The text of a speech I never will give to my friends at our country club, because they probably won't believe me, and who needs the aggravation? Wednesday, Jan 22 2020 

Our country club invites speakers to give presentations about various, interesting subjects.

I could volunteer to present my friends and neighbors with information they don’t have, and should have, and would find interesting.

Sadly, I’ve found that most people want to hear what they already believe, and they tend to become angry at anyone who tells them otherwise.

What follows is the text of a speech I never will give to my friends at the club because they probably won’t believe me, and at my age, who needs the aggravation?

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

TEN THINGS YOU ABSOLUTELY DON’T KNOW ABOUT OUR ECONOMY — BUT YOU SHOULD

I’m going to tell you some things about our economy, and specifically about money — a subject which you already understand quite well because you have lots of it. Image result for money sign

But I’m going to tell you ten things you didn’t know.

The vast majority of you own more than a million U.S. dollars, which used to be a much-respected sum, but no longer is.

Because you own so many dollars, let me ask you this: What does a U.S. dollar look like? For instance, what is the color of the U.S. dollar?

Green, right?

And what is a dollar made of? How big is it?

Paper and about 6 inches?Image result for dollars

And what is the purpose of dollars?

They are a medium of exchange and a measure of value or wealth. OK?

And, if the purpose of dollars is, for example, to act as a medium of exchange, that means you exchange dollars for the goods and services you want, right?

.

Image result for pallet of dollars

So, for instance, let’s say you walk into a car dealership to buy a car.

After proper negotiation, you give the dealer a giant stack, let’s say 75,000, of those green, 6-inch pieces of paper, and he gives you the car keys.

That’s the way it works, right? You schlep big stacks of paper around?

No?? It doesn’t work that way??

Actually, to buy that car, you sign some papers that probably are not green and don’t measure 6 inches.Image result for signing car dealer's documents

And in fact, I venture to guess, that while the vast majority of your life’s purchases do involve dollars, they do not involve green pieces of paper.

You gave that car dealer $75,000. So, let me ask you again, What did those dollars — the dollars you gave the dealer — look like?

The answer is: Those dollars didn’t look like anything. They are bookkeeping entries.

The U.S. dollar is not a physical entity. The dollar is a legal entity. It is a group of laws. You can’t see, smell, taste, feel, or hear a dollar any more than you can see, smell, taste, feel, or hear a law.

Image result for car, house titles

Titles

That green piece of paper is not a dollar; it is a dollar bill. It represents the ownership of a dollar. Just as a car title is not a car, and a house title is not a house, a dollar bill is not a dollar.

A dollar bill is a bearer title to a dollar.

A dollar is a legal entity that exists only in law books. And if there is one thing you know about governments and laws it’s this: A government can make as many laws as it wishes. A government cannot run short of laws.Image result for how many laws are there

Before the year 1780, there were no U.S. dollars. Then, as if by magic, the U.S government created from thin air, a bunch of laws, and among them were laws that created from thin air, millions of dollars.

And not only did the government laws and dollars from thin air, but it created other laws from thin air that gave those dollars a value relative to ounces of silver.

In 1792 the US Congress passed the Coinage Act, which states that the U.S. dollar coin must contain four hundred and sixteen grains of standard silver.Image result for 416 grains of silver

And ever since, the U.S. government has continued to create more and more laws, and more and more dollars from thin air, and has continued to pass laws changing the value of U.S. dollars.

All of this was arbitrary, and arbitrarily changed many times, and it demonstrated the unique sovereign power of the federal government over the U.S. dollar.

The American government proved what so many other governments had proved and continue to prove to this day:Image result for monetary sovereignty

The U.S. federal government has the unlimited ability to pass laws, which means it has the unlimited ability to create its sovereign currency, the U.S. dollar and the unlimited ability to give the dollar any value it wishes. 

The term for that is Monetary Sovereignty.

You now know more than 90% of the people — make that 99% of the people — in America.

You know more than most of the media. You know more than most of the politicians. You even know more than most of the economists.

Why do I say that? Because every day, the media, the politicians and the economists tell you the U.S. federal debt is too high. It’s “unsustainable.”Related image

What does “unsustainable” mean? It means the U.S. government will not have enough dollars to pay off its debt.

It even may mean the U.S. government won’t be able to make payments against its debt or even to cover the interest payments.

And it might mean that the government will have to raise taxes on you and your children to obtain dollars to pay its debt.

And as you now have learned, that is all nonsense.

Think about it, and answer for yourself these two questions:Image result for infinite dollars

  1. How can a government that has the unlimited ability to create dollars from thin air, run short of dollars to pay its debts? (It can’t.)
  2. Does a government having the unlimited dollars to pay its debts, need to ask you or your children for tax dollars? (No.)

What? The federal government doesn’t need your tax dollars?

That’s right folks, those tax dollars you sweat and strain to obtain, and then send to the government — the U.S. government does not need those tax dollars.Related image

In fact, the federal government destroys your tax dollars upon receipt.

Really.

Think of it this way. Have you ever played the board game, Monopoly?

It usually is played with four players, one of whom also serves as the Bank.

Think of the Bank as the federal government and the players as the U.S. economy.

Image result for monopoly dollars

Monopoly money

According to the game rules, or laws, the Bank starts the game by distributing a certain amount of Monopoly money to each player.

One time, my friends and I wished to play Monopoly, but when we opened the box we discover the board, some game tokens, and some instruction cards, but no Monopoly dollars inside.

What would you have done?

No problem. The Bank simply took a sheet of paper and drew four columns, one for each player.

Like the U.S. federal government, the Bank created dollars out of thin air, simply by writing numbers into each player’s column.Image result for four-columned sheet

The Bank has no source of dollars other than the rules or laws of the game.

Obviously, the Bank could have written any starting number at the top of each column.

Like the federal government, the Monopoly Bank has the unlimited power to create Monopoly dollars.

Then, as the game progressed, the Bank kept paying out and receiving dollars.

When the Bank paid out more dollars than it received, this was a deficit for the Bank and a surplus for the players — that is, a surplus for the economy — just like in the real world.

Now here comes the interesting part: At various points in the game, the rules require players to pay money to the Bank, either for properties, for fines, or for taxes.

Let’s say a player must pay a $100 tax to the Bank. In that case, 100 was deducted from that player’s column.

But where did the $100 go? The Bank had no column. The $100 simply disappeared. Those tax dollars were destroyed, just like in the real world.

That is why, if you ask someone, “How much money does the federal government have,” you will not get an answer.  The federal government has infinite money.

If the federal government doesn’t need or use tax dollars, why does it collect them? Two reasons:

  1. To control the economy. It taxes what it wishes to limit and it gives tax breaks to what and whom it wishes to reward.
  2. To control the middle- and lower-income groups. Taxes provide a handy excuse for limiting benefits and preventing the non-rich from asking for benefits.

Why does the federal government wish to limit benefits to the non-rich?

Image result for poor man with a cow

A rich man

The rich run America.

Indeed the rich run the world.

“Rich” is a comparative word. You are rich if you have $100 and everyone else has $1, but you are poor if you have $1 million and everyone else has $10 million.

The rich wish to be richer which requires widening the gap between them and the non-rich.

The gap can be widened not only by giving more to the rich, but also by giving less to the non-rich.Image result for boss, behind big desk, employee

The desire to widen the gap between those below, on any economic measure, and to narrow the gap above, is called Gap Psychology. 

The rich are motivated by Gap Psychology.

The rich want the gap between you and them to widen.

That is why you are told falsely that Medicare for All, and Social Security for All, and the growing debt all are unsustainable.

And as for that so-called “debt,” it isn’t even a debt — at least not in the way you usually think about debt.Image result for lending officer and poor borrower

Loans are made to those who need money.

But the federal government has no need to borrow money. The U.S. federal government already has infinite money.

Those so-called “loans” to the federal government actually are deposits into T-bill, T-note, and T-bond accounts held at the Federal Reserve Bank.

They are deposits, similar to your bank savings account deposit.

When China “lends” to the U.S government, it actually opens T-bill accounts and directs dollars from its checking account at the Federal Reserve Bank to be deposited into its T-bill accounts, also at the Federal Reserve Bank.

There China’s dollars stay, in its T-bill accounts, accumulating interest until the T-bills mature.

Then, how does the government pay off its Chinese loans? It merely sends the dollars that are sitting in China’s T-bill accounts, back to China’s checking account.

It’s a simple dollar transfer. It does this every day.

No tax dollars involved. No burden on the government or future generations.

If the government doesn’t use the dollars in Treasury accounts, why then does the government issue T-bills, notes, and bonds? Two primary reasons:

  1. To provide a safe parking place for unused dollars, which stabilizes the dollar, and
  2. To assist the Federal Reserve in controlling interest rates

In summary, and contrary to what you have been told, the federal debt is not a burden on anyone, not on you, not on your grandchildren and not on the government.

Why is this important?Related image

Well, for one thing, you repeatedly have been told that the Social Security Trust Fund is running out of money, and to save Social Security, we must either increase FICA taxes or reduce benefits.

In fact, benefits already have been reduced by increasing the qualifying ages.

But the U.S. government has the unlimited ability to create dollars. It cannot go broke, And because the U.S. government cannot go broke, no agency of the government can go broke, unless that is what the politicians want.

The Supreme Court, Congress, and the Presidency all are agencies of the government. Have you ever heard concerns about any of them going broke? No, and you never will.

The idea that Social Security can run short of dollars is false. Even if all FICA collections were zero, the federal government could continue paying benefits, forever.Image result for medicare for all

And then we come to the newly famous “Medicare-for-All.”

In its best case, Medicare for All would lower the entrance age to zero, eliminate deductibles, cover long-term care completely, and pay for all drugs.

Who wouldn’t want all health costs to be free? People want it. Companies — except for insurance companies — want it. The benefits to America would be enormous.Image result for federal government handing out money

And yet, Medicare-for-All  is controversial, primarily because of one question: Who would pay for it?”

And the answer, very simply is, the federal government could pay for the whole thing, without levying even a dollar in taxes. It simply would do what it always has done, to fund every federal expense: Create dollars from thin air.

“Oh,” you say. Sure the government can print money.

But, remember what happened to Weimar Germany. Remember what happened to Zimbabwe. We’re talking about hyperinflation. People carrying wheelbarrows full of money.Related image

I’ll let you in on a well-kept secret: Every hyperinflation and nearly every inflation in history has been caused not by deficit spending, but rather by shortages — usually shortages of food and/or energy.

Think of the Zimbabwe hyperinflation. The government took farmland from farmers and gave it to non-farmers.

Predictably that caused a food shortage, which caused the hyperinflation.

Rather than importing more food, and training people to farm, which would have cured the shortage and the hyperinflation, the Zimbabwe government simply printed currency of higher denominations.

When you hear that the price of potatoes has gone up, do you immediately think it’s because the federal government is spending too much? No, the price of potatoes goes up when there is a shortage of potatoes.

In fact, the best way for a government to end an inflation is to increase deficit spending to cure the shortage.

Potato prices gone up? The solution: More deficit spending to import more potatoes, and/or to pay more farmers to grow more potatoes, and/or

That is the irony of inflations. They can be cured by deficit spending to eliminate the shortages.

The government has other means of ending inflations: It can raise interest rates which strengthen the dollar by creating more demand for dollars.

And it can simply revalue the dollar vs. other currencies, which it has done often in its 240-year history. Being sovereign over the dollar, the government can do anything it wishes with the dollar.

The U.S. government is Monetarily Sovereign.

Your city is not Monetarily Sovereign. Nor is your county. Nor is your state. Nor is your business. Nor are the euro nations. Nor are you, nor am I. But the federal government is. It has unlimited sovereign power over the U.S. dollar, which is nothing more than a creation of federal law.

And that makes all the difference.

In summary:

  1. The federal government created the very first dollar, and subsequent dollars, out of thin air, simply by writing federal laws, also out of thin air.
  2. Dollars are not physical entities; they are legal entities, and so to the federal government, they are in unlimited supply.
  3. Even if all federal tax collections fell to $0, the federal government easily could continue spending, and paying all its bills, forever.
  4. Unlike state and local governments, the federal government is Monetarily Sovereign, so it cannot run short of its own sovereign currency, the U.S. dollar.
  5. No agency of the federal government can run short of dollars unless Congress and the President want it to.
  6. Social Security and Medicare are federal agencies. They cannot run short of dollars unless Congress and the President want them to.
  7. Because the federal government is Monetarily Sovereign, it does not borrow its own sovereign currency. The primary purposes of federal debt are to stabilize the dollar and to help control interest rates.
  8. The federal government, being sovereign over the dollar, has absolute control over the value of the dollar, also known as inflation. The government can give the dollar any value it chooses.
  9. Inflations are caused by shortages, most often shortages of food or energy,  and seldom if ever,  by federal deficit spending, which actually can control inflation.
  10. Being Monetarily Sovereign, the federal government has absolute control over inflation, either by raising interest rates, and/or by using deficit spending to eliminate shortages.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

And that is the speech I’d like to give to my wealthy country-club friends.

But have you ever heard the biblical line, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own country, among his own relatives, and in his own house”?

This prophet doesn’t wish to duck thrown tomatoes, and anyway, who needs the aggravation?

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty
Twitter: @rodgermitchell
Search #monetarysovereignty Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

The most important problems in economics involve:

  1. Monetary Sovereignty describes money creation and destruction.
  2. Gap Psychology describes the common desire to distance oneself from those “below” in any socio-economic ranking, and to come nearer those “above.” The socio-economic distance is referred to as “The Gap.”

Wide Gaps negatively affect poverty, health and longevity, education, housing, law and crime, war, leadership, ownership, bigotry, supply and demand, taxation, GDP, international relations, scientific advancement, the environment, human motivation and well-being, and virtually every other issue in economics.

Implementation of Monetary Sovereignty and The Ten Steps To Prosperity can grow the economy and narrow the Gaps:

Ten Steps To Prosperity:

1. Eliminate FICA

2. Federally funded Medicare — parts A, B & D, plus long-term care — for everyone

3. Provide a monthly economic bonus to every man, woman and child in America (similar to social security for all)

4. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone

5. Salary for attending school

6. Eliminate federal taxes on business

7. Increase the standard income tax deduction, annually. 

8. Tax the very rich (the “.1%”) more, with higher progressive tax rates on all forms of income.

9. Federal ownership of all banks

10. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99.9% 

The Ten Steps will grow the economy and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and the rest.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Everyone wants price transparency in health care, except for . . . well . . . almost everyone. Tuesday, Dec 31 2019 

Price transparency in health care is a great idea.

Let’s say your house needs a new roof. You solicit three bids, you obtain references, and you choose the cheapest, best-referenced roofer. That’s the way to make expensive purchases.

Image result for older person looking at a computer

How do I do this?

Let’s say you need a knee operation. You can do the same: Solicit three bids from doctors, anesthesiologists, hospitals and the hospitals’ pharmacies, and then you obtain references for all of the above.

Finally, you’ll choose the cheapest, best referenced of each. Right?

Not a chance.

Maybe, just maybe, you’ll find reliable and informed (from Aunt Suzie?) references for doctors, and maybe the doctors all will give you estimates of cost, and maybe the doctors won’t tell you, “Cost depends on what we find.”

Even then, will you really manage to receive cost estimates for all the ambulances, nurses, anesthesiologists, hospitals, rehabs, and pharmaceuticals, many of which you can’t anticipate?

The whole process is way too complex, uncertain, and beyond your lay understanding. And anyway, your insurance may pick up 80%, or less, so why even bother?

Overall, it’s an impossible task, but it is exactly the “solution” the rich people think you should follow, and to assist you, they contribute to articles about medical care “price transparency,” when they should be talking about free medical care.

The idea is to make you believe you actually can do something about high medical prices, and if you don’t, it’s all your fault.

How Price Transparency Can Control the Cost of Health Care
March 1, 2016 Publisher: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Publication: Health Policy

Many people are calling for greater price transparency in health care, where patients can clearly see the price of a treatment and determine how much they will pay out-of-pocket before receiving care.

Experts have long agreed that price transparency in the health care industry has a number of positive consequences.

It is an important information-gathering tool for consumers who want to compare prices so they can make more informed decisions about their health care.

Most people in American want greater price transparency and would compare health care prices if given the option, according to Public Agenda.

Oh, sure you would.

If, by some miraculous intervention, you managed to learn what your doctor, hospital, nurses, medicines, etc. will cost, then what?

Are you going to shop around for the cheapest nurses and ambulance service? Will you search out the cheapest anesthesiologist and the bargain-priced hypodermic needle?

When was the last time you did that?

The Healthcare Financial Management Association highlights a number of tools that can be used to increase price transparency, like Member Payment Estimator by Aetna®, as well as crowdsourced platforms like ClearHealthCosts.

Check out the Member Payment Estimator and you’ll be told:

“The Member Payment Estimator lets employees — our members — estimate how much they’ll pay out of pocket for medical tests, office visits and procedures ahead of time. No more surprise bills. Or bills that are higher than expected.

“About 43 percent of households put off care because of costs. Our online tool lets employees compare costs for up to 10 doctors or facilities at once.

“This helps them avoid paying more than they have to.”

Isn’t that exactly what you want? To slog through price comparisons of medical factors you don’t understand and can’t evaluate for quality, so you can judge whether to go to Hospital A which has the cheapest aspirin prices or Hospital B, which offers a half dozen room-rate alternatives?

Even if that labor appeals to you, the deck still is stacked against you:

Many providers and insurance companies have succeeded in keeping health care prices opaque using non-disclosure agreements and restrictive gag clauses in contracts.

Because of this, a majority of states have been unsuccessful in achieving greater price transparency to help consumers make educated choices about their health care.

And, surprisingly, even the insurance companies don’t want medical price transparency.

Insurers and hospitals love secret prices
Steven Pearlstein
The Washington Post
As costs skyrocket, the Department of Health and Human Services is proposing new rules that would require hospitals to publish “their minimum and maximum rates for 300 common services.”

And, given this list, you, being an “expert” in medical procedures, will easily calculate which “common services” will apply to your next procedure, and then you will add up all those costs to make your medical decision. Sure you will.

And you’ll especially be delighted when you learn that the big bucks went to the thousands of “uncommon” services, which just happened to be the ones your procedure involved.

It would also make insurers reveal the prices they’ve negotiated for services and publish them on an interactive website that lets customers compare providers.

Thus, knowing your hospital’s gross profit on 300 common services, you’ll be able to . . . uh, what? . . . . go to the least profitable hospital??

Hospitals and insurers have teamed up to fight this. Hospitals claim that the rule would compel them to stop offering discounts and raise prices. That’s nonsense.

Look at New Hampshire. The state began “listing how much customers of different insurance plans would be charged at different hospitals and labs for medical imaging such as X-rays, CT scans, and MRIs.”

After five years, out-of-pocket costs fell 11 percent while the cost of imaging for insurers went down as well.

That’s nice. The costs your insurer pays would decline. But . . .

And the insurance companies? You might think lower costs would make them happy.

But they don’t actually want to drive down prices; in fact, “both hospitals and insurers profit more when prices and premiums are high.”

The thing the insurers “really care about is whether they are getting a better price than their competitors.” Transparency would expose this con game.

In summary:

  1. The medical community doesn’t want price transparency
  2. The insurance companies don’t want price transparency
  3. And you shouldn’t want price transparency if it is a substitute for free Medicare for all — which is exactly what it would be.

And that is the whole con. You are supposed to believe that price transparency is a good alternative to free health care, which our Monetarily Sovereign government easily could fund.

The insurance companies surely don’t want Medicare for All, because it would put them out of business.

And the rich, who control America, don’t want Medicare for All, because that would narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and you.

And strangely, even you don’t want Medicare for All because you cruelly have been lied to and told it is “socialism” (It isn’t).

As a result, you prefer to keep your incomplete, expensive health insurance policy and all its deductibles, or do without health care insurance at all.

After all, if it doesn’t cost you anything it’s too good to be true.

You want to pay, pay, pay — unlike the rich and the politicians who get their comprehensive health care free.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty
Twitter: @rodgermitchell
Search #monetarysovereignty Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

The most important problems in economics involve:

  1. Monetary Sovereignty describes money creation and destruction.
  2. Gap Psychology describes the common desire to distance oneself from those “below” in any socio-economic ranking, and to come nearer those “above.” The socio-economic distance is referred to as “The Gap.”

Wide Gaps negatively affect poverty, health and longevity, education, housing, law and crime, war, leadership, ownership, bigotry, supply and demand, taxation, GDP, international relations, scientific advancement, the environment, human motivation and well-being, and virtually every other issue in economics.

Implementation of Monetary Sovereignty and The Ten Steps To Prosperity can grow the economy and narrow the Gaps:

Ten Steps To Prosperity:

1. Eliminate FICA

2. Federally funded Medicare — parts A, B & D, plus long-term care — for everyone

3. Provide a monthly economic bonus to every man, woman and child in America (similar to social security for all)

4. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone

5. Salary for attending school

6. Eliminate federal taxes on business

7. Increase the standard income tax deduction, annually. 

8. Tax the very rich (the “.1%”) more, with higher progressive tax rates on all forms of income.

9. Federal ownership of all banks

10. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99.9% 

The Ten Steps will grow the economy and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and the rest.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Would you like free healthcare for life? Don't accept the Big Lie Thursday, Nov 28 2019 

This is a message for all Americans: Free healthcare for life truly can be yours, unless you accept the Big Lie.Image result for big lie

Unfortunately, you are treated to the Big Lie almost everywhere. Case in point: Here are excerpts from a typical, Big Lie article that appeared in the 11/25/2019 issue of Reason.com.

More Americans Want Bigger Government—If It’s Free
A more active government wins growing approval, but only so long as it doesn’t raise taxes, require tradeoffs, or interfere with private enterprise.
J.D. Tuccille | 11.25.2019 7:30 AM

Good news for control freaks and nanny-staters across the U.S.: Americans’ support for a bigger, more active government is edging up, potentially creating an opening for politicians and activists who want their countrymen to snuggle in the warm bosom of a nurturing state that provides an ever-greater variety of goods, services, and rules for people’s lives.

There’s just one catch: Americans don’t want to pay for it.

Support for a big, muscular government falls off a cliff if it comes with a price tag.

Consider that the article was published by the “any-government-is-too-much-government” Reason.com, don’t be surprised at the sarcasm delivered by such phrasing as “control-freaks,” “nanny-staters,” “warm bosom of a nurturing state,” and “ever variety of . . . rules for people’s lives.”

If one is blessed with the notion that good people need or want no help, and that only the lazy and indolent ask for it, one can sneer smugly, as J.D. Tuccille does, at those less fortunate.

And when one also is blessed with the abject ignorance of the federal government’s Monetary Sovereignty, one can declare, “Americans don’t want to pay for it” without disclosing that Americans do not pay for any federal spending.

That is why net federal deficits now total more than $20 trillion, and neither the government, nor the economy, nor the federal taxpayers have suffered any ill effects.

On the contrary, the economy has been booming since 2008 because the federal government has pumped trillions of dollars into consumers’ pockets (aka “running trillions of dollars in deficits”).

The article continues:

“Since 2010, the percentage of Americans saying government should do more to solve the country’s problems has increased 11 percentage points, to 47%, and the percentage wanting government to take active steps to improve people’s lives is up eight points, to 42%,” Gallup reported last week.

Forty-nine percent think the government is doing too much, and 29 percent prefer a government that provides just basic services.

It gets back to the question, “What is the purpose of our government?”

The answer is:

“The purpose of our government is to protect us and to improve our lives.”

Why else would we, and people all over the world, create governments?

Yes, bad government can be burdensome, but bad anything is burdensome: Bad police, bad roads, bad banks,  and bad phones, etc. But we don’t suggest doing without police, roads, banks, and phones. Similarly, it is foolish to suggest doing without government.

Can there be “too much” government? Yes, if the government interferes with the economy, negatively. But even then, it’s not a matter of “too much,” but rather “bad.”

A tiny government can be bad and a huge government can be good. Or vice versa. It’s not quantity; it’s quality that matters.

Here’s the opportunity politicians—especially Democrats—have been looking for as they promise “Medicare for All,” student loan forgiveness, universal basic income, government-supported housing, subsidized child care, and more.

And what is wrong with that? Are we to believe that Americans must suffer in order to be “good”? Must life be difficult so that we may “earn” a decent life?

If so, why then do the rich seem to avoid the miseries we foist upon ourselves?

Why do we allow ourselves to accept the myth that there is no such thing as a free lunch, and so we must sweat and hurt, and strain, while the rich glide through life blissfully?

Though the rich do not want you to know this, our government really does have the ability to provide a “free lunch.” You simply need to understand the facts of Monetary Sovereignty.

The Reason.com article continues:

Progressive standard-bearers Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) have made particular waves with their plans for government largesse, but Pete Buttigieg and others have their own schemes for turning the federal government into Santa Claus with a bottomless bag of gifts.

To continue the sarcastic analogy, I don’t hear anyone asking Santa for fewer gifts. The author doesn’t believe the government should provide anything that benefits the poor and middle classes.

Apparently, he believes Medicare should be ended, and students should be burdened with loans. And as for the poor, why give them any help, because it’s their own fault. Right?

But tax cuts for big business and for the very rich are just fine. Isn’t that correct, Mr. Tuccile?

But a government that provides everything to everybody is going to run up some bills.

Oh, you can cut some existing programs and transfer the funds to other programs, but that’s hardly going to satisfy the demands of “Americans saying government should do more.”

Or, you simply can provide programs without cutting anything. The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, is perfectly capable of doing that.

More programs and spending will require more resources that have to come from somewhere.

And since bake sales usually fall a bit short when you’re talking about funding government takeovers of large segments of the economy and extensive new programs, that’s going to mean turning tax collectors into busy beavers.

Whoops.

VA Hospital: Socialist

“Whoops,” indeed. Clearly, J.D. Tuccille, the author, is ignorant of the difference between state/local governments’ finances, vs. the federal government’s finances.

If he had even a modicum of understanding about federal finances, he would know that not only does the government not need bake sales, it doesn’t need tax collectors.

And as a further demonstration of his economic ignorance, Medicare for All does not involve a government “takeover of a large segment of the economy,” or a takeover of any segment of the economy.

Like the current Medicare, which Tuccille clearly hates, Medicare for All simply would pay for medical care, not take it over.

“A more active government would almost certainly result in higher taxes,” Gallup adds.

“However, relatively few Americans favor that approach… In the latest poll, 25% would opt for increased taxes and services, 32% want no change and 42% prefer smaller government.”

Support for higher taxes to pay for expanded government is up a bit in the survey from years past, but it remains a distinctly minority taste.

Private hospital: Not socialist

And here is the crux of the problem: The very rich, who control the government, want you to believe that the only way you can have the same benefits the rich and the politicians have (paid-for healthcare, no need for college loans, plenty of money for retirement, etc.) is for you to pay more taxes — and that idea is a gigantic, smelly pile of bull poop.

Keeping you down is the easiest way for the rich to lift themselves up (See: Gap Psychology), and the easiest way to keep you down is to indoctrinate you with the false belief that your taxes are necessary to fund federal spending.

That means Americans are growing increasingly enthusiastic about placing orders for health care, higher education, housing, and more from the government—for free.

But when they see prices on the menu, they balk, big time.

And balk they should, for the “prices on the menu” are a lie. Federal taxes do not fund federal spending. Period.

You, as a federal taxpayer, do not pay for anything. Not only are your tax dollars not used by the federal government, but they are destroyed upon receipt.

Once your tax dollars are received by the U.S. Treasury, they cease to exists in any money supply measure. To pay it’ s bills, the federal government creates brand new dollars. That is how the federal government can continue to deficit spend without ever running short of money.

Medicare for All gains overwhelming support—as high as 71 percent in a Kaiser Family Foundation survey—from Americans so long as they think it’s entirely cost-free and devoid of tradeoffs.

But throw in some real-world qualifiers, and that support erodes.

Unfortunately, those “real-world qualifiers” are as “real-world” as the bogey man meets the tooth fairy.

But this does demonstrate the strong desire for free medical availability. It’s want Americans want, and it is what Americans should receive from an infinitely wealthy government.

“Net favorability drops as low as -44 percentage points when people hear the argument that this would lead to delays in some people getting some medical tests and treatments,” the Kaiser survey adds.

The notion that there would be “delays in some people getting some medical tests and treatments” is based on one truth and one fiction.

The truth is that more people would get medical tests and treatment, which is a wonderful thing. Every year, literally millions of poor and middle-income Americans stay sick too long and die too early for lack of funds.

“Net favorability is also negative if people hear it would threaten the current Medicare program (-28 percentage points), require most Americans to pay more in taxes (-23 percentage points), or eliminate private health insurance companies (-21 percentage points).”

Those so-called “real-world qualifiers” are about as “real-world” as the bogey-man meets the tooth fairy.

The argument about “delays in some people getting some medical tests and treatments,” is based on one implied truth and one implied fiction.

The implied truth is that more people would get medical tests and treatments, which is a wonderful thing.

Today, millions of Americans stay sick too long and die too early because they can’t afford medical tests and treatments. Apparently, some (i.e. rich) Americans think this is a good idea, so that doctors and hospitals will be freed up to treat the rich.

So yes, when medical tests and treatments are free, more Americans would use them and live better, longer lives. Isn’t this what we should want?

The implied fiction is that there is a fixed number of doctors, nurses, hospitals, etc. to go around, so if the poor start to make use of them, that will cause a shortage, and there won’t be enough for wealthier patients.

Utter nonsense. The creation of today’s Medicare made it possible for millions of the elderly, who formerly could not afford medical care, now to enjoy it. That has not caused a shortage of medical tests and treatment.

On the contrary, the additional money that Medicare has pumped into the medical field has caused a massive expansion of medical resources.

And the expansion would be even greater if Medicare stopped cutting doctors’ fees so much, didn’t require deductibles, and fully funded pharmaceuticals.

Availability follows money. The more money, the more availability. Medicare for all, properly done, would increase the availability of medical tests and treatment.

Costs for these plans are unavoidable.

Warren’s spending schemes would run to at least $26 trillion in new taxes, although she likes to pretend that her scheme would be paid for by a wealth tax that would simultaneously extract funds from successful people while punishing them for their success.

Sanders himself concedes that his plan for government-run health care would cost between $30-$40 trillion over ten years. He honestly admits that it would be the middle class that constitutes the majority of the population—not just some rich people somewhere—who would foot the bill.

Tens of trillions of dollars in new taxes are likely to prove a bit of a hurdle for Americans who want lots of new goodies from the government only if they’re entirely free.

Anyone who understands Monetary Sovereignty knows the above is “The Big Lie,” that federal taxes are necessary to fund federal spending.

It should be obvious, even to the ill-informed, that the federal government continually deficits spends and never seems to have any trouble paying its bills.

You can’t do that. Your state, county, and city can’t do that. Your business can’t do that. But the federal government uniquely can.

Why? It is Monetarily Sovereign. It created the very first dollars simply by creating laws from thin air. And those laws allowed the federal government to continue creating dollars from thin air.

The federal government simply cannot run short of its own sovereign currency.

It has no need for tax dollars. It has no need to borrow. Even if all federal taxes and all issuance of Treasury Certificates totaled $0, the federal government could continue spending, forever.

Despite Elizabeth Warren’s and Bernie Sanders’s ridiculous and ironic statements that Medicare for All would require an increase in federal taxes, it simply is not true.

The U.S. government easily could provide a no-deductible, comprehensive Medicare for All, that covered 100% of all hospital, doctor, drug, and equipment costs, along with long-term care, without collecting a single penny in taxes.

If you’re looking for more evidence that people are a little confused about what they want, try asking Americans about the widely reported growing enthusiasm for socialism.

Capitalism—the free market—remains the preferred choice of 60 percent of respondents, with 39 percent having a positive view of socialism, according to Gallup.

As with everything in this country, the division is increasingly partisan: Positive views of socialism have risen to 65 percent among Democrats and declined to 9 percent among Republicans. Fifty-two percent of Democrats have a positive view of capitalism vs. 78 percent of Republicans.

No, if you’re looking for more evidence that people are a little confused about what they want, try asking Americans, “What is socialism?”

Contrary to popular wisdom,  Medicare is not socialism. Neither is Social Security. Neither are food stamps and other poverty aids.

The word “socialism” is the handy pejorative the rich like to use whenever federal spending for benefits are discussed. So if anything helps the middle or the poor, the rich shout “socialism.” (Of course, benefits to the rich, like special tax breaks, never are called “socialism.”)

Socialism is government ownership and administration of production and distribution.

The Veterans Administration hospitals, which are owned and administered by the federal government, are socialist. The military is socialist. The federal highway system is socialist. In many communities, the water system is socialist. Most dams are socialist. NASA, the U.S. Treasury, and the Lincoln Memorial are socialist. Your street probably is socialist.

But Medicare is not. Medicare does not own anything. It merely pays for things. The same with Social Security and food stamps and other poverty aids. Paying for things is what all governments do, socialist or not.

Why does the article’s author introduce the word, “socialism”? Either he truly is ignorant of what “socialism” means, which seems impossible considering that he is a former managing editor of Reason.com and current contributing editor. Or, knowing that the word “socialism” has negative connotations to most Americans, he is trying to con you into believing Medicare for All is a bad idea, and that only the rich deserve the best possible medical care.

Don’t fall for the con. Don’t fall for the Big Lie. Medicare for All could be a free blessing upon you and this nation if you understand the truth: The federal government has unlimited control over its own sovereign currency, the U.S. dollar. That means it can control both the supply and the value of the dollar.

It never can run short of dollars; it can pay for anything, even without collecting taxes; it can prevent and cure inflation.

If you don’t believe me, believe them:

Alan Greenspan: “A government cannot become insolvent with respect to obligations in its own currency.”

Ben Bernanke: “The U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost.”

St. Louis Federal Reserve: “As the sole manufacturer of dollars, whose debt is denominated in dollars, the U.S. government can never become insolvent, i.e., unable to pay its bills. In this sense, the government is not dependent on credit markets to remain operational.

Yes, America, free healthcare for life can be yours . . .  unless you accept the Big Lie.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty
Twitter: @rodgermitchell
Search #monetarysovereignty Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

The most important problems in economics involve:

  1. Monetary Sovereignty describes money creation and destruction.
  2. Gap Psychology describes the common desire to distance oneself from those “below” in any socio-economic ranking, and to come nearer those “above.” The socio-economic distance is referred to as “The Gap.”

Wide Gaps negatively affect poverty, health and longevity, education, housing, law and crime, war, leadership, ownership, bigotry, supply and demand, taxation, GDP, international relations, scientific advancement, the environment, human motivation and well-being, and virtually every other issue in economics.

Implementation of Monetary Sovereignty and The Ten Steps To Prosperity can grow the economy and narrow the Gaps:

Ten Steps To Prosperity:

1. Eliminate FICA

2. Federally funded Medicare — parts A, B & D, plus long-term care — for everyone

3. Provide a monthly economic bonus to every man, woman and child in America (similar to social security for all)

4. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone

5. Salary for attending school

6. Eliminate federal taxes on business

7. Increase the standard income tax deduction, annually. 

8. Tax the very rich (the “.1%”) more, with higher progressive tax rates on all forms of income.

9. Federal ownership of all banks

10. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99.9% 

The Ten Steps will grow the economy and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and the rest.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

A note to those who sneer at Medicare for All Wednesday, Nov 20 2019 

Some people sneer at Medicare for All because it is “unaffordable” or “unnecessary,” or some other non-reason. They sneer at Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders for backing MfA.

For those people, here is an all-too-common situation:

Nextdoor Blog

Community Brings Hope to a Homeless Neighbor
November 19, 2019
Written by Shannon Toliver

When neighbors Melissa and Jenn were out shopping one day, they came across an elderly woman living in a car with two dogs. By reaching out and uniting their Pennsylvania community, they were able to change this woman’s life in a matter of hours.

Upon approaching the car to ask if she was okay, they discovered Lynn, a retired pharmacist and longtime member of their community who insisted she was fine despite spending the past two years living out of her car due to family losses and piling medical bills.

Although they did not know her, Melissa and Jenn were determined to hear Lynn’s story and help her get back on her feet.

Lynn’s life took a turn when her husband passed away suddenly at just 47-years-old, leaving her with no family beyond her two dogs.

Later, Lynn suffered a series of strokes along with breast cancer rendering her disabled and unable to work.

Lynn had to downsize to a small apartment in order to afford her medical expenses, but soon fell behind on payments and was left without a home.

While evaluating her options, Lynn found out that she did not qualify for additional assistance and could not find affordable housing. Homeless shelters were not an option as she could not bear to part with her dogs.

With no alternatives, Lynn and her two dogs moved into her car with a few remaining belongings. Once the dogs were fed and she had saved enough money, she would take a monthly shower at a local motel and drive around to avoid running into past neighbors and colleagues.

“I didn’t want to have to explain to people that I don’t have a home.

“You feel like somewhere you had to have failed. You accomplished all this but now here you are in the gutter and you don’t want people to know. You don’t want to ask for help,”

Despite her efforts to remain out of sight over the years, Lynn was running out of food and water and decided to accept Melissa and Jenn’s help. The neighbors posted her story on Nextdoor and called on their community to help.

The post gathered hundreds of supportive comments and some neighbors even shared that they, too, were once homeless. Kind neighbors brought Lynn homemade meals, pet food, and clean laundry while local businesses generously donated services such as car detailing, a haircut, and dog grooming.

Eventually, the community raised enough money to house Lynn and her dogs in a fully-furnished studio apartment that had been paid off for the next two years.

Melissa and Jenn surprised Lynn with the apartment in a heartwarming video sharing that, “It was unbelievable the way our community came together.”

Lynn was brought to tears as she thanked her neighbors.

She told ABC News, “It wouldn’t have happened without these angels. I just want people to realize that this can happen to anybody. I had a good job. I had good retirement but I got sick and health insurance only covers so much.

“I have no children. I have no family. I had nowhere to turn. Sometimes, just the kindness of strangers just makes all the difference in someone’s life.”

For the first time in years, Lynn now has a home for the holidays, supportive neighbors that stop by to drop off meals or walk the dogs, and loving friends to spend Thanksgiving with.

Stuff happens.

If this, or something like this, has not happened to you, count yourself as fortunate. Most of us live our lives in ignorant bliss, thankfully not having to contemplate a future with limited money and poor health.

In America, the richest nation in world history, this never needs to happen, but it does because the “haves” cannot empathize with the “have-nots.”

Blaming the poor for their circumstances is a convenient way to rationalize widening the income/power/wealth Gap below us.

No folks, Medicare for All is not “unaffordable.” And Social Security is not destined to be “insolvent.” And anti-poverty aids and free college are not “unsustainable.”

These are the lies, based on Gap Psychology, to justify widening the Gap. The people who spread those lies have no hearts, no compassion.

Kind neighbors helped one woman with their own money. The U.S. federal government could help millions of needy people, and use no one’s money.

The people who argue against this — the federal debt fear-mongers — should feel shame for their callous cruelty.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty
Twitter: @rodgermitchell
Search #monetarysovereignty Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

The most important problems in economics involve:

  1. Monetary Sovereignty describes money creation and destruction.
  2. Gap Psychology describes the common desire to distance oneself from those “below” in any socio-economic ranking, and to come nearer those “above.” The socio-economic distance is referred to as “The Gap.”

Wide Gaps negatively affect poverty, health and longevity, education, housing, law and crime, war, leadership, ownership, bigotry, supply and demand, taxation, GDP, international relations, scientific advancement, the environment, human motivation and well-being, and virtually every other issue in economics.

Implementation of Monetary Sovereignty and The Ten Steps To Prosperity can grow the economy and narrow the Gaps:

Ten Steps To Prosperity:

1. Eliminate FICA

2. Federally funded Medicare — parts A, B & D, plus long-term care — for everyone

3. Provide a monthly economic bonus to every man, woman and child in America (similar to social security for all)

4. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone

5. Salary for attending school

6. Eliminate federal taxes on business

7. Increase the standard income tax deduction, annually. 

8. Tax the very rich (the “.1%”) more, with higher progressive tax rates on all forms of income.

9. Federal ownership of all banks

10. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99.9% 

The Ten Steps will grow the economy and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and the rest.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Next Page »

%d bloggers like this: