–Salary for attending school

The debt hawks are to economics as the creationists are to biology.

Generally, I prefer to state a problem, then propose a solution. But when one solution addresses several problems, perhaps the reverse sequence is appropriate. The solution is: The federal government should pay all students – elementary school, middle school, high school, college and post grad – a salary.

Let’s first dispense with the debt-hawk, knee-jerk reaction that this will increase the federal debt and cause inflation. We have discussed the so-called “debt problem” numerous places in this blog, and don’t need to repeat the discussion, here. If you want a refresher, please go through some of the posts listed to the left.

Before we get into details, here are some of the problems the solution could address:

1. Reduce the school dropout rate. Many students enter the employment world early for a simple, practical reason. They need the money. Some families encourage their children to do this, for the same practical reason. Even with scholarships, many families simply cannot afford to send their children to high school, let alone college and beyond.

2. Grow the economy I: During a recession, an economy is starved for money. Unquestionably, the various stimulus payments have helped us recover from the recession and have increased economic growth. While there is substantial disagreement about how much these payments have accomplished, there is scant belief that economic growth was not helped at all. Salary payments to students would add growth money to the economy by providing jobs. (In this case, the job is to attend school.) Even without a recession, added jobs and added salaries help the economy grow.

3. Grow the economy II: A more educated population will be better equipped to deal with tomorrow’s more advanced economies. The 30 occupations with the largest employment declines, 2008-18 all involved unskilled or semi-skilled labor, with no college education required. In contrast, the majority of The 30 fastest-growing occupations, 2008-18 required college or advanced degrees.

4. Grow the economy III: A more educated population will be better equipped to create tomorrow’s more advanced economies. Most technological advancements come from college-educated people. Nations have suffered because of a so-called “brain drain,” meaning when the most educated people leave, the country has difficulty progressing. Clearly, there is a relationship between education and economic growth. For America not to fall behind, we continuously must create more and better-educated people.

5. Improve our quality of life: America needs more doctors, nurses, scientists, chemists, architects and engineers of all types. These are the people who will care for us and who will develop the medicines and medical techniques, the medical equipment and modern hospitals to improve our lives.

6. Reduce the crime level. High school drop outs are inordinately involved in crime. One could argue this is not cause/effect, but rather the type of person who drops out also is the type who has criminal tendencies. I disagree it’s a matter of type. Rather, the high school dropout has fewer, attractive employment opportunities, and as a result, is drawn into crime. Crime may seem the only opportunity to have money. Take those young people off the street corners, put them in school and pay them money, and the crime rate will decline.

7. Improve our laws: Educated people probably read more and understand more. As a result, they may be more astute voters, more able to make intelligent judgments about the relative qualities of various office holders and candidates. They probably write more letters to politicians and to the media, and are more able to be effective members of school boards, political offices and other leadership roles. The educated may be better able to analyze political promises and activities.

As with all ideas, the devil is in the details, some of which are:

1. Pay a salary to attend what kinds of school? An accredited school as opposed to a diploma mill or home schooling. Because we suggest paying a salary to students, rather than making a payment to a school, we can include religious schools, which sometimes are the best schools in a given area.

2. How much salary? The salary can be lowest for the lowest grades and increase stepwise through post graduate. It might vary according to average local salaries, with the student’s home being the determinant. For high school and above, the salary should be above the single person’s poverty guideline for each geographic area.

Many federal programs already use the poverty guidelines as a starting point: “Programs using the guidelines (or percentage multiples of the guidelines — for instance, 125 percent or 185 percent of the guidelines) in determining eligibility include Head Start, the Food Stamp Program, the National School Lunch Program, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program.” (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services)

3. Should wealth, income or other federal benefits be considered? No, the only considerations should be geographic area and level of education. Rich or poor, all Americans should receive the same benefit.

4. What about “professional students.” They will continue to exist. The salaries should not be so high as overly to encourage this behavior. We might think about time limits, depending on the student’s major. But we should not consider age limits. A person, who becomes unemployed at age 50, and who wishes to attend school, should be encouraged to do so.

5. What about scholarships?
Schools should not be allowed to consider this salary among their criteria for scholarships. I also would not allow for taxing of this salary, but that may be too much to hope for.

6. Who would administer the program? The states should administer it, and the federal government should pay for it. The states could delegate administration to specific school districts within the states. There is no need to invent a massive federal bureaucracy when local bureaucracies exist, and are most knowledgeable about local situations.

That’s the bare outline. I look forward to hearing your thoughts and ideas.

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

No nation can tax itself into prosperity

–Politics vs. people

Mitchell’s laws:
●Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
●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.
To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments.
●Everything in economics devolves to motive,
and the motive is the Gap.

=========================================================================================================================================================================================================================

Today’s headline: “Fears grow as millions lose jobless benefits
Body copy: Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said: “The fastest-growing parts of this Democrat economy aren’t jobs — they’re the crushing burden of the national debt and the size of the federal government.

The “crushing burden” is not national debt, which crushes no one. The crushing burden is the false belief the national debt is a crushing burden.

As a result of this false belief, millions will lose jobless benefits, taxes will be increased, Medicare doctors will receive less than they should, Social Security payments will begin later, Medicaid payments will be cut, defense spending will be reduced, federal funding of K-12 education and school breakfast programs will be cut, mass transit funding will be cut and federal assistance to the states will be reduced — all because of a myth with no factual support.

So you, dear reader, will suffer a significantly degraded life style, all because the debt hawks say the federal debt is a crushing burden and the debt causes inflation, neither of which is supported by any data.

Go to any debt hawk web site and ask them for data proving the U.S. federal debt is unsustainable or causes inflation. If they answer you at all (unlikely), they merely will give you statistics regarding the size of the debt, but no evidence it has a negative effect on America.

Here are a couple debt hawk sites you can visit:
Concord Coalition
The Cato Insitute
The Heritage Foundation
The Manhattan Institute
The Hoover Institution

Go ahead. Contact any of them. Despite impressive doctoral credentials, and oodles of statistics, they have no evidence to back their claims. Why? No such evidence exists, though massive evidence shows the misnamed “debt” (should be called “net money created”) is necessary for economic growth.

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

No nation can tax itself into prosperity

–Why the slow recovery?

The debt hawks are to economics as the creationists are to biology.

Recessions and recoveries ultimately are associated with money, and more specifically with money growth. In general, less money growth = less economic growth. (That actually is something of a tautology, since economic growth is measured in money.)

There are several definitions of money, most differing on the basis of liquidity, the ease of converting to currency. The most liquid form is called M1, which consists of currency and checking account deposits.

The government no longer measures the less liquid forms, M3, L and the most inclusive form: Debt of Domestic Non-Financial Sectors. And for many reasons, the supplies of the various money forms do not move together. For instance, there are periods when M1 goes up or down more than M2, even though M1 is part of M2.

I found an interesting pattern relative to recessions. In the following graph, you see a strong tendency for one form of money, Federal Debt Held by the Public, to grow more slowly before recessions, then grow quickly during recessions, then resume growing more slowly after recessions.

M1 exhibits a similar, though less consistent pattern, and M2 is less consistent yet. One consistency is: Following every recession, at least one of the money forms grows at an increasing rate — every recession except the most recent one:

Here, despite (or because of) worries about deficits, every measured form of money has shown a sharp decline in growth rate. Perhaps this overall decline in money growth is responsible for the slowness of the recovery — yet another bit of evidence that debt fear has hurt our economy, and increased federal spending is desperately needed.

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

No nation can tax itself into prosperity

–Less debt . . . oh, wait. More debt.

An alternative to popular faith

The 6/30/10 editorial in the Chicago Tribune, titled, “Enough debt, already,” had me confused. At first I thought they meant private debt. After all, consumers now deal with mortgages they can’t handle and credit cards charging 20% or more interest. And business profits, or lack thereof, won’t support much more debt without increased consumer buying. Consumers and businesses are going bankrupt in droves, so at this stage of the recession, “Enough debt, already” seems like good advice for the private sector.

But no, that is not what the Tribune meant. They wanted less federal debt and more private debt. The federal government has the unlimited ability to pay any debt of any size. It is a government that neither needs nor uses tax money to pay its debts. Yet the editors say, “. . . the U.S. has gone way, way down the path toward unsustainable debt . . .”

Will the government be unable to service its debts? No, that cannot happen. So, what makes federal debt “unsustainable”? The Tribune editors never say. However they call for more lending to business, despite the fact that growing business debt can be unsustainable. To make matters worse, the Tribune cheers the restriction on unemployment checks to those people who would have used those checks to buy things from businesses, thereby stimulating business. (“Unemployment checks extending up to 99 weeks instead of the usual 26 add more indebtedness.”)

The editors correctly say, “The U.S. economy is hungry for credit,” not realizing this means the U.S. economy is hungry for money, and federal deficit spending is the government’s method for adding money to the economy. The editors lament, “Washington already has bequeathed to our descendants a nation debt of $13 trillion,” – an untrue statement – and simultaneously wants to bequeath to our descendants added business debt. (Who do they think pays for business debt?)

To summarize: The Tribune editors oppose debt creation by the one entity that can afford unlimited debt service, but advocate more debt for the over-extended private sector. They support looser lending standards, so that less qualified businesses can go deeper into debt. They oppose increasing regulations on lenders, the same lenders whose unsupervised, profligate lending triggered the recession. They favor the end to federal stimulus plans, which would add the money they say the economy needs. And they hope the economy will recover — somehow.

Clearly, economics is not the Tribune editors’ forte.

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

No nation can tax itself into prosperity