Mitchell’s laws:
●The more budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes.
●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.
●Austerity = poverty and leads to civil disorder.
●Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
==========================================================================================================================================

There probably is a word for saying you want something but don’t.

The word for really wanting something, then when you get it, not wanting it any more is “remorse,” as in “buyer’s remorse” But what is it when you pretend to want something (for ulterior reasons), but know that if you get it, you’ll hate it?

Perhaps we should stick with “remorse,” as in debt-hawk remorse. Who can forget the loud-mouth blusterers lying about the “unsustainable deficit,” Who can forget the phony demands of Congress and the debt-hawk blogs, that we not only cut the deficit, but “GO BIG”?

Who can forget the sickening panderers to the idiot Tea Party — their groveling became so extreme, these lickspittle politicians attempted to outdo each other in rejecting all hope of compromise — just to brown up to right wing? Ah, profiles in courage.

Now, those same lickspittle politicians, having destroyed the lives of the lower 99% income group, look for a whipping boy.

C-SPAN
DEFICIT & ECONOMY
Leaders Urge Deficit Reduction Committee to “Go Big”

WASHINGTON, DC, Wednesday, September 21, 2011 (Note the date)

On Capitol Hill the deficit reduction “super committee” continues its work – and today the New America Foundation hosted a discussion with a bipartisan group of current and former members of Congress and White House officials who urged the joint committee to “Go Big” and seek deficit reductions of $4 trillion or more.

Translation: “Even a $4 trillion deficit cut isn’t enough. We want more, more, more. Maybe $5 trillion. Or $6 trillion. Sky’s the limit. (Tea Party, are you watching? Is my nose in deep enough?)

“But a funny thing happened on the way to the Tea Party. Someone used the magic words “fiscal cliff,” and well duh, we discovered cutting deficits (i.e. bleeding the anemic patient) will hurt the economy. Who’da thunk?”

What is the Fiscal Cliff?
By Thomas Kenny, About.com Guide

“Fiscal cliff” is the popular shorthand term used to describe the conundrum that the U.S. government will face at the end of 2012.

Possible Effects of the Fiscal Cliff

The effect on the economy could be dramatic. While the combination of higher taxes and spending cuts would reduce the deficit by an estimated $560 billion, the CBO estimates that the policies set to go into effect would cut gross domestic product (GDP) by four percentage points in 2013, sending the economy into a recession (i.e., negative growth).

A Wall St. Journal article from May 16, 2012 estimates the following impact in dollar terms: “In all, according to an analysis by J.P. Morgan economist Michael Feroli, $280 billion would be pulled out of the economy by the sunsetting of the Bush tax cuts; $125 million from the expiration of the Obama payroll-tax holiday; $40 million from the expiration of emergency unemployment benefits; and $98 billion from Budget Control Act spending cuts.

Amid an already-fragile recovery and elevated unemployment, the economy is not in a position to avoid this type of shock.

Translation: “We Tea Party sycophants bravely demanded that the government “Go Big!” Even a $4 trillion deficit reduction wasn’t sufficient. Now, facing a puny deficit reduction of less than 15% of our “Go Big” amount, we’ve begun to panic.

“Nobody told us deficit reduction pulls money out of the pockets of the public. How were we supposed to know that?

“Sure, we voted for the law. In fact we insisted on it at the threat of filibuster. In further fact, $4 trillion wasn’t enough. But, this isn’t our fault. It’s the fault of you voters. You’re the ones who wanted to cut the deficit. You should have known better.”

The cost of indecision is likely to have an effect on the economy before 2013 even begins. The CBO anticipates that a lack of resolution will cause households and businesses to begin changing their spending in anticipation of the changes, possible reducing GDP by a full half-percent in the second half of 2012.

Translation: “We pretend the deficit reduction is too sudden. When we said, GO BIG!, we really meant, “GO BIG!, but go really, really slowly big. Like BIG that takes many years.

“Yes, we know, taking dollars out of the economy, no matter how slowly, will hurt the economy. And yes, we know the American public — especially the lower income 99% — will take a terrible beating (though the upper 1% will be O.K.)

“But the important point is: The right wing in Congress, can’t lose. When the American worker falls over the fiscal cliff, we’ll blame Obama, you voters will believe us, and we’ll get elected. Simple.

“Right wing politics is the most fun when the President is clueless, his party is wimpy and the voters are ignorant.

GO BIG!! GO BIG!! GO BIG!!”

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

==========================================================================================================================================
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 exports

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Mitchell’s laws:
●The more budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes.
●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.
●Austerity = poverty and leads to civil disorder.
●Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
==========================================================================================================================================

A bit more than one year ago, this blog published “Is NPR in league with the Tea Party, or simply clueless?” The theme of that post is summarized in the following excerpt:

Today, I heard a discussion on National Public Radio (NPR). The participants claimed the media are hamstrung by the need to present both sides of each issue.

They lamented the fact that “fairness” required them to give equal weight to opposing opinions, even when one opinion was far more persuasive than the other — and shouldn’t the media have more leeway in exercising their judgement on this?

The specific subject was the federal deficit. Both participants agreed the deficit must be reduced, so the “two sides” were: Raise taxes or don’t raise taxes.

As readers of this blog know, those are not both sides of the deficit issue. Those “two sides” are mere details in the real issue: Increase the deficit or don’t increase the deficit.

The closing sentences of the post read:

Contact your local NPR station (www.mpr.org) and ask them to do as they claim to do: Broadcast both sides of the issue – the real both sides. If enough people request it, NPR finally may realize they are missing an important part of the economics debate.

I guess not enough people contacted NPR, because so far as I know, nothing has changed, because I heard Terry Gross (moderator of “Fresh Air”) interview David Wessel, “economics editor for The Wall Street Journal and writer of the Capital column, a weekly look at the economy.“

Wessel was puffing his book titled, “Red Ink: Inside the High-Stakes Politics of the Federal Budget.” According to NPR:

(Wessel’s book) breaks down the budget in stark terms: how the government spends its money, who pays what in taxes, and why politicians can’t reduce a potentially catastrophic debt load.

Frankly, I haven’t read Mr. Wessel’s book. (I also haven’t read books titled, “Why Evolution is wrong and Creationism is right” or “The earth really is the center of the universe, held aloft by Atlas.”) But, I suspect Mr. Wessel does not supply data to prove the federal debt is “catastrophic.” No such data exists in the real world. I can’t imagine why he wrote his book, since it undoubtedly contributes nothing to what already has been said by every other misguided debt hawk (Is there any other kind?)

Anyway, NPR’s web site provides this discouraging news: Mr. Wessel “appears frequently on National Public Radio’s ‘Morning Edition’ and on WETA’s ‘Washington Week.'”

Why is this discouraging? Because contrary to NPR’s protestations and mission, Wessel is firmly planted on one side of the debt discussion. Here are a couple of the discouraging comments, pulled directly from the NPR Website:

Wessel thinks there is a fundamental difference between the two parties “about how important and how big a role the government should play in our economy and that influences what you think should be done to cure the deficit.“

A synonym for “cure the deficit” might be “prevent economic growth and send us into a recession or depression,” for that’s exactly what “curing (aka reducing) the deficit” would do.

More from the NPR website:

Wessel believes one possibilty for compromise is to place “pretty tough restraints on spending, on benefit programs, like Medicare and Medicaid, which would be hard for the Democrats to swallow, coupled with some increase in taxes, that would be hard for the Republicans to swallow.”

This is what passes for compromise in Wessel-land — cutting benefits to the 99% lower income group, while raising taxes on everyone. I can’t imagine what Mr. Wessel believes that would accomplish for our economy.

It continues on this ridiculous vein:

Pretty much everybody … is looking for ways to reduce the amount of money that [goes into] these inefficient loopholes, credits and deductions in the tax code, as a way to either lower tax rates or raise money for the federal government [while] doing less harm to the economy.”

Examples of “inefficient loopholes” are the mortgage interest deduction, the medical expense deduction, and the home owners’ real estate tax deduction. Yes, we really need to make homeowners and sick people pay more taxes.

And, he wants to “raise money for the federal government,” a Monetarily Sovereign government that has the unlimited ability to create dollars, so does not need to ask anyone for dollars — not you, not me not anyone.

But thankfully, he only wants to do “less harm to the economy.” Heaven forbid he should actually want to help the economy.

Anyway, I was fortunate not to be pulled over by the police, for as I grew angrier at this tripe, my foot began to press down on the accelerator. By the time I arrived home (quickly), I had composed the following letter in my mind, which I then typed and sent to NPR.

One of NPR’s purposes is to broadcast what other mainstream stations do not broadcast. So there was Terry Gross interviewing David Wessel, and going along with the same old popular wisdom that the Federal Deficit should be reduced.

Not once did she ask, “David, what evidence do you have that the federal deficit should be reduced?” (He has none. He talks about how big it is, but has no data to show it has any negative impact on the economy.)

Not once did she say, “David, in view of the economic fact that Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Savings, wouldn’t reducing the Federal Deficit reduce Net Savings?” (It would)

Not once did she ask, “And wouldn’t reducing Net Savings negatively impact the economy?” (It would) “And David, wouldn’t increasing Net Savings stimulate the economy?” (It would.)

Not once did she say, “David, on August 15, 1971, the U.S. became Monetarily Sovereign. Before that date, U.S. dollar creation was limited by gold inventories. But following that date, the U.S. has had the unlimited ability to create dollars. Why does a government with the unlimited ability to create dollars need to ask you and me and China for dollars?” (It doesn’t, which is why federal borrowing and federal taxing are relics of the gold standard days and do not support federal spending.)

No, Ms. Gross just went along with today’s common knowledge, adding nothing to what people already believe. The show contained no new ideas, just a rehash of the same old ideas that went obsolete in 1971.

If Ms. Gross understood the difference between Monetary Sovereignty (the U.S., Canada, Australia, China et al) and monetary non-sovereignty (Greece, France, Illinois, Chicago, IBM, GE and her), she would have asked better questions and had a far more informative show.

If she would like to learn something different from what “everyone knows,” I’d be glad to teach her.

Now, it is possible that on rare (as a 40 carat diamond) occasions, Terry has interviewed someone who understood Monetary Sovereignty. I myself, never have heard it.

But, because Ms. Gross and her NPR bosses already know all they need to know about economics (i.e what the upper 1% wants them to tell us), and have no desire to learn anything about Monetary Sovereignty vs. monetary non-sovereignty, I doubt my note will be rewarded with even a stock response.

So, if you believe NPR should fulfill its mission of airing “both sides” of important issues — especially the provably correct side — perhaps receiving dozens or hundreds of letters might do the trick. There is an NPR contact page at http://help.npr.org/npr/includes/customer/npr/custforms/contactus.aspx

This is your opportunity to make a difference, and all it will cost you is the time to write a note.

Or you can continue to hear discussions giving “equal weight” to the two ways you can keep from sailing off the edge of the earth (row hard or attach a rope to land).

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

==========================================================================================================================================
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 exports

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Mitchell’s laws:
●The more budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes.
●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.
●Austerity = poverty and leads to civil disorder.
●Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
==========================================================================================================================================

Today, I saw these headlines:

“Waste Management will trim some management”
“Telenor to cut 2000 jobs in India”
“Alcatel-Lucent Plans to Cut 5000 Jobs”
“Mangano cuts 200 jobs”
“Morgan Stanley plans further staff cuts”
“Fairfax to shed 1900 staff”
“China’s ZTE May Cut Employees”
“HP confirms layoffs; Cutting 500 jobs”

If you think this is symptomatic of a world-wide recession, you’re right – but only somewhat. It’s also symptomatic of something else. Consider these articles:

JCPenney to get rid of check-out counters and clerks, use self check-out machines and RFID chips
Posted: 07/19/2012, By: Ann Geyser, newsnet5.com

TAMPA -CEO Ron Johnson said JC Penney it will remove check-out counters in stores and replace them with a system that won’t require clerks. Shoppers will be able to use self check-out machines, similar to those found in grocery stores. Johnson told “Fortune” magazine he hopes to phase out check-out counters by 2014.

Translation: “We don’t need people to do what computerized machines can do.”

A Day Job Waiting for a Kill Shot a World Away
Heather Ainsworth for The New York Times

HANCOCK FIELD AIR NATIONAL GUARD BASE, N.Y. — From his computer console here in the Syracuse suburbs, Col. D. Scott Brenton remotely flies a Reaper drone that beams back hundreds of hours of live video of insurgents, his intended targets.

By 2015, the Pentagon projects that the Air Force will need more than 2,000 drone pilots for combat air patrols operating 24 hours a day worldwide. Until this year, drone pilots went through traditional flight training before learning how to operate Predators, Reapers and unarmed Global Hawks. Now the pilots are on a fast track and spend only 40 hours in a basic Cessna-type plane before starting their drone training.

True, drones cannot engage in air-to-air combat, but Colonel Brenton said that “the amount of time I’ve engaged the enemy in air-to-ground combat has been significant” in both Reapers and F-16s.

Translation: As computerized equipment improves, people need less training time. Though today, drones cannot engage in air-to-air combat, tomorrow they will. Every day, computerized machined do the work people formerly did.

At the start of the Industrial Revolution, it was feared machines would cause unemployment by doing “people” jobs. That didn’t happen. The machines actually helped create jobs, not just because machines needed to be guided by human hands, but by increasing the need for “back office” hands. Slowly, machines forced people from blue collar to white collar work.

Today, we are in the Computer Revolution, and the rules have changed. Not only can machines do the blue collar work; they can do the white collar work; they can be creative; they can answer questions as Watson did.

In the May 16th post, “Coming soon to a world near you: Economics for cyborgs. Humans as a transition species” we spoke of humans being a transition species. Eventually, computerized machines will be able to do almost every physical and mental task humans now can do.

The immediate question is: What will happen during the transition?

As computers become smarter, the U.S. standard 8-hour day, with 2-3 week vacation plus various holiday, no longer is sustainable. The nation neither needs nor wants that much human labor.

Business doesn’t want it, because human labor usually is less efficient and more costly than machine labor. People don’t want it, because we wish to pursue our own personal interests rather than an employer’s interests.

The trend takes us on two divergent paths:

1. Unintentional massive unemployment, with growing starvation and homelessness
or
2. Shorter work day/year.

The first, unintentional unemployment, leads to poverty. The primary purpose of employment is to obtain dollars with which to pay for goods and services, many of which are necessary for, or at least contribute to, a happier life.

The second, shorter work day, has begun in some nations. Eurofound published a report showing the “Average collectively agreed normal weekly hours, 2010”. Some examples:

Greece, Hungary, Poland: 40 hours; Ireland: 39; Spain: 38.6; Italy: 38; Germany: 37.7; UK: 37.5; Denmark: 37; France: 35.6

Clearly, there is nothing sacred about the 40-hour week, or any workweek length, but this leads to the problem of pay. Will companies pay less for a less than 40 hours of work?

If workers now receiving, for instance, $20 per hour for a 40 hour week ($800 per week), and later go to, for instance, 30 hours a week, will they still receive $20 per hour — a 25% pay reduction to $600 per week? Why not?

The same question appears if we visualize annual job sharing, in which, for example, one person works January – June and a second person works July – December. No matter how hours, days or months are split, it is hard to imagine why employment matching population growth will not lead to reduced per-person salaries.

Although worker productivity continues to rise, workers themselves are not more valuable to employers. The rise in productivity is due to the computerized machines “digging holes faster,” not because people have learned to run the machines faster. Human work is becoming less necessary.

So, the total available work must be spread to more humans. By federal law, there could be shorter days (8 hours), shorter weeks (down from 5 days) or shorter years (fewer weeks of work).

This leaves the question: How do we maintain per-person income in the face of reduced need for human labor? I suggest the answer lies with our Monetarily Sovereign government.

One approach would be for the government to provide a “citizen salary” for every man, woman and child in America. In essence, the government could be an “employer” that pays all Americans a salary for life — a extension of Social Security — sufficient to provide a moderate quality of life.

Other approaches would be for the federal government to provide benefits people now must pay for:

*Free Medicare for all
*Discounted food
*Discounted clothing
*Reduced federal taxes
*Reduced sales and other local taxes (made possible by federal subsidies to local governments)
*100% free college education
*Additional salary for people who wish to work in areas most likely to improve the quality of life for Americans: Research & Development in Medicine, Biology, Physics, etc.

This proposal lacks details, and many devils lurk in those details, but we must face the fact that human labor will be less necessary in the future, while human needs will continue. There simply will not be sufficient job-related pay to spread among a growing population. Unemployment will be a growing problem, which will cause more frequent and more severe recessions, in turn causing more unemployment.

Yes, we can attempt the Chinese solution to population growth, but that seems to cause hardship, when our goal should be the improvement of our lives.

The new paradigm will be disemployment. We must recognize this inevitability and begin to formulate plans to deal with it. Else it will reduce our lives to misery.

If not this, what? If not now, when?

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

==========================================================================================================================================
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 exports

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Mitchell’s laws:
●The more budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes.
●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.
●Austerity = poverty and leads to civil disorder.
●Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
==========================================================================================================================================

We know that both President Obama and Mr. Romney are ruled by the upper 1% income group, and though Obama makes some weak pretense at supporting the lower 99%, Romney is more honest. He makes no secret of his desire to spread the income gap between rich and poor. His vow to dismantle Obamacare (aka Romneycare) is only the more egregious of his cut spending, cut benefits, cut aid to the poor genuflection to the Tea right.

Similarly, the entire, monetarily non-sovereign, euro zone is in thrall of economy-devastating austerity (i.e. austerity for the poor, not for the rich), and will continue to slice away at government spending until the 99% begin to erect guillotines and do some slicing of their own.

Then there is the UK. It does not remember why it wisely rejected the euro and remained Monetarily Sovereign, retaining the unlimited ability to create it’s own sovereign currency. So, wrongly thinking the finances of a Monetarily Sovereign government are like the finances of monetarily non-sovereign people, it embarked on a serious austerity plan. It cut its deficits.

Now it is shocked – shocked! – that cuts in government deficts impoverish the citizenry. As UK citizens receive less money, they spend less, which in turn, impoverishes businesses, which then fire people, who then have even less money to spend. And on and on we go, in the downward helix of deficit cuts, to depression.

The record of deficit cutting austerity approaches perfection. Wherever it is tried it succeeds – succeeds, that is, in tanking the economy. Around the world, dozens of anemic economies have had the leeches of austerity applied, and as the financial blood is drained, the doctors scratch their heads and wonder why their patients sicken and die.

And now comes Israel:

Israel eyes austerity after prosperous year
By Jean-Luc Renaudie | AFP

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has long boasted how Israel has avoided the fiscal fate of Spain and Greece, is poised to unveil tough austerity measures likely to hit the underprivileged. The measures will aim to make up part of the budget deficit that has climbed to 4.0 percent of Israel’s GDP — twice that which was expected for 2012.

Translation: “Because we have not become Spain and Greece, I must cut deficits to make us into Spain and Greece.”

Sound familiar? The dreaded budget deficit, which by mysterious coincidence, seems to rise in lock step with economic growth, now is being blamed for — what? — economic growth? Or just being misnamed “deficit”?

Never mind that a government deficit = private sector surplus, and the bigger the deficit, the more money people spend, and the more businesses grow.

And everywhere the dreaded deficit is “cured,” the underprivileged suffer, but isn’t that the whole point?

Taxes on cigarettes and beer have already been hiked this week, and according to media reports the government will also be raising VAT from 16 to 17 percent and introducing a 2.0 percent income tax rise in households with an annual income of at least a million shekels ($245,000, 199,300 euros).

Also expected is a combined 700-million-shekel ($171 million) cut from the budgets of all ministries with the exception of defence, education and welfare. A spokesman for Netanyahu told public radio on Thursday that the projected measures would raise the annual tax burden of each Israeli household by 1,740 shekels ($426/347 euros).

But these could only be the beginning, with Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz preparing an additional series of tax rises for 2013.

Translation: “See, it goes like this. We’ll raise taxes, which will take money out of the private sector. And we’ll spend less, which will put less money into the private sector. By draining the private sector of money, we’ll crush the economy — well, not the whole economy. The rich will be all right. It’s the poor who will be crushed, which will give the rich even more power. Simple, huh?”

“There are no free lunches,” Netanyahu said this week in an attempt to justify the austerity plan.

This is known as “governing by slogan.” Sounds wise; means nothing.

“Those who say that we can spend lavishly… endanger the state of Israel and could easily lead it to the brink of bankruptcy, as is the case of leading European economies,” Netanyahu said.

Er, ah, excuse me, Ben, but the euro nations are monetarily non-sovereign, and cannot control their money supply. They can be bankrupt. Israel is Monetarily Sovereign, has the unlimited ability to create shekels, so never can be forced into bankruptcy.

Ah, details, details.

Israeli officials also fear that the major international rating agencies, which had hitherto provided Israel with a clean bill of health, will lower their ratings.

Oh, woe! Lower ratings would mean Israel would pay a higher rate on borrowing — which as a Monetarily Sovereign nation, it doesn’t need to do. Further, a Monetarily Sovereign nation has the unlimited ability to pay any interest rate.

So, the problem is . . . ?

Until now, the Jewish state had effectively escaped the sub prime crisis of 2008 and the beginning of the current crisis in the eurozone. “To ensure stability, we must take unpopular measures,” said Harel Locker, director general of Netanyahu’s office.

Translation: “Heaven forbid we continue to do what has worked. To ensure stability, we must change the very thing that gave us stability.”

And even within the coalition, several religious and ultra-nationalist parties denounced the “anti-social” character of Netanyahu’s plan for 2013, an election year. It is the planned increase in Value Added Tax (VAT), which will affect all Israelis, that has come in for the harshest criticism.

One of the main critiques levelled at Netanyahu is his intention to give a huge “gift” to multinationals by halving the taxes on monies earned in Israel and which are transferred abroad, from 25 percent to 12 percent.

See the pattern? Social programs (for the 99%) will be cut. The VAT (which mostly punishes the 99%) will be increased. Taxes on multinationals (affecting the 1%) will be halved. It’s the same the world over.

In a defensive statement on Thursday, Netanyahu said that “even after the steps we will take, families in Israel — middle-class and underprivileged — will remain with more money in their pockets” thanks to measures such as free education from the age of three, tax benefits for working families and free dental care for children.

And central bank chief Stanley Fischer was quoted as saying that Netanyahu’s planned measures were “very serious progress” which displayed “very responsible leadership by the economic decision-makers.”

Translation: “We’ll take 10 shekels from your left pocket and put 5 shekels in your right pocket. Stanley Fischer says this is good for you, so it must be. Would Stanley lie to you?”

Clearly, Israel has learned a great deal from American politicians, about how to screw the 99%. All of this is possible only because the 99% has been kept ignorant by the 1% — not just ignorant, but resolutely ignorant. (Try explaining Monetary Sovereignty to your friends, and you’ll see the meaning of “resolutely ignorant.”)

Bottom line: Deficit cuts (aka “austerity) will destroy Israel, especially the 99%, as deficit cuts have destroyed every nation where they have been implemented, and even now are destroying America.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

==========================================================================================================================================
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 exports

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY