–Deficit reduction (austerity) destroys more American lives and families than war.

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 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.
==========================================================================================================================================

Excerpted from the Washington Post:
The GOP’s problem: The cuts they want aren’t the cuts they can get
Posted by Ezra Klein on December 13, 2012

The Republicans know President Barack Obama will not agree to cut in the area they want to cut: aid to the poor. Obama is willing to cut Medicare and Social Security, and Republicans are internally conflicted over those programs.

Translation: “We politicians are employed by the rich, so we don’t care that every day, Americans die from inadequate health care, and every day, families are destroyed by poverty – more death and destruction than are caused by war.

“The Republicans want to start with the lowest income group and work their way up. Unfortunately, a poor person can vote – though the Republicans have been attempting to change that.

“The Democrats want to cut the old people first, and screw the poor later. Unfortunately, those old people insist on voting.”

Think back to Mitt Romney’s proposed budget. The only big cuts Romney ever proposed were to programs that aid the poor. He wanted to cut Medicaid, food stamps, and housing assistance. He wanted to get rid of the tax cuts enacted in the stimulus to help the poor — his tax plan raised taxes on the poorest Americans. He wanted to repeal all the spending in Obamacare, most of which goes to lower-income Americans.

About two-thirds of the cuts in Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget came from programs for the poor.

That leaves Medicare and Social Security. It’s possible that the negotiators will enact a backdoor, but significant, cut to Social Security by changing the government’s measure of inflation. But they’re not going to come at Social Security from the front. It’s too politically potent. Even Ryan’s budget left Social Security alone.

Just imagine if the politicians had the courage and the honesty to admit that deficit reduction (austerity) destroys more American lives and families than war. There would be no need to cut Medicare, no need to cut Social Security, no need to cut food stamps, housing assistance or other aids to the poor, no need for crumbling roads, bridges and dams, no need to cut public broadcasting – and no need for high federal taxes. . .

Every man, woman and child could have good health care insurance, adequate food and shelter, a good education. America’s roads, bridges and dams could be repaired. The hurricane damaged East Coast would not have to suffer the Republicans’ delay in providing funds. Our military could upgrade. The post office would not have to cut service and employees. More intensive financial supervision could eliminate crooked banks and brokers.

All these and more, would be possible. Instead, we watch as our nation is whittled down by the budget cutters, whose goal is not to strengthen America, not to “save” Security and Medicare, not to “get our fiscal house in order” – no, the sole purpose is to increase the gap between the rich and the rest.

We have a chance to make a difference. We can spread the truth . We can influence the future of America. Write, call, march, demand, threaten. Make our feelings known. We can keep the rich from taking over our lives.

Or we can just follow along and let it happen to us. Just as the wealthy want.

“Never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee.”

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

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

Nine Steps to Prosperity:
1. Eliminate FICA (Click here)
2. Medicare — parts A, B & D — for everyone
3. Send every American citizen an annual check for $5,000 or give every state $5,000 per capita (Click here)
4. Long-term nursing care for everyone
5. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone
6. Salary for attending school (Click here)
7. Eliminate corporate taxes
8. Increase the standard income tax deduction annually
9. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99%

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 Imports

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

–What is the purpose of the charitable tax deduction? Who will be hurt if it’s reduced?

One might think reducing the charity tax deduction punishes rich. Nonsense. The rich will continue to give the same net (gross donation – tax deduction) dollars. Sadly, a greater share of those dollars will go to the federal government.

A billionaire giving ten million dollars, and paying the highest marginal tax rate, receives a $3.5 million tax deduction. It’s the net contribution of $6.5 million that actually comes out of his pocket. The rich know what their net outflow will be and what they will have left after making their contributions. They have people who keep track of those things.

Reduce the tax deduction, and the rich won’t absorb the loss. They simply will give less and the government will receive more. The charities would absorb the loss. So President Obama’s desire to reduce the charitable tax deduction for the rich, merely will reduce net contributions to charities.

And to whom do charities give: The poor, the needy, the 99.9%.

So while some of the 99.9% might exult at seeing the charitable reduction reduced for the rich ($250 thousand a year is “rich”???), in fact this means nothing to the rich. It is the middle and lower classes that will suffer.

Thus, we have another in a long string of Obama initiatives to widen he income gap between the rich and the rest.

But there is a fundamental question that never seems to be addressed. What has been the historical purpose of the charitable tax deduction? The answer: To encourage private charitable giving.

Those who hate “big government,” and who believe the private sector is best equipped to determine which charities are most beneficial to the nation, logically should want the charitable deduction to be even bigger. But even the conservatives don’t understand what’s happening.

There are only three alternatives:
1. More help from the private sector
2. More help from the federal government
3. Less help for the needy.

By reducing the charitable deduction, and cutting federal spending, which direction will we go? No rocket science necessary.

Washington Post
White House, nonprofit groups battle over charitable deductions
By Jerry Markon and Peter Wallsten, Thursday, December 13, 11:06 AM

The White House and the nation’s most prominent charities are embroiled in a tense, behind-the-scenes debate over President Obama’s push to scale back the nearly century-old tax deduction on donations that the charities say is crucial for their financial health.

In a series of recent meetings and calls, top White House aides have pressed nonprofit groups to line up behind the president’s plan for reducing the federal deficit and averting the year-end “fiscal cliff,” according to people familiar with the talks.

In part, the White House is seeking to win the support of nonprofit groups for Obama’s central demand that income tax rates rise for upper-end taxpayers. There are early signs that several charities, whose boards often include the wealthy, are willing to endorse this change.

Why would any charities endorse deficit reduction? It’s in the last sentence: “. . . boards often include the wealthy.” Yes, as we have seen in previous posts, deficit reduction (austerity) widens the income gap between the rich and the rest.

But the White House is also looking to limit the charitable deduction for high-income earners, and that has prompted frustration and resistance, with leaders of major nonprofit organizations, such as the United Way, the American Red Cross and Lutheran Services of America, closing ranks in opposing any change to the deduction.

Studies have shown that people would donate less if the deduction were reduced but estimates of the effect vary widely

“It would be devastating,’’ said Jatrice Martel Gaiter, executive vice president for external affairs at Volunteers of America, which has paid Patton Boggs — Washington’s most lucrative lobby shop — nearly $200,000 to lobby on the charitable deduction and other issues in the past year. “Of course people want to say they are giving out of the goodness of their hearts, and of course they are, but the tax deduction makes our heart larger and our goodness even better.’’

Many people would continue to give the same – mostly members of the lower 99.9% income groups. They still would drop a dollar into the Salvation Army kettle; they still would give $100 to the church. But unquestionably, the big donations would shrink.

Obama has proposed capping the value of deductions for individuals earning more than $200,000 ($250,000 for families) at 28 percent, regardless of their tax bracket. This would include deductions for mortgage interest and state and local taxes, along with charitable contributions.

Currently, the tax code allows people who itemize deductions to deduct their charitable contributions at their maximum marginal tax rate. So, for example, if someone in the highest tax bracket — now a 35 percent tax rate — gives $100 to charity, the donor saves $35 in taxes. If the deduction were capped at 28 percent, the donor would save only $28 dollars.

Ultimately, people are concerned with what they have left in their own pockets, after all expenses and contributions. Tax them more for contributions and they’ll contribute less.

Capping deductions at 28 percent — including those for charitable contributions, mortgage interest and state and local taxes — would raise $574 billion in new federal tax revenue over 10 years, according to White House estimates.

This transfers $574 billion out of the private sector, most of it coming from charities and their beneficiaries, the poor.

Obama has dismissed the charities’ contention that his plan would substantially damage their fundraising. White House officials, including Chief of Staff Jacob Lew and senior adviser Valerie Jarrett, have recently been telling nonprofit leaders they would face far graver danger under Republican deficit-reduction plans.

“You see, our plan only cuts off one of your feet, unnecessarily; the Republicans would cut off both of your feet, unnecessarily. So you should be happy with our plan.

Obama aides this week also signaled a willingness to overhaul corporate taxes as an enticement for the chief executives of major U.S. companies to speak out in favor of raising individual income taxes, and a number of prominent executives have begun backing the tax plan in recent days.

Can you believe it? “Prominent executives” like the idea of reducing corporate taxes while increasing individual taxes. Who’d a thunk?

Frustration stems in part from what some nonprofit leaders describe as a philosophical disagreement between Obama and the non-profit sector. The president has framed the tax deduction as a benefit for the wealthy, they say, while in their view the deduction is a benefit for charities that use the money to help the needy.

Reduce the tax deduction, and the rich will give less. No harm to the rich. All the harm is to the charities and ultimately to the people who need service from charities. Once again, Obama, the great liberal, works to widen the gap between rich and poor.

“Obama said. “Well, if you eliminated charitable deductions, that means every hospital and university and not-for-profit agency across the country would suddenly find themselves on the verge of collapse.”

A flat-out admission that reducing the charitable deduction will impact charities and as a result, impact those who need charities. But wait, here’s Obama making the opposite claim:

When the president proposed reducing the charitable deduction in 2009, initially to help pay for his health-care overhaul initiative, he said there was “very little evidence” that the change would significantly affect giving. Speaking at a press conference, he said the deduction “shouldn’t be a determining factor as to whether you’re given that $100 to the homeless shelter down the street.’’

So, according to Obama, charitable deductions are vital but not very important. Got it?

And finally, there is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, to which Warren Buffett has contributed massively:

“Buffett’s gift came with three conditions for the Gates foundation: Bill or Melinda Gates must be alive and active in its administration; it must continue to qualify as a charity; and each year it must give away an amount equal to the previous year’s Berkshire gift, plus another 5 percent of net assets.

Do you think tax considerations aren’t important to charitable givers? Warren Buffett sure thinks they are.

Bottom line: The greater the tax deduction, the more the private sector will determine charitable giving. Reducing the charitable tax deduction will not hurt the rich. It will hurt the middle an lower classes, who benefit from charities. It will increase the gap between rich and poor. Federal bureaucrats will have greater power over charities. America will be diminished.

Yet another needless casualty of austerity.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

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

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

–Fed embraces madness: Repeatedly does the same thing, expecting a different result

Never before have I reprinted a posting from this blog, but I will do it now, because it is even more appropriate today than it was when first published, three years ago. First, please read the following article from Yahoo News:

Market enthusiasm over Fed’s latest easing fades as US budget discussions continue
By Pan Pylas, AP Business Writer | Associated Press; 12/13/12

LONDON (AP) — Any enthusiasm over another monetary stimulus from the Federal Reserve faded Thursday as investors monitored the progress of budget discussions in the U.S. As had been widely predicted, the Fed said Wednesday it will spend $85 billion a month on bond purchases to drive down long-term borrowing costs and stimulate economic growth.

The total includes the replacement of an expiring Fed program with a commitment to purchase $45 billion a month on long-term Treasurys. Those purchases, and the Fed’s renewed commitment to keep interest rates low until unemployment falls to a more normal level, are intended to spur borrowing and spending in an economy still growing only modestly since the financial crisis of 2008.

So, there will be no monetary stimulus. Instead, the Fed will drive down long-term interest rates. (Short-term rates have been near zero, and that has accomplished nothing, so the focus shifts to long-term rates.)

Here is the article published September 9, 2009, titled “The low interest rate/GDP growth fallacy”

The article contains a graph which has been brought up to date:

================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================
THE LOW INTEREST RATE / GDP GROWTH FALLACY

       The Fed raises interest rates to fight inflation. To fight recession, the Fed does the opposite. It cuts interest rates.
      This may sound logical except for one, very small detail. The opposite of inflation is not recession. The opposite of inflation is deflation. So doing the opposite of what you would do to counter inflation makes no sense when trying to counter a recession.
      We could have a recession with deflation. We could have a recession with inflation, which is called “stagflation.” The history of Fed rate cuts, as a way to stimulate the economy, is not a good one. The Fed, under Chairman Greenspan, instituted numerous rate cuts. The result: A recession that President Bush’s tax cuts cured.
      The Fed, under Chairman Bernanke, instituted numerous rate cuts. The result: The 2008 recession.
      Why does popular faith hold that cutting interest rates stimulates the economy? Because popular faith views only one side of the equation. For each dollar borrowed a dollar is lent. $B = $L. That much is trivial.
      Cutting interest rates does cost borrowers less. So, the theory is, a business needing $100 million would be more likely to borrow if interest rates are low than when they are high. Further, consumers are more likely to spend when borrowing is less costly. So making borrowing less costly stimulates business growth and consumer buying. At least, that is the theory.
      What seems to be ignored is the lending side of the equation. When interest rates are low, lenders receive less money. And who are the lenders? Businesses and consumers.
      You are a lender when you buy a CD or a bond, or put money into your savings account. When interest rates are low, you receive less money, which means you have less money to spend on goods and service — which means less stimulus for the economy.
      In short, interest rates flow through the economy, with some people and businesses paying and some receiving. Domestically, it’s a zero-sum game.
      A growing economy requires a growing supply of money. Cutting interest rates does not add money to the economy. That is why there is no historical correlation between interest rates and economic growth. During periods of high rates, GDP growth is not inhibited. During periods of low rates, GDP growth is not stimulated.

Please review the following graph:

Blue is interest rates. Red is GDP growth. Not only are low interest rates not associated with high economic growth, but the opposite seems to be true. There seems to be a correlation between high interest rates and high GDP growth. How can this be?
      When interest rates are high, the federal government pays more interest on T-securities, which pumps more money into the economy. This additional money stimulates the economy.
      This shows why the Fed’s repeated rate cuts do not seem to stimulate the economy. The action has been shown, time and again, to be counter-productive. Cutting interest rates to stimulate the economy is like pouring water on a drowning man.
      Do you remember these headlines: “Employers slashed 80,000 jobs in March.” “The U.S. central bank has lowered rates by 3 percentage points since mid-September” “The loss of jobs signals another interest rate cut by the Federal Reserve later this month.” “Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke acknowledged Wednesday that the country could be heading toward a recession, saying federal policymakers are ‘fighting against the wind’ in combating it.”
      Rate cut after rate cut did nothing. So what was the Fed’s plan? More rate cuts. During the previous recession, the Fed also attempted rate cut after rate cut, also to no avail. The recession, finally ended with the Bush tax cuts. The Fed has not learned from experience, but stubbornly adheres to the popular faith that interest rate cuts stimulate the economy.
Rate cuts do not stimulate the economy. They never have. They never will.
      “Stimulating” an economy means making it larger. A large economy requires more money than does a smaller economy. Therefore, the only thing that stimulates the economy is the addition of money.
      Rate cuts, by reducing the amount of interest the federal government pays, actually reduce the supply of money. We are on the edge of a recession, because the economy is starved for money. The coming “stimulus” checks will help, but they are too little and too late. This should have been done months ago, and the amounts should be far larger.
      The only way to prevent or cure a recession: Federal deficit spending. There is no excuse for recession or inflation. These problems are not economic failures. They are leadership failures.

You also might find another post, “Low interest rates: The sneak tax on you” of interest.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

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

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

108 so-called “economists,” who put their reputations and their legacies on a shameful letter

The National Taxpayers Union, the self proclaimed “America’s independent, non-partisan advocate for overburdened taxpayers” has managed to dupe 108 so-called “economists” into writing a truly stupid letter.

You can read the letter, then see the “economists” who were foolish enough to attach their names to it:

Fiscal Cliff Tax Hikes Risk Economic Damage.
An open letter to Congress:

December 11, 2012
Dear Members of Congress:

As the nation approaches the so-called “fiscal cliff,” we, the undersigned economists, urge Congress to carefully consider the relative merits of tax increases and spending restraint. Increasing taxes would likely slow or reverse our nation’s fragile economic recovery and undermine long-term growth. Restraining the growth of expenditures, however, would help stabilize the government’s fiscal imbalance and create a more conducive environment for robust expansion.

Tax increases and “restraining the growth of expenditures” both reduce the deficit by an equal amount and reduce GDP growth, also by an equal amount. GDP = Federal Spending + Non-federal Spending – Net Imports.

By the way, when you worry about your own budget, do you feel your problem is you make too little or you spend too much? Think about it.

Some in Congress have advocated allowing the 2001 and 2003 taxpayer relief laws to expire for some or all taxpayers. Such an action would have a significant, negative impact on the economy. Low taxes can have a constructive economic effect by keeping money in the private sector, where it is far more likely to be utilized for efficient purposes.

Low taxes and high spending both “keep money in the private sector.”

By contrast, raising taxes would divert resources into the relatively inefficient public sector, thereby curbing potential job creation and economic growth. This effect would be even more pronounced during a persistent slump.

Raising federal taxes does not “divert resources to the public sector.” If you had even a modicum of understanding about Monetary Sovereignty, you would know that federal taxes only take money out of the private sector. Period. Unlike state and local governments, the federal government does not use tax dollars.

Further, the spending cuts being contemplated (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, military) would remove dollars from the private sector – exactly what you claim to oppose.

In particular, Congress should avoid raising marginal tax rates on income and taxes on investment, such as capital gains and dividends taxes. These types of taxes most directly and meaningfully affect job creation.

Do we detect some extra concern for the mistreated, upper .1% income group? Is that why you don’t want to raise taxes on the richest people, “in particular”?

Additionally, lawmakers must resist other destructive proposals that would boost effective tax burdens, such as curtailing itemized deductions for higher earners or imposing discriminatory taxes on energy or other industries. Such policies are merely revenue-raising ploys when executed outside the context of comprehensive tax reform that includes correspondingly lower marginal rates. And like other tax increases, they would serve as inadequate substitutes to much-needed spending restraint.

We see your hearts truly do bleed for those higher earners and their unprofitable energy companies.

While some Members of Congress are concerned about the short-term impacts of slowing the growth of federal expenditures, they must uphold their commitment to the American people to address the alarming trajectory of U.S. spending and borrowing. There are more tangible benefits to consider as well: research has shown that spending restraint is superior to tax increases for both deficit reduction and long-term economic vitality. This has proven true in many other developed nations that have implemented fiscal adjustments.

Really? Which countries have cut deficits and as a result, achieved long-term vitality? I’d love to watch you struggle to come up with your non-existent “research.”

To best foster a strong economy, Congress should ultimately create a simpler system of taxation with a broader base and low rates on income and investment. Simultaneously, it should prioritize government programs and pursue entitlement reforms that bring the budget to sustainable balance. Individuals and businesses are depending on — and deserve — greater certainty in policy making that affects their everyday financial decisions.

In summary, you want “simpler” taxation on a “broader base” (i.e a flat tax that takes more from lower income people), low rates on investment (i.e. low rates on the wealthy) and entitlement reforms (i.e. cut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps et al).

We have but one question: Were you “economists” bribed or threatened, or did you receive your degrees by mail order?

To all readers of this post: If you feel like looking these guys up, and telling them what nincompoops they are, I would have no objection.

Sincerely,
The Undersigned (affiliations listed for identification purposes only):

James C.W. Ahiakpor, California State University, East Bay
Donald L. Alexander, Western Michigan University
Howard Baetjer, Towson University
Charles W. Baird, California State University, East Bay
Stacie Beck, University of Delaware
James P. Beckwith, North Carolina Central University
Daniel K. Benjamin, Clemson University
Michael Bennett, Curry College
James T. Bennett, George Mason University
William Beranek, University of Georgia
M. Douglas Berg, Sam Houston State University
Richard E. Bernstein, Temple University
Sanjai Bhagat, University of Colorado at Boulder
Cecil Bohanon, Ball State University
Michael Bond, University of Arizona
Scott C. Bradford, Brigham Young University
Charles H. Breeden, Marquette University
David P. Brown, University of Wisconsin – Madison
Lawrence Brunner, Central Michigan University
Phillip J. Bryson, Brigham Young University
James L. Butkiewicz, University of Delaware
William N. Butos, Trinity College
Victor Canto, La Jolla Economics
Richard Cebula, Armstrong Atlantic State University
Dustin Chambers, Salisbury University
Don Chance, Louisiana State University
Kenneth W. Chilton, Lindenwood University
Lawrence R. Cima, John Carroll University
Kenneth W. Clarkson, University of Miami
John P. Cochran, Metropolitan State College of Denver
Michelle Connolly, Duke University
Michael Connolly, University of Miami
Mike Cosgrove, University of Dallas
Eleanor D. Craig, University of Delaware
Wayne Crews, Competitive Enterprise Institute
Ward S. Curran, Trinity College
Lawrence S. Davidson, Indiana University
Anthony Davies, Duquesne University
Ronnie H. Davis, Florida Institute of Technology
Clarence R. Deitsch, Ball State University
Stephen J. Dempsey, University of Vermont
Joseph S. DeSalvo, University of South Florida
Floyd H. Duncan, Virginia Military Institute
Frank Egan, Trinity College
John B. Egger, Towson University
Richard E. Ericson, East Carolina University
Paul Evans, Ohio State University
Frank Falero, California State University, Bakersfield
Eugene F. Fama, University of Chicago
Dorsey D. Farr, French, Wolf & Farr
W. Ken Farr, Georgia College & State University
Price V. Fishback, University of Arizona
John A. Flanders, Central Methodist University
Garry A. Fleming, Roanoke College
Harold D. Flint, Montclair State University
James Forcier, University of San Francisco
Bill Ford, Middle Tennessee State University
Michele Fratianni, Indiana University
B. Delworth Gardner, Brigham Young University
David E.R. Gay, University of Arkansas
Gregory Gelles, Missouri University of Science and Technology
Robert Genetski, Classicalprinciples.com
Paul J. Gessing, Rio Grande Foundation President
Joseph A. Giacalone, St. John’s University
Adam Gifford, Jr., California State University, Northridge
Otis W. Gilley, Louisiana Tech University
Micha Gisser, University of New Mexico
Stephan F. Gohmann, University of Louisville
Rodolfo A. Gonzalez, San Jose State University
Linda Gorman, Independence Institute
Richard Grant, Lipscomb University
Anthony J. Greco, Louisiana University
William B. Green, Sam Houston State University
Kenneth V. Greene, Binghamton University
John G. Greenhut, Texas A&M University – Commerce
Paul Gregory, University of Houston
Earl Grinols, III, Baylor University
Dennis Halcoussis, California State University, Northridge
David L. Hammes, University of Hawaii – Hilo
Stephen Happel, Arizona State University
Scott Harrington, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania
Scott Hein, Texas Tech University
David R. Henderson, Hoover Institution, Stanford University
Douglas Holtz-Eakin, American Action Forum President
Charles L. Hooper, Hoover Institution, Stanford University
James L. Huffman, Lewis & Clark Law School
Austin Jaffe, Pennsylvania State University
D. Bruce Johnsen, George Mason University School of Law
Richard E. Just, University of Maryland
Alexander Katkov, Johnson & Wales University
Peter Kerr, Southeast Missouri State University
E. Han Kim, University of Michigan
Robert Krol, California State University, Northridge
Kishore G. Kulkarni, Metropolitan State College of Denver
Ben Kyer, Francis Marion University
Nicholas A. Lash, Loyola University Chicago
Don R. Leet, California State University, Fresno
Norman Lefton, Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville
Tom Lehman, Indiana Wesleyan University
Tony Lima, California State University
Jody W. Lipford, Presbyterian College
Hong Liu, Washington University, St. Louis
Edward J. Lopez, San Jose State University
Donald L. Luskin, Trend Macrolytics, LLC
R. Ashley Lyman, University of Idaho
Glenn MacDonald, Washington University, St. Louis
Keith Malone, University of North Alabama
Yuri N. Maltsev, Carthage College
Henry G. Manne, George Mason University
Richard D. Marcus, University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee
Michael L. Marlow, California Polytechnic State University
Deryl W. Martin, Tennessee Technological University
Timothy Mathews, Kennesaw State University
Roger E. Meiners, University of Texas – Arlington
Stephen Mennemeyer, University of Alabama, Birmingham
Harry Messenheimer, Rio Grande Foundation
Thomas Miller, University of Connecticut
Jim Miller, Former Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director
David M. Mitchell, Missouri State University
James E. T. Moncur, University of Hawaii
Wilbur Monroe, U.S. Treasury Department, International Affairs (Ret.)
Adrian Moore, Reason Foundation
Michael Morrisey, University of Alabama
Andrew P. Morriss, University of Alabama Law School
Ronald M. Nate, Brigham Young University – Idaho
James F. Nieberding, Cleveland State University & North Coast Economics, LLC
James. B. O’Neill, University of Delaware
Lee E. Ohanian, University of California, Los Angeles
Lydia Ortega, San Jose State University
Donald J. Oswald, California State University, Bakersfield
H. Edwin Overcast, Black & Veatch
Richard A. Palfin, Economic Analysis
Penn R. Pfiffner, Construction Economics, LLC
G. Michael Phillips, California State University, Northridge
Ivan Pongracic, Hillsdale College
Barry W. Poulson, University of Colorado at Boulder (Ret.)
Richard W. Rahn, Institute of Global Economic Growth
R. David Ranson, H.C. Wainwright & Co. Economics Inc.
Farhad Rassekh, University of Hartford
Mark William Rider, Georgia State University
Christine P. Ries, Georgia Institute of Technology
Philip Romero, University of Oregon
Larry L. Ross, University of Alaska, Anchorage
Timothy P. Roth, University of Texas, El Paso
Charles K. Rowley, George Mason University
Paul H. Rubin, Emory University
John Ruggiero, University of Dayton
John Rutledge, Rutledge Capital, LLC
Robert Sauer, Royal Holloway, University of London
Robert Haney Scott, California State University, Chico
John J. Seater, North Carolina State University
Richard T. Selden, University of Virginia
Ann Sherman, DePaul University
Vlad Signorelli, Bretton Woods Research
Daniel Smith, Troy University
Chester Spatt, Carnegie Mellon University
Frank Spreng, McKendree College
Dean Stansel, Florida Gulf Coast University
Craig A. Stephenson, Babson College
Derek Stimel, Menlo College
Avanidhar Subrahmanyam, University of California, Los Angeles
John A. Tatom, Indiana State University
Jason E. Taylor, Central Michigan University
Rebecca Thacker, Ohio University
David J. Theroux, The Independent Institute
Wade L. Thomas, State University of New York at Oneota
Richard Timberlake , University of Chicago
Stephen A. Tolbert, Montgomery County Community College
David G. Tuerck, Suffolk University
Grace-Marie Turner, Galen Institute President
A. Sinan Unur, Cornell University Program on Freedom and Free Societies
Kamal P. Upadhyaya, University of New Haven
T. Norman Van Cott, Ball State University
Richard K. Vedder, Ohio University
George J. Viksnins, Georgetown University
John Volpe, Catholic University of America
Ralph Walkling, LeBow College, Drexel University
Alan Rufus Waters, California State University, Fresno
Paul W. Wilson, Clemson University
Michael K. Wohlgenant, North Carolina State University
Gary Wolfram, Hillsdale College
Frank Wykoff, Pomona College
Thomas L. Wyrick, Missouri State University
Joseph Zoric, Franciscan University of Steubenville
Robert Niehaus, President, Robert Niehaus, Inc. (signature consent received after date of letter’s release)

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

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

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: