-Smoot-Hawley revisited

An alternative to popular faith

Just a quick thought: President Barack Obama’s decision to impose trade penalties on Chinese tires has infuriated Beijing. This is eerily reminiscent of Smoot-Hawley. Continued political cave-ins to unions could take us to a depression. At a time like this, the world needs the freest possible trade, not protectionism.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
For more information, see http://www.rodgermitchell.com

-Social Security bankrupt? Impossible.

An alternative to popular faith

      Which of the following federal agencies might go bankrupt, without a change in the law?

1. Bureau of Prisons
2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
3. Coast Guard
4. Central Intelligence Agency
5. Department of Justice
6. Department of State
7. Department of Labor
8. Department of Transportation
9. Department of the Air Force
10. Department of the Army
11. Department of the Navy
12. Department of the Treasury
13. Social Security Administration
14. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
15. Department of Health and Human Services

       Answer: It is impossible for any federal agency to go bankrupt. None ever has; none ever will. Not even during the Great Depression did any federal agency go bankrupt nor did any federal check bounce.
      Then, in 1971, the federal government went off the gold standard specifically to give itself the power to create enough money to pay its bills, no matter how high.
      Think about this: “‘I come to you as a managing trustee of Social Security. Today we have no assets in the trust fund. We have promises of the good faith and credit of the United States government that benefits will flow.’—Paul O’Neill, Secretary of the Treasury, June 19, 2001″

He said there is no money in the trust fund, yet it has been paying benefits. How is that possible? Because, benefits are paid by our Monetarily Sovereign, U.S. government, not from a mythical trust fund.

      Now tell me again why Social Security and Medicare might go bankrupt.

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

-Do you believe President Obama is gay ??


An alternative to popular faith

       If a reporter were to come to his editor with a proposed article titled, “President Obama is gay,” the editor would demand supporting evidence, before that article ever saw daylight.
      However, if the same reporter submitted an article titled, “Federal deficit is too high,” history says the editor would ask for no supporting evidence, nor would the article contain any. The media merely assume, as a matter of faith, that revenue neutrality is more prudent than deficits.

      Economics is rare, perhaps unique, among sciences, most of which demand evidence for their hypotheses. Only in economics can intuition and popular faith obviate facts or even the desire for facts. Thus, I have had editors, columnists and reporters tell me it is “obvious” that large deficits are unsustainable, crowd out lending funds, lead to recessions, depressions, inflations and hyper-inflations. When I ask for evidence to support these views, I seldom hear from them again, probably because they feel scientific evidence is unnecessary in a science, but more importantly, they don’t have any.
      Even the Concord Coalition, an organization that for seventeen years, has collected vast amounts of money to preach for federal deficit reduction, unashamedly offers no evidence to support its views. Check its website, http://www.concordcoalition.org, or write to them and you will see they neither offer, nor have, evidence.
      Because our leaders parrot the economic beliefs promoted by the media, lack of evidence has contributed heavily to the government actions that yield repeated recessions. Until the media learn to ask, “What is your evidence?” we will continue to suffer periodic, economic traumas. These traumas may seem inevitable and unavoidable, but in reality they are caused by beliefs lacking evidence.
      If you don’t believe President Obama is gay, unless you see solid evidence, don’t believe the federal deficit is too high, unless you see solid evidence.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
For more information, see http://www.rodgermitchell.com

-The government is our landlord

An alternative to popular faith


       Representative Earl Pomeroy, a North Dakota Democrat, famously told AIG employees: “Give us our money back.” He had no idea what he was talking about.
       Imagine that you rent an apartment in a large building. Every month, each tenant sends the landlord rent. One month, the landlord decides to give one of the tenants a gift of $50. Did the landlord give that tenant your money or did he give his own money?
       Imagine that the tenant spends the $50 on something you consider to be wasteful. Should you, a fellow tenant, tell that tenant, “Give us our money back”?
       Imagine that instead of giving the tenant $50, the landlord lends the tenant $50. Some time later, the tenant repays the landlord the $50 plus another $10 in interest. Have you made a profit?
       Now imagine that the rent the landlord collects does not cover his expenditures, so each year he runs a deficit. But he is fabulously wealthy, so he never has problems paying his debts. Do you owe the landlord’s creditors or does the landlord owe his creditors? Are your grandchildren liable for the debts or is he?
       Seems pretty silly, doesn’t it? Yet exactly that kind of thinking permeates the discussions of our economy.
       In essence, the federal government is our landlord, to whom we pay “rent” (taxes). The rent does not cover the government’s expenditures, but the government is so wealthy, it never has problems paying its debts.
       When the government gives out stimulus money, it does not give our money (aka “taxpayers’ money). It gives government money, which it creates out of thin air. When the government lends money to a taxpayer, and the taxpayer subsequently repays, plus interest, we taxpayers do not make a profit. Only the government makes a profit. We don’t owe the landlord’s creditors, nor do our grandchildren.
       Our “landlord,” with help from the media and politicians, has created the myth that when he takes a loss, we taxpayers and our grandchildren are liable, when he raises our rent or cuts services to reduce his losses, we benefit, and when he makes a profit, we should believe it actually is our profit. Nonsense.
       This is a message to anyone who agrees with Rep. Pomeroy and the media, and who believes our landlord spends our money, not his, and we and our grandchildren owe his debts, and when he makes a profit, that’s money in our pocket: I have some costume jewelry I’d like to sell you.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
For more information, see http://www.rodgermitchell.com