–Canada radio station copies Canada government: Burns dollars.

Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

Mitchell’s laws:
●The more federal budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes.
●Austerity is the government’s method for widening the gap between rich and poor, which ultimately leads to civil disorder.
●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.
●Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
●The penalty for ignorance is slavery.
●Everything in economics devolves to motive.
======================================================================================================================================================================================

Thank you reader Ian Winograd for calling to our attention this article:

Radio Station Burns $5,000 Cash in Publicity Stunt
By Beth Greenfield, Shine Staff | Healthy Living

A contest, “Bank It or Burn It,” run by 90.3 AMP Radio in Calgary, asked listeners to weigh in on whether the stacks of bills should go to a lucky listener or be set on fire.

Morning cohosts Katie Summers and Ryan Lindsay say they were left with no choice but to follow through when 54 percent responded with the hashtag “#BURN” via text.

The contest continues, this time with $10,000 on the line. But if the outcry so far is any indication, this vote could go much differently.

“I just wanted to let you know that you guys make me sick,” one call-in listener declared, echoing the sentiment that had been building throughout the weekend. Hundreds of commenters have expressed anger.

“Disgrace. Absolute…disgrace, this makes me embarrassed to live in this city.” “I hope AMP literally burns for this. Words can’t explain my disgust.” “. . . the contest shouldn’t have existed in the first place. AMP’s fault.”

A slew of tweets say the burning of the bucks was “stupid,” “dumb” and “selfish,” with some calling for station boycotts and attempting to divert public focus to various charities that are hard up for donations right now.

As reader Winograd said, “There was a huge outcry that the money could have gone to charity. But when Canadians pay their billions of dollars in taxes, and the money is destroyed, there is no outcry. Shouldn’t that be the critical debate?”

Absolutely. There is no functional difference between austerity and burning dollars. In either case, there is less money in the economy than there would have been without the austerity or the burning.

(Yes, paper dollars are not actually dollars; they are titles to dollars. But burning those titles effectively removes dollars from the money supply, identical with a reduction in deficit spending.)

National Post
Federal budget aims for economic growth over cuts to erase deficit
Sarah Boesveld – March 21, 2013

OTTAWA — The Conservative government tabled a budget Thursday that relies largely on projected growth instead of new cuts to erase the deficit and balance the budget by the 2015 election.

The budget increases (spending) by less than 1%, “the smallest increase in discretionary spending in nearly 20 years,” according to Finance Minister Jim Flaherty. It closes tax loopholes.

“We will not back away from our steadfast commitment to fiscal responsibility,” Mr. Flaherty said in his budget speech. “We will not balance the budget on the backs of hardworking Canadian families or those in need. But we will balance the budget. And we will do it in 2015.”

Translation: “We will cut spending for social services and we will balance the budget on the backs of hardworking Canadian families and those in need. We can get away with this because we have brainwashed you Canadians into wrongly believing the central government is running short of dollars, and that its finances are just like your personal finances.”

Meanwhile Canadians, you have your underwear all in knots, because a radio station burned a few thousand dollars that “could have gone to charity.” But you applaud a government that unnecessarily cuts billions from its budget — billions that could have gone to the needy.

The penalty for ignorance is slavery. Can it get more ignorant than that?

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

====================================================================================================================================================
Nine Steps to Prosperity:
1. Eliminate FICA (Click here)
2. Federally funded Medicare — parts A, B & D plus long term nursing care — for everyone (Click here)
3. Provide an Economic Bonus to every man, woman and child in America, and/or every state a per capita Economic Bonus. (Click here) Or institute a reverse income tax.
4. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone. Click here
5. Salary for attending school (Click here)
6. Eliminate corporate taxes (Click here)
7. Increase the standard income tax deduction annually
8. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99% (Click here)
9. Federal ownership of all banks (Click here)

—–

10 Steps to Economic Misery: (Click here:)
1. Maintain or increase the FICA tax..
2. Spread the myth Social Security, Medicare and the U.S. government are insolvent.
3. Cut federal employment in the military, post office, other federal agencies.
4. Broaden the income tax base so more lower income people will pay.
5. Cut financial assistance to the states.
6. Spread the myth federal taxes pay for federal spending.
7. Allow banks to trade for their own accounts; save them when their investments go sour.
8. Never prosecute any banker for criminal activity.
9. Nominate arch conservatives to the Supreme Court.
10. Reduce the federal deficit and debt

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:
1. Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings
2. Gross Domestic Product = Federal Spending + Private Investment and Consumption – Net Imports

THE RECESSION CLOCK

As the federal deficit growth lines drop, we approach recession, which will be cured only when the lines rise. Federal deficit growth is absolutely, positively necessary for economic growth. Period.

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

–How one bad legal decision can beget an endless series of bad legal decisions.

Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

American law relies heavily on precedent. Later decisions are linked to earlier decisions by a chain of logic that can extend through many decades, all the way back to the Constitution and even earlier.

Early decisions are the ingredients for later cakes.

No law or legal decision is an island unto itself. A wise judge takes that fact into consideration.

Sadly, our current Supreme Court has become ultra, right-wing political, not wise, so its decisions reflect the wishes of the upper .1% income/power group. Prime example: The Court’s Citizens United decision, that corporations have the same free speech rights as people, which favoring the rich, ranks among the more regressive decisions in the Court’s history.

Could Citizens United and a semi-colon undo Obamacare?
National Constitution Center By Scott Bomboy
March 21, 2014 6:24 AM

Next Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear two cases related to the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, and the stakes are high for both sides. In fact, the interpretation of a semi-colon in the context of the First Amendment could play a critical role.

“Appellants also argue that Citizens United is applicable to the Free Exercise [of religion] Clause because ―the authors of the First Amendment only separated the Free Exercise Clause and the Free Speech Clause by a semi-colon, thus showing the continuation of intent between the two,” said circuit judge Robert Cowen in the Conestoga Wood appeals court decision.

The semi-colon argument holds that the free exercise of religion and free exercise of speech are linked. Since the Citizens United case gave corporations the same free speech rights as people, the argument states that corporations should have the same free religious exercise rights as people, too, and they should be able to opt out of Obamacare.

The argument is ridiculous — or would be, were it not for the equally ridiculous Citizens United decision, which creates precedent for all sorts of mischief. Not only did that decision provide additional rationale for billionaires to use tax avoiding corporations as secret cover for controlling elections, but it sets the stage for other arguments taking the Constitution far afield.

Citizens United, under the guise of “free speech,” allows rich people more free speech than poor people. Lots more. Further, it arguably allows corporations all the rights of people.

For instance, being born in the U.S., you have all the rights of a citizen. Does a corporation, “born” in the U.S., have all the rights of an American citizen?

Does it also have voting rights? Can corporations adopt children? Can a corporation go to jail if it breaks a law? Can a corporation receive a marriage license and thereby receive the tax benefits of marriage? And what if some shareholders, officers, etc. are foreigners. What then are the rights of the corporation? Does a corporation need a visa or passport?

And so we come to the Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood cases:

In Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., the national hobby and crafts chain store asked the Court to take on the birth control mandate that applies to for-profit companies.

The issue in the Hobby Lobby case is if the company is protected under the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which says the government “shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion” unless that burden satisfies strict scrutiny. Hobby Lobby claims as a family-owned company, its religious rights are violated by Obamacare.

In the Conestoga Wood case, a Mennonite family-owned, profit-making business claims that the ACA’s birth control mandate violates the company’s rights under the First Amendment free exercise clause and the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

If a corporation has the free speech rights of an American citizen, who determines what that speech shall be? Is a corporation merely a surrogate for its president? Or its chairman? Or its board of directors? Or its shareholders? Or its employees? Or the employees’ union? Whose free speech are we talking about?

The Supreme Court, in its unseemly haste to favor the rich over the rest, has opened the door to all sorts of related questions.

What is the religion of a corporation? Is it the religion of the above-mentioned president? Or of the chairman? Or of the directors or shareholders? Or of the employees or union?

What shall we make of a corporation owned mostly by Christians, but which hires Jews and Muslims and even promotes Jews and Muslims to executive positions? When is it a Christian corporation and when is it not? Does it lose its “Christianity,” if some of its stock is sold to non-Christians?

And what if some of those Christian owners, executives, etc. are Catholic and some Protestant of various denominaions? What makes this corporation Catholic or Protestant? Does a “Muslim corporation” have legal redress if a Christian corporation refuses to hire it for a job, because of anti-Muslim bigotry?

Yes, bad law tends to extend its tentacles:

The Hobby Lobby-Conestoga Wood case is the first of more than 90 related cases filed by other religious-oriented plaintiffs, including hospitals, social service agencies, universities, schools, and companies.

Kaiser Health News estimates that more than 1,000 religious institutions and other employers with millions of employees have objections.

Here it comes. Every religion has its priorities. And if we assume corporations have the same rights as people, who has the right to decide a corporation’s religion, even when most of the employees and customers are of a different religion?

“Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive” the American public, and to please our wealthy benefactors! Yes, the whole thing is ridiculous, but when you begin with ridiculous incredients, you aren’t going to get a sensible cake.

Interesting times ahead for what arguably will be remembered as one of our less admired Courts. Let’s see how they try to wriggle out of the complex maze they have built. Will they cook up an even more pro-right wing (rich), anti-left wing (poor) complexity. Soon the Court will attempt to bake a cake using the bad ingredients of its own making.

Note to Supreme Court justices: No matter what you do now, you will look like fools.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

—–

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

cut debt, cut deficits, cut medicaid, cut medicare, cut social security, cut spending, cut taxes, cut the budget, eliminate FICA, filibuster, income gap, MMT, modern monetary theory, monetarily non-sovereign, monetarily sovereign, monetary non-sovereignty, monetary sovereignty

–“If you’re poor, stop being poor.” A must-see video.

Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

Here is the definitive, right-wing solution to poverty and health care. (You decide whether this video is howlingly hilarious or truly sad.):

Fox commentator admits America has Third World health care

The real solution — the only solution — is federally funded, free, comprehensive, no deductions Medicare for every man, woman and child in America.

Why don’t we have it? Because the upper 1% income/power group doesn’t want us to have it. They want us to believe that if the government pays for it:

1. The government will run out of dollars. You and I won’t.
2. We’ll have a Weimar, Zimbabwe, Argentina hyper-inflation (which we never have had in almost 240 years of wars, depressions, recessions, plagues and right-wing politicians).
3. Our grandchildren will have to pay the federal debt (rather than paying for our health care).
4. Health care will be worse, because the government is not as wise, generous or compassionate as the rich insurance companies, which are famous for their wisdom, generosity and compassion.
5. Poor people are “lazy” (per Paul Ryan) and are takers looking for a free lunch, and if you’re poor, stop being poor.

Who could argue with such facts?

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

—–

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

–Ritholtz right — but mostly wrong — about QE

Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

Barry Ritholtz is a self-proclaimed expert, who when I tried to explain Monetary Sovereignty, wrote: “Jeebus, you fucking sovereign guys are such dreadful bores.” On such brilliance does his reputation lie. [See link]

Recently, he wrote an article published in the Bloomberg View, and I felt obligated to contact the editor, so as to help spread Barry’s fame.

Here is the full text of the article:

Mr. Greiff:

This is re. your article in Bloomberg View: Understanding why you think QE didn’t work, by Barry Ritholtz:

As you know, QE (Quantitative Easing) is the Fed’s purchase of privately-owned T-securities. The above-mentioned article states that people are wrong to believe QE doesn’t work. He’s right, but for the wrong reason.

He claims people don’t think QE works, because the economy has not recovered much, despite several QEs. Ritholtz says people don’t consider the counterfactual, i.e what would the economy have been without QE.

Again, he is right, but again he is wrong about why QE actually does not work, i.e. QE does not stimulate the economy, because it was not designed to stimulate the economy.

By “redeeming” T-securities before their redemption date, the Fed reduces the supply, which increases the price of those T-securities still available. As with all fixed interest securities, when the price goes up, the interest rate goes down.

The sole purpose of QE was to reduce long term interest rates, and by all available evidence, reducing interest rates does not stimulate anything. In fact, it is recessionary. (See: Low interest rates do not help the economy.)

QE does not add dollars to the economy, for the simple reason that those dollars already are in the economy. T-securities are nothing more than deposits (similar to savings accounts) at the Federal Reserve Bank. To redeem your T-securities, the federal government merely transfers your dollars from your T-security account to your checking account.

The process is identical with transferring dollars from your savings account to your checking account. No new dollars created.

Unless you believe that transferring dollars from your savings account to your checking account is stimulative, you readily can see that QE adds no dollars to the economy, and so stimulates nothing.

But, why is QE recessionary? Because by lowering interest rates, QE reduces the amount of interest the federal government pays into the private economy.

So, bottom line, Ritholtz is correct that criticisms of QE are misplaced, but not for the reason he suggests. QE was designed not to work, because by reducing the amount of interest the federal government pays, QE reduces the deficit — and that was the goal all along.

QE is an austerity tool, and austerity is a lie, sold to the populace — a lie that absolutely is guaranteed to depress an economy. It’s part of the BIG LIE.

Because the poor are hurt by recessions more than are the rich, the purpose of austerity is to widen the gap between the rich and the rest. It’s what the rich pay the media and the politicians to do.

Now we are tormented with the headline, “Federal Reserve continues scaling back bond buying, By Jim Puzzanghera, LA Times“, which is akin to saying, “Fed will reduce its efforts to slow the economy”

Some excerpts:

With the economy slowly improving, Federal Reserve officials are shifting their efforts from stimulating the recovery to restoring normal monetary policy — although new Chairwoman Janet L. Yellen tried to stress that day remains far away.

Central bank policymakers voted Wednesday to cut the Fed’s bond-buying stimulus program to $55 billion a month, the third reduction since December.

Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen said the central bank is still falling short of its goals for full employment and price stability.

It is unknown how transferring dollars from T-security accounts to checking accounts, while reducing federal deficit spending, will help achieve full employment and price stability. But explanations are for chumps, not for those in authority.

Yellen indicated rates could start rising as soon as early next year. The comment sent the Dow Jones industrial average tumbling 170 points in a matter of minutes.

See, it’s like this. If the Fed plans to do less to harm the economy, stocks will fall, because . . . uh well, because.

The market reaction demonstrated the worries investors have that the Fed’s era of easy money is coming to an end.

I must have encountered that term “easy money” a thousand times, and still don’t understand it. Borrowers have more difficulty getting loans today, than in the past. And lenders earn less interest (Have you looked at your CD rates, lately?). Further, the government pumps less money into the economy when rates are low.

So what’s “easy”? ‘Tis a mystery.

“My goal — and I will throw myself into this as wholeheartedly as I can — is to make rapid progress, as rapid progress as we possibly can, in getting this recovery back on track and putting Americans back to work,” Yellen said.

The BIG LIE is alive and well in Washington.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

—–

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: