, unconstitutional?

Any lawyers out there who would like to comment?

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

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

–Cognitive inconsistency and how it makes us uneducate our children

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.
==================================================================================================================================================================

I am fascinated by the human ability to suffer from two, mutually exclusive beliefs. Psychologists call this phenomenon “cognitive inconsistency.” The cognitive inconsistency I often discuss on this blog is the belief the U.S. federal government could have difficulty paying its bills, while acknowledging the U.S. federal government has the unlimited ability to create money. Most amazing; this cognitive inconsistency is shared by laymen and renowned, Nobel-winning “experts” alike

Now, consider the Pledge of Allegiance. Why do we require our students to take school time rote reciting it? Very few people believe it makes students more patriotic. Many kids recite the words wrong (“one nation, underground, invisible,” “livery injust is”), and the concept of being allegiant to a flag, surely is beyond the understanding of most kids, and probably many adults, too. So why? The pandering politicians, religious zealots and hyper-patriots tell us it is “good for the kids,” and somehow we buy that. Cognitive inconsistency. (If it worked, why aren’t adults made to do it?)

I mention cognitive inconsistency today, because an interesting new example popped up in my home village of Wilmette, IL. According to the local paper,

Wilmette schools plan to add a “moment of silence” to the opening of the school day in the wake of an appellate court ruling that the Illinois Silent Prayer and Student Prayer Act is constitutional because it does not require the time be used for prayer . . . legislators cited the secular and practical purpose of calming students at the beginning of the day. . . the teacher will monitor 15 seconds of silence, then the pledge (of Allegiance) will be recited . . . This period shall not be conducted as a religious exercise, but shall be an opportunity for silent reflection on the anticipated activities of the day.

This latest bit of cognitive inconsistency is hilarious on several counts. It clearly is a religious lie, an attempt by the pious to sneak in a bit more religiosity (remember the addition of “under God” to the Pledge) in the guise of “calming” students. And what about the very name of the bill . . . “Student Prayer Act.” Would you consider lying in the name of religion to be cognitive inconsistency, ironic or merely hilarious? And the idea that the children will use the time for “silent reflection on the anticipated activities of the day” – is this cognitive inconsistency or simply a sad joke?

And finally, the notion that 15 seconds is the right length of time for this silent reflection – cognitive inconsistency or just hilarious? Or is it neither, because it adds one more silly burden to schools that already endure excessive silly burdens? But who could be surprised? The law was passed by politicians. These are the guys who expound and vote on our economic futures, while not understanding Monetary Sovereignty, the basis of economics. What next? Mandatory flag sewing classes? Our educational system has been turned into a mess, but we have time for silliness?

And just as I was writing the above post, I saw the following:

By Kevin Huffman, winner of The Post’s 2009 America’s Next Great Pundit Contest, is executive vice president of public affairs at Teach for America., Monday, January 31, 2011

Last week, 40-year-old Ohio mother Kelley Williams-Bolar was released after serving nine days in jail on a felony conviction for tampering with records. Williams-Bolar’s offense? Lying about her address so her two daughters, zoned to the lousy Akron city schools, could attend better schools in the neighboring Copley-Fairlawn district.

Williams-Bolar has become a cause célèbre in a case that crosses traditional ideological bounds. African American activists are outraged, asking: Would a white mother face the same punishment for trying to get her kids a better education?

Meanwhile, conservatives view the case as evidence of the need for broader school choice. What does it say when parents’ options are so limited that they commit felonies to avoid terrible schools? . . .In this country, if you are middle or upper class, you have school choice. You can, and probably do, choose your home based on the quality of local schools. Or you can opt out of the system by scraping together the funds for a parochial school.

But if you are poor, you’re out of luck, subject to the generally anti-choice bureaucracy. Hoping to win the lottery into an open enrollment “choice” school in your district? Good luck. How about a high-performing charter school? Sure – if your state doesn’t limit their numbers and funding like most states do. And vouchers? Hiss! You just touched a political third rail.

Williams-Bolar lived in subsidized housing and was trapped in a failed system. In a Kafkaesque twist, she was taking college-level courses to become a teacher herself – a dream she now will never realize as a convicted felon. It’s America’s version of the hungry man stealing bread to feed his family, only to have his hand cut off as punishment.

. . . The harsh reality is this: We may have done away with Jim Crow laws, but we have a Jim Crow public education system. As Dan Domenech of the American Association of School Administrators told NPR last week, “The correlation between student achievement and Zip code is 100 percent. The quality of education you receive is entirely predictable based on where you live.” And where you live in America today depends largely on income and race.

Consider the recent results from a test of 15-year-olds around the world. Headlines noted the embarrassing American mediocrity (31st out of 65 countries in math, with scores below the international average). Competing with China and Finland – they’re on track to scrap it out with Bulgaria and Mexico.

Some on the left will say this is the pernicious result of poverty. Solve poverty, and you solve the Zip-code-equals-outcomes issue. Some on the right will blame culture. Stop teenage pregnancy and crime, and the outcomes look different.

Actually, it’s not teenage pregnancy that is a problem; it’s teenage birthing. But don’t allow any of them to have an abortion. We want all the unwanted, unaffordable, unsupervised children we can get, because as everyone knows, teenagers have the sense to just say “No.” And if they don’t, tough luck.

Like millions of parents hoping to do right by their kids, Kelley Williams-Bolar thought that schools were the answer. She didn’t have the luxury of waiting a generation while intellectuals argue about poverty or culture. She looked at her options, she looked at the law and she looked at her children. Then she made a choice. What would you have done?

In summary, while politicians (whose kids attend the best schools) focus on the Pledge of Allegiance and 15 seconds of silent . . .? . . . (anything, but prayer), there is no time, no creative thinking and no money for schools. How do we know? The politicians tell us federal deficits will be bad for our children, and heaven forbid they want to do anything bad for our children . . . oh, except not educating them.

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

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