–Three ignorant and one cleverly ignorant

Mitchell’s laws: Reduced money growth never stimulates economic growth. To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments. Austerity = poverty and leads to civil disorder. Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
==========================================================================================================================================

Just catching up on a bit or reading –some old, some new — and not perceiving any increase in economics knowledge by media writers. Here are bits from four articles written by opinion leaders. As usual, the opinion leaders demonstrate abysmal ignorance of Monetary Sovereignty, the basis for all economics.

Nina Easton, Fortune Magazine, July 4, 2011

Average citizens are rightly shocked by the levels of public debt weighing down the economy – and their tax-paying children. According to the President’s National commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, (headed by Democrat Ersking Bowles and Republican Alan Simpson), debt held by the public will outstrip the entire American economy, growing t as much as 185% of GDP by 2035 – with hundreds of billions of dollars doing nothing but servicing debt. Despite those numbers, conversations about how to reduce the exploding costs of entitlements – like Medicare – are swamped by screaming political rhetoric, with little hope of compromise.

The only screaming I hear comes from the “sky-is-falling” debt hawks, who claim the U.S. is going broke, already broke or somewhere beyond broke.

Jeff Colvin, Fortune Magazine, July 4, 2011

Medicare has become the largest issue in America because it threatens the country’s economic future. Ten former chiefs of the Council of Economic Advisers, from both parties, warned in March that if we don’t get the national debt under control, the result will be a “crisis that will dwarf 2008.” The first worrying signs have since appeared; the cost of insuring against a once-unthinkable U.S. debt default rose by more than 50% in late May, and Moody’s and S&P have warned that the country’s debt rating is in peril. By far the largest element in America’s worsening debt outlook is the growth of Medicare. If we don’t fix it the right way, the country will become dramatically poorer and weaker.

Given the time and inclination, I probably could post 50 Fortune Magazine articles parroting the standard, pre-1971 line. What is it about those people? The only way the U.S. could default on its debt is if the Tea Austerities convince Congress to stop paying – or make us join the euro nations! 🙂

Time Magazine
By STEPHEN GANDEL The Curious Capitalist 1/11/12

Inflation would shrink the value of the debts both the government and borrowers have to pay, improving our collective balance sheets.

This is the “paying debts with cheaper dollars” myth. Think: If you owe $10,000, your balance sheet reads “$10,000” and you pay $10,000, no matter what the exchange value of the money is. You don’t pay with value; you pay with dollars. Paying debts becomes easier only if your income rises, and there is no necessary correlation between inflation and income. The reverse can be true.

And, for the federal government, paying debts does not rely on income, so inflation has zero influence on the government’s ability to pay its debts.

Gandel makes a very special effort not to understand Monetary Sovereignty. I’ve sent him many Emails and often have commented on his articles, but he continues to write the same crap. Ignorance is excusable – we all have it — but intentional ignorance is not.

A. Barry Rand, CEO AARP 1/11/12

Without any changes, (Social Security) can pay all promised benefits until 2036 and roughly 75 percent of benefits after that. Social Security is not in crisis, but as you have told us, we need to do something — the sooner the better — to extend its life for generations to come. Social Security does not need a radical overhaul. And we can restore it to long-term solvency without making damaging benefit cuts, especially for current recipients.

If you pay into Social Security, you should receive the benefits you’ve earned over a lifetime of hard work.

Even AARP doesn’t understand Social Security. I don’t know what he means by “changes” (tax increases or benefit cuts, I suppose), but without either of these, Social Security could last, forever. In fact, benefits could be tripled and FICA could be eliminated, and Social Security still could go forever.

And you don’t earn benefits by paying FICA.

Sadly, AARP doesn’t understand Monetary Sovereignty, so is fighting a battle based on adverse assumptions, while it could be a force for education.

But perhaps Mr. Rand is the clever dope. Perhaps he realizes that if the government (properly) paid all Medicare benefits, consumers would have no need for supplementary insurance, and that massive insurance agency known as AARP might go broke. So it behooves him not to understand. Yes, give him credit for cleverness, albeit cynical cleverness.

In the unlikely event these people come to an epiphany, and see the truth, they undoubtedly will say they knew it all the time.

I award 4 dunce caps, one for each.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

http://www.rodgermitchell.com


==========================================================================================================================================
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. Two key equations in economics:
Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings
Gross Domestic Product = Federal Spending + Private Investment and Consumption + Net exports

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

–Oh, New Jersey, you are so screwed! You too, New York.

Mitchell’s laws: Reduced money growth never stimulates economic growth. To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments. Austerity = poverty and leads to civil disorder. Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
==========================================================================================================================================

The problem with the euro nations is they are monetarily non-sovereign. They can run out of money. The same is true for the U.S. states. New Jersey, New York, all of you are in the same pickle. You’re not monetarily sovereign, so can be insolvent.

But you have one advantage over the euro states: You can get money from the federal government, which because it is Monetarily Sovereign, and has the unlimited ability to create dollars, never can run short of money.

Unfortunately, the debt hawks don’t understand that, so they want the government to reduce its deficit spending.

A reader named Tim, from Iowa, commented on my post about gambling, and observed that Iowa has placed casinos near its border with Illinois, to draw as much money from Illinois as possible. Soon, Illinois will place additional casinos near its border with Iowa, and the two will battle in a zero-sum game.

This reminded me that a monetarily non-sovereign government can survive long term only if it has money coming in from outside its borders. It cannot survive on taxes alone, because the first time it spends a dollar on imports it reduces the total dollars in its economy, which is a prescription for local recession.

At http://www.nemw.org/index.php/iowa you will see that in 2009, the federal government spent about $29 billion in Iowa and took out (in taxes) about $18 billion. So you folks came out about $11 billion ahead.

By contrast, New York received about $195 billion, but paid about $200 billion. So you folks were screwed out of $5 billion.

One state that took a real hosing was New Jersey. You paid the federal government $38 billion more than you received. That’s about $4 thousand dollars for every man, woman and child in your state — gone. And I’ll bet at least half of you think the federal deficit should be reduced!!

Connecticut only lost about $1 billion. But Delaware lost $7 billion; goodbye $7 thousand for each of you. A family of four lost $28 thousand, for no good reason. Maine made $8 billion, and Maryland profited by a nice $45 billion. But Minnesota lost $23 billion.

You can see a list of 18 northeast and midwest states at http://www.nemw.org/index.php/state-economic-profiles

The point is, of course, that all you folks who think the federal deficit is too high — do you enjoy seeing your state slowly go down the tubes?

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


==========================================================================================================================================
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. Two key equations in economics:
Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings
Gross Domestic Product = Federal Spending + Private Investment and Consumption + Net exports

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

–Where the states should put casinos and gambling machines.

Mitchell’s laws: Reduced money growth never stimulates economic growth. To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments. Austerity = poverty and leads to civil disorder. Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
==========================================================================================================================================

We long have passed the stage where the debate about casinos and gambling involves morals. State governments all over America have sponsored casinos, lotteries and gambling machines. The question, if one were to speak honestly, is not whether gambling hurts the poor (it does) or seduces the ignorant (it does) or rots our moral fiber (it does) or will be controlled by the seamier elements of our society (it will). Those questions have been answered and the answers have been ignored.

The sole question now is how best to add money to a local governments’ treasuries. And that is why, in my home, Illinois, a state desperate for money, one of our few governors who has not yet been sent to jail, is taking an interesting and possibly clever position.

Chicago Tribune. 1/8/12, Quinn likes odds for Chicago casino deal. But push for slots at racetracks could still prevent accord.
By Monique Garcia

Gov. Pat Quinn says he’s optimistic a deal can be reached this year to bring a casino to Chicago, but negotiations are shaping up to be long a difficult as his stance against slot machines at horse racing tracks hasn’t changed.

Last year, lawmakers passed a gambling expansion that would have added casinos in Chicago and four other locations across the state. The bill also included slots at tracks and would have allowed the city to install slot machines at Midway and O’Hare airports.

Ignore the certainty that Quinn’s objections are strictly political, having to do only with whom of his friends would benefit, and instead innocently think about what would benefit the state of Illinois. Like every state, county, city and village in America, Illinois is monetarily non-sovereign. It does not have the unlimited ability to produce the dollars to pay its bills. In fact, it currently is behind in servicing debt.

Monetarily non-sovereign governments can survive long-term only if they have money coming in from outside their borders. There is no exception to this. They cannot survive on tax money alone, because taxes merely circulate the same money within a state, and even $1 in net imports reduces that state’s money supply, thereby guaranteeing a local recession.

Thus, gambling helps a state only to the degree that it brings dollars in from across its borders. Domestic gambling helps not at all, and in fact hurts, when the casino operators either import anything or pay dividends to outside share holders.

That said, the best place for any casinos and any gambling machines is the place most likely to be frequented by out-of-towners. In Illinois, downtown Chicago would be a great place. It hosts millions of visitors, who carry lots of out-of-town cash. It also is right on Indiana’s border, where Indiana wisely put a casino to steal Illinois’s money.

Chicago’s O’Hare and Midway airport gates would be wonderful for gambling machines, and there currently is a hotel right on O’Hare airport grounds — a terrific location for a casino. O’Hare especially, is a massive transfer point, where the world’s travelers must cool their heels between flights.

Where else? Race tracks? Not so much. Quinn is right (though probably for the wrong reasons.) They surely have “alien” business, but I suspect this is not a big part of their attendance. How about border cities? Illinois already has a casino at East St. Louis, right on the border of St. Louis, MO. I don’t know anything about that casino, but if it’s run properly, it should pull major dollars from Missouri.

Danville, Illinois is on route #74, a gateway to Indianapolis, IN. Southern Illinois isn’t particularly close to any population centers, but Illinois does have a casino in near the southern tip, and it’s close to the (small) Cairo regional airport.

Yes, gambling is the work of the devil, and is subject to all sorts of criminal activity. That’s a given. But if handled properly, it can bring in money from outside a state’s borders — something that is necessary for all monetarily non-sovereign governments. So, all of you who reside in states other than Illinois should look at a map of your state and surrounding states, and you’ll know where gambling would benefit you most.

Now, please don’t ask me what would happen should all states do this.

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


==========================================================================================================================================
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. Two key equations in economics:
Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings
Gross Domestic Product = Federal Spending + Private Investment and Consumption + Net exports

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

–Preventing and Curing Inflation: Modern Monetary Theory vs. Monetary Sovereignty

As I frequently make clear, Monetary Sovereignty is a first “kissin'” cousin to Modern Monetary Theory. They agree on virtually everything, with the exception of the prevention and cure for unemployment and the prevention and cure for inflation.

I touch on both of these at: https://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com/2012/01/01/why-modern-monetary-theorys-employer-of-last-resort-is-a-bad-idea/ and at https://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com/2012/01/02/a-reminder-about-why-modern-monetary-theory-mmt-is-wrong-about-inflation/

Warren Mosler and I have had several discussions about inflation and its prevention and cure, with him taking the position that money supply is the key, and me taking the position that money value is the key. For a more complete discussion,, You might look at the inflation post listed above and at https://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com/2011/04/18/how-monetary-sovereignty-differs-from-modern-monetary-theory-simplified/

In summary, Warren believes raising interest rates is inflationary, because it increases costs (true), and I believe the cost increase is relatively small, and raising interest rates is deflationary, because it increases the value of money.

Today, Warren sent me an Email containing a slightly esoteric, 26 page paper titled, Is There a Cost Channel of Monetary Policy Transmission? An Investigation into the Pricing Behavior of 2,000 Firms

Author(s): Eugenio Gaiotti and Alessandro Secchi Reviewed work(s):Source: Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Vol. 38, No. 8 (Dec., 2006), pp. 2013-2037
Published by: Ohio State University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/

Warren had received the paper from Nathan Tankus, who said: “Attached is a paper showing empirical support for the cost channel view of monetary policy. What’s significant is that it appears in a very main stream journal (Journal of Money, Credit and Banking). Thought you’d like to have a copy of this.
Nathan Tankus”

Warren sent the paper to me, with this comment: “Part of what I’ve been suggesting- rate hikes may cause inflation etc.

My response:

“What they (Gaiotti and Secchi) said is: ” . . . in the short run an increase in interest rates may cause prices to rise, rather than to Fall. However, empirical evidence in favor of this hypothesis is not abundant and remains controversial. Virtually all of it is based on aggregate-sometimes sectoral-data and, in particular, on the identification of a short-term positive response of aggregate prices to interest rate shocks. It is well known that macro-evidence regarding the effects of monetary shocks is subject to substantial identification and specification problems and, consequently, to considerable uncertainty of interpretation.

Lots of “short run” (one day??), “evidence . . . not abundant,” “controversial” and “uncertainty” words in that paragraph.

I understand the notion that higher interest rates add to business costs, though for most businesses, an increase in interest rates would amount to a minuscule addition to overall costs.

However, the most powerful, empirical evidence we have is this: For many years, the Fed successfully has raised interest rates to control inflation. If raising rates actually caused inflation, and the Fed was compounding the inflation problem, surely that effect be obvious by now.

Rodger

Taking the MMT side, unquestionably an interest increase can increase business costs. Even more so when you consider that some businesses sell to other businesses, and if everyone is borrowing, there will be a multiplier effect. Further, increasing interest rates forces the federal government to pay more on its debts, which adds to the money supply. All of this can be inflationary.

On the Monetary Sovereignty side, increasing interest rates increases the value of the dollar vs other currencies and non-money. This makes imports less costly, and because imports continue to be of increasing importance to our economy, their anti-inflationary effect grows. Even for products that are manufactured in the U.S., imports of parts and raw materials are sensitive to the strength of the dollar.

Since all sales really are a form of barter, in which dollars are traded for goods and services, the more valuable the dollar, the fewer will be needed to trade.

As an aside, the Gaiotti and Secchi paper specified “short run,” and one might question whether this is of prime importance, even if it occurs.

Given all of the above hypotheses, I lean toward the empirical evidence that what the Fed has been doing –raising rates to stop inflation — seems to have kept inflation near the Fed’s target. This approach also has the advantage of being fast, effective in tiny increments, and apolitical.

Contrast that with changing the money supply via tax increases and spending decreases (the MMT) approach, which is slow, requires large, uncertain increments, and is highly political, affecting specific groups unfairly.

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


==========================================================================================================================================
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. Two key equations in economics:
Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings
Gross Domestic Product = Federal Spending + Private Investment and Consumption + Net exports

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY