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 breeds austerity and leads to civil disorder. Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
==========================================================================================================================================

A recent poll says a majority of Americans have a negative view of #Occupy Wall Street,” more negative even than of the Tea Party. Perhaps you are one who believes #OWS is a bunch of lazy, rabble-rousing troublemakers, who would rather camp out, make a mess, smoke pot and cocaine, have sex and disturb honest, hardworking Americans, than become honest, hardworking Americans themselves. If the poll represents America, I think the people are wrong. But let’s say they’re right.

Let’s say these people protesting against the huge wealth gap between the 1% richest people and the other 99%, are all of the above and worse. What should be done about them?

Should we admire them for putting their lives on the line, for protesting the clear injustice of the growing gap, not only in wealth but in political power? Or shall we condemn them for inconveniencing us and for being dirty, messy beasts?

Here is the city of Tampa’s expensive answer:

What is this thing, who owns it, and what is its purpose?

For a complete description, see: Militarization Of Police Exemplified By Virtually Unstoppable Armored Personnel Carrier At Occupy Tampa. Check a few excerpts from that article.

Madison Ruppert, Contributing Writer, Activist Post

One of the many disturbing trends in America in the post-September 11th, 2001 era is the steady militarization of domestic police forces who are supposed to “protect and serve” not “intimidate and attack” the people of the United States.

A glaring example of this steady march toward de facto martial law in which police are so militarized there is little to no difference between them and the military itself occurred at Occupy Tampa recently.
[…]
The (photo is of) “Rescue 2,” a massive “12-ton Armored Personnel Carrier (APC)” according to the official city of Tampa website, but the question remains, why on Earth does a domestic police force need a 12-ton APC at a small-scale peaceful protest?

The behemoth vehicle is bullet resistant and “virtually unstoppable,” can drive through five feet of water, handle winds up to 130 miles per hour, carry 13 passengers, and reach 60 miles per hour.

The Rescue 2 is billed to be used for “search and rescue during a natural disaster or a terrorist attack.” Yet, there was neither a terrorist attack nor a natural disaster justifying the deployment of the Rescue 2, instead it was done in a clear attempt to intimidate the protesters.

This wholly unnecessary item is a “one of a kind APC” which “was purchased from the military and it was paid for with a Federal security grant,” according to the City of Tampa website.
[…]
. . . it represents just one instance of police across the nation buying tanks and other military vehicles to carry out ordinary activities.

These are deployed for one reason and one reason only: to strike fear into the hearts of peaceful protesters attempting to express the fact that they are fed up with the police who protect the corporations and not the people whom they are sworn to serve.

Now this weapon exists, and when a weapon exists, it will be used. One day you will read how the “Rescue 2” ran over some protesters, or at minimum, ran over their belongings, destroying everything in its wake. And one day, those protesters will not be #OWS, but people protesting some other losses of freedom, like the use of tanks against civilians.

And one day, laws will be changed to outlaw protesting altogether — which effectively is the purpose of the “Rescue 2.”

And many will cheer these losses of our freedoms, for by its nature, protesting is messy, inconvenient, loud, and not done by the 1%, but rather by the 99%, who tend to be rude, unpleasant creatures.

And then you’ll wonder what happened to America, what happened to freedom, how did we get to this police state? You’ll grieve at the loss of liberty and the perversion of the Constitution that makes corporations=people and money=votes. You’ll grieve at the tyranny of the police and of their masters.

Oh, you may not like being ruled by the iron hand of the military, but you won’t protest. You wouldn’t dare.

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. The key equation in economics: Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

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 breeds austerity and leads to civil disorder. Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
==========================================================================================================================================

The following article refers to yet another in a long, long list of economic misconceptions by the media, the old-line economists, the politicians and the public.

Treasury raises $12.2 million from sales of warrants in 17 banks that got bailout support
By Martin Crutsinger, AP Economics Writer | AP – Fri, Nov 18, 2011 10:07 AM EST

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Treasury Department has raised $12.2 million from the sale of warrants of 17 banks that received government support during the financial crisis. The sales are part of the government’s efforts to recoup the costs of the $700 billion financial bailout.
[…]
The 17 banks received approximately $1 billion in support from the Troubled Asset Relief Program in 2008 and 2009. All 17 have repaid the money and the warrants represent their last link to the TARP program.

Banks, other financial firms and U.S. carmakers received $413.4 billion from the taxpayer-funded bailout. So far, the government has recovered $317.6 billion. Of that amount, $9.1 billion has come through the sale of warrants.

For the abovementioned media, old-line economists, politicians and the public, this seems like great news. The U.S. government lent money and now it’s getting the money back. What could be better?

Just one little problem. How would you feel if the headline were, “Treasury increases taxes by $12.2 million”? Or, “Government wants to increase taxes by $700 billion”?

Money deducted from the private sector and credited to the federal government is identical with a federal tax. And like all federal taxes, this backward flow reduces the economy’s money supply and is anti-stimulative. It negatively impacts unemployment and slows the economy. Always.

And why does the Treasury need the dollars? It doesn’t. It has the unlimited ability to pay its bills. It can create as many dollars as it wishes. It does so by instructing banks to credit the accounts of depositors, which it can do endlessly. Send the government a legitimate invoice for $900 trillion, and it could pay you today, simply by instructing your bank to mark up your checking account by $900 trillion.

Yes, such a large payment could have other economic implications. But, from the government’s standpoint, paying the bill, or paying a bill a hundred times that large, would be no problem at all.

For you and me, dollars are precious and scarce. We work our whole lives to obtain dollars, the lack of which causes us personal misery. For our Monetarily Sovereign federal government, dollars are just numbers in balance sheets — numbers that can be changed at will.

Any time you read or hear about money deducted from the private sector and credited to the federal government, for any purpose, understand that the economy is being weakened.

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. The key equation in economics: Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

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 breeds austerity and leads to civil disorder. Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
=========================================================================================================================================================================

To help you understand the wonderful world of economics, I give you excerpts from the following Associated Press article:

Deep spending cuts pose a new threat to US economy.
By Christopher S. Rugaber, AP Business Writers | AP – Fri, Nov 18, 2011 11:51 AM EST

WASHINGTON (AP) — Just as the U.S. economy is making progress despite Europe’s turmoil, here come two new threats. A congressional panel is supposed to agree by Thanksgiving on a deficit-reduction package of at least $1.2 trillion. If it fails, federal spending would automatically be cut by that amount starting in 2013.

Congress may also let emergency unemployment aid and a Social Security tax cut expire at year’s end. Either outcome could slow growth and spook markets.
[…]
Many economists hoped that an extension of the Social Security tax cuts and unemployment benefits would be part of a supercommittee deal. . . . The Social Security tax cut gave most Americans an extra $1,000 to $2,000 this year. Unemployment benefits provide about $300 a week. Most of that money quickly and directly boosts consumer spending, which drives the economy.

By contrast, an expiration of those benefits could cut growth by about three-quarters of a percentage point, economists say. Throw in other cuts, like those passed in the August debt deal, and all told, federal budget policies could subtract 1.7 percentage points from growth in 2012, according to JPMorgan Chase and Moody’s Analytics.
[…]
“It would be very difficult for an economy that’s doing well to digest, let alone one that’s barely growing at potential,” said Ryan Sweet, an economist at Moody’s. “That could unwind a lot of the improvement we’ve seen so far.”

The economy grew at an annual rate of 2.5 percent in the July-September quarter. Some analysts fear it could fall below 2 percent next year, especially if the emergency unemployment benefits and Social Security tax cuts aren’t renewed.
[…]
If the automatic spending cuts take effect, the defense budget could be cut by nearly $500 billion over nine years. Some contractors are nervous. Wes Bush, CEO of Northrop Grumman, has told analysts that the company is bracing for spending cuts. “It’s certainly going to be a more challenging environment” next year, he said.

O.K., we understand and agree. Moody’s says spending cuts will adversely affect economic growth. Absolutely true. It’s what we’ve been preaching for years. But wait. Continuing to read the same article, we find this:

Some investors fear that the supercommittee’s failure would spark fresh downgrades of U.S. debt. Standard & Poor’s downgraded the government’s long-term debt in August. That contributed to a stock market plunge. It’s possible that a deadlocked supercommittee would lead the two other major rating agencies — Fitch and Moody’s — to follow suit.

Huh? Spending cuts would adversely affect the economy, reducing economic growth. Reducing economic growth would prevent rating agencies from downgrading U.S. credit??

But wait. Continuing in the same article we read:

Some economists say the automatic spending cuts could actually boost confidence a bit: They would reassure the world that the U.S. government can make progress in shrinking its deficit.
[…]
Priya Misra, an analyst at Bank of America Merrill Lynch, estimates that Congress will need to find $2 trillion more in cuts by August 2013 to prevent another credit downgrade.

So let’s get this straight. Spending cuts will hurt the economy. They will reduce economic growth and take spending money from consumers. Hurting the economy, reducing economic growth and taking spending money from consumers will reassure the world and boost confidence and prevent a downgrade in credit.

And this is what passes for logic in mainstream economics.

Yet the “99%” believes it.

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. The key equation in economics: Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY