–The single, most astounding quote you ever may read. It explains some of why the world’s economies are in trouble.

Mitchell’s laws: The more budgets are cut and taxes inceased, the weaker an economy becomes. 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.
==========================================================================================================================================

Yesterday’s post contained excerpts from an interview with Christine Lagarde, the managing director of the International Monetary Fund. The post contained many of her comments, but one was so amazing, I repeat it here, to make sure you didn’t miss it:

“When the world around the IMF goes downhill, we

thrive. We become extremely active because we

lend money, we earn interest and charges and all

the rest of it, and the institution does well.

When the world goes well and we’ve had years of

growth, as was the case back in 2006 and 2007,

the IMF doesn’t do so well both financially,

and otherwise.”

Christine Lagarde

In short, the IMF relies on its clients doing poorly. Now, at last, you can see the motivation for the IMF’s truly terrible advice — the push for austerity and the lending to nations that should not borrow. The IMF is a clone of the crooked U.S. banks that gave all those “liars loans,” which caused the great recession.

The above quote should hang on the wall of every politician in the world, as a reminder of what the “cut-government,-raise-taxes” crowd will do to ruin economies, and why they do it.

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


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

–Very revealing interview with Christine Lagarde, managing director of the IMF

Mitchell’s laws: The more budgets are cut and taxes inceased, the weaker an economy becomes. 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.
==========================================================================================================================================

Here are excerpts together with translations:

TIME MAGAZINE: ECONOMY & POLICY
Christine Lagarde: Emerging Market Nations Will Get More Power in the IMF
By KNOWLEDGE@WHARTON | April 16, 2012 |
PABLO MARTINEZ MONSIVAIS / AP

Christine Lagarde, managing director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), sees no alternative to the strict austerity policies being rosed on many peripheral European countries, says the double dip recessions in Italy and Ireland just announced come as no surprise . . ..

Translation: She sees “no alternative to strict austerity” and is not surprised by the double dip recession in nations adopting strict austerity. It doesn’t even enter her mind that strict austerity is what causes recessions.

After a distinguished legal and consulting career, Lagarde was named France’s Minister for Foreign Trade and then became the first woman to hold the post of Finance and Economy Minister of a G-7 country.Forbes ranks her as the 9th most powerful woman in the world (right behind Michelle Obama) and the 39th most powerful person on the combined men’s and women’s list.

Translation: She’s a lawyer practicing economics, who was promoted way beyond her skill level. Her policy is to lend to those who cannot repay. They cannot repay because she insists they destroy their economies with austerity.

Christine Lagarde: As part of this fragile recovery that we have been seeing since January, we have always considered that Europe and the euro zone in particular would go through a mild recession. The countries that are driving the recession at the moment are clearly countries like Ireland, Greece, Portugal and Italy. So this doesn’t come as a surprise. It’s part of a process that we had anticipated and were forecasting for 2012.

Translation: “Captain, we hit an iceberg and now the ship is sinking.”
“Don’t worry. It’s part of a process I had anticipated before we left port.”

Knowledge@Wharton: Related to that, austerity has been one of the chief policy levers Europe has been using to deal with the crisis. Do you think European leaders have focused on austerity too much and gone too far with it? Should a better balance be struck between austerity and stimulus?

Lagarde: If everybody goes at the same pace with austerity measures, it puts the whole region at risk. What we have advocated consistently now for at least the last six months is that there should be a proper balance within the zone, particularly within the advanced economies. We also need a proper balance between the austerity measures that are necessary and the growth-facilitating measures. So, obviously, it’s not a one-size-fits-all.

Translation: “Austerity” means to spend less and tax more, which always destroys an economy. But some nations are spending less and taxing more too much and some too little. Each nation needs to balance between spending less and taxing more vs spending more and taxing less. We want them to balance growth against shrinkage. If you find this confusing, how do you think I feel?

Some countries can afford to relax a little bit the austerity policy that they had embarked on. Others cannot relax the austerity measures. For instance, Greece is one country that certainly should not relax its measures. Italy is another one.

Translation: The countries in the most desperate economic situation definitely should shrink their economies further, so they can get out of recession and transition directly into depression.

Lagarde: Some countries have to be very, very brutal, in terms of reducing their deficit and bringing sanity to their public finances. The periphery of the core of the euro zone is clearly at stake in that regard.

Translation: As long as my salary continues, I don’t care how brutal the recessions get. By the way, do you have a map. I’m not sure where the “periphery of the core of the euro zone” is. Is it nearer the outside of the inside, or the inside of the outside?

Lagarde: Austerity should not be the exclusive focus of attention. It should not be the underlying general theme across the region in terms of economic policy. I also agree that growth is a key factor to try to not only kickstart, but maintain the recovery that is beginning to take hold in some countries.

Translation: We shouldn’t only use austerity to shrink economies. We also should use growth to grow economies. Got it?

Knowledge@Wharton: Can you have too much austerity in the short term rather than it being spread out more evenly towards the medium and long term?

Lagarde: It depends on the situation. There are some countries in which sharp adjustment is needed in order to be able to bounce back from that situation.

Translation: Rather than answer your question, I’m going to use the same double-talk that made Alan Greenspan fool Congress all those years.

Knowledge@Wharton: You have said that Europe needs deeper integration and bigger firewalls.

Lagarde: I said that when nobody was yet at the table. And now…

Knowledge@Wharton: They’re there.

Lagarde: Almost.

Translation: Don’t think you can pin me down. I’m too slippery for you.

Knowledge@Wharton: The question is, what does deeper integration look like? What would be some medium- and long-term goals for integration?

Lagarde: Deep integration is a recent development. It was much needed in order to consolidate the currency zone. We’ve seen things recently that were totally unexpected and almost unimaginable only 18 months ago. What is important for better integration is a combination of solid fiscal coordination with real discipline imposed upon the partners, including sanctions that are not only applicable, but are also applied if the rules are violated.

Translation: I don’t know what “deep integration” is except I’m all for sanctions, especially if rules are violated — or even if not.

Knowledge@Wharton: Is there a role for the IMF in helping increased integration move forward? Or is this something the Europeans do on their own?

Lagarde: It has to belong to them. It has to be theirs. They should have ownership of all of that. All we can do is identify, demonstrate with the team of great experts, that we have in this institution, the benefits of doing so and the drawbacks of not doing it.

Translation: We tell them to borrow what they can’t repay, and to raise taxes and cut spending, and when this causes the recession we said we expect, it’s all on their heads. Don’t blame us for anything, ever.

Knowledge@Wharton: Is it possible in the medium and long term for the euro zone to keep the common currency without more political integration?

Lagarde: It’s difficult to read into the future. But what we can say is that it would certainly strengthen and make the currency zone much more sustainable and safe. I don’t know whether to call it political integration, but certainly we need much deeper economic and fiscal integration.

Translation: I have no idea what “integration” involves, and I can’t tell whether it would help. Stop asking hard questions.

Lagarde: We all wish there were some magician’s wand we could wave to create jobs. At the end of the day, that is what everybody wants to do. It’s not just about growth in and of itself … it’s about jobs. . . But apart from stimulating growth, apart from an economic situation that warrants the creation of jobs, there is no magical recipe for that.

Translation: Actually, we do have a magical recipe. It’s called “austerity.” We raise taxes and cut government spending, which we know will cause recessions. And that’s how we create jobs.

Knowledge@Wharton: What role could the IMF play in bringing about a better balance between rates of exchange, for example, for a possible re-valuation of the yuan versus the U.S. dollar and the euro?

Lagarde: It’s funny that you would focus exclusively on these currencies, because our job is to assess the appropriate exchange rate — and to actually say what we think of it — for all 187 members of the institution. We do that through appropriate modeling, gathering of data and comparing and taking into account multiple data, including the current account. Probably later in 2012, we’ll be able to come up with a new methodology and model of assessing exchange rates.

Translation: All that data we collect is garbage. We have no idea what the exchange rates should be, we can’t do anything to improve them, whatever improvement involves, and anyway, later this year we’re coming up with a whole new model.

Knowledge@Wharton: Of all the things that you do here, what are you most passionate about? What would you really like to make sure happens? It could be a small thing, it could be a large thing. What is it that really has your heart?

Lagarde: That’s complicated. I think it’s this issue of relevance … that is of real concern to me. You see, this is a very fascinating institution because it’s completely counter-cyclical. When the world around the IMF goes downhill, we thrive. We become extremely active because we lend money, we earn interest and charges and all the rest of it, and the institution does well. When the world goes well and we’ve had years of growth, as was the case back in 2006 and 2007, the IMF doesn’t do so well both financially and otherwise.

Translation: My job is to screw up the world as much as possible so that my employer, the IMF does well. How am I doing so far?

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


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

–A think piece: What if the U.S. passed a law against exporting?

Mitchell’s laws: The more budgets are cut and taxes inceased, the weaker an economy becomes. 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.
==========================================================================================================================================

Here are a few thoughts about exports. In the previous post, you read this:

When China exports to America, it expends massive amounts of energy, manpower, time and scarce resources to create products, which it sends to us in exchange for dollars, which we create at no cost, by touching a computer key. Thus, China is our slave, working and sweating essentially for nothing.

Remember also that China too, is Monetarily Sovereign. The can create unlimited numbers of their sovereign currency. So why do they want to obtain our dollars in exchange for their valuable resources? First, they don’t need dollars, and second they can get all the dollars they might want simply by buying them on the open market, in exchange for yuan.

What is true of China also is true of the U.S. When we export, what do we receive in return? Our own dollars, or a currency we can buy with our dollars, all of which the U.S. government can produce without end. The purpose of exporting is merely to import U.S. dollars. (Have you heard the expression, “Carrying coals to Newcastle”?)

The CIA Factbook tells us these were the top U.S. exports of 2011 (through October):

1. Fuel: $73.4 billion.
2. Aircraft: $70.8 billion.
3. Motor vehicles: $39.6 billion.
4. Vacuum tubes: $37.1 billion.
5. Telecommunications equipment: $33.2 billion.

All required the expenditure of natural resources and labor. Here are some specifics:

Oil – exports: 1.92 million bbl/day; country comparison to the world: 11
Natural gas – exports: 32.2 billion cu m; country comparison to the world: 9
Electricity – exports: 18.11 billion kWh (2009 est.)

Think of it. While predictions are that one day, the U.S. will run out of oil, we export 2 million barrels of this disappearing stuff, every day. What do we get in return? The same dollars our Monetarily Sovereign government has the unlimited ability to create, at no cost.

Consider excerpts from an article in http://www.ft.com:

Molycorp to start China rare earth exports
By Ed Crooks in New York

Molycorp, the Colorado-based mining group, plans to begin exports of rare earth minerals to China following its C$1.3bn (US$1.31bn) acquisition of Neo Material Technologies. Molycorp is ramping up production of rare earths, elements that are essential for many advanced technologies including smartphones and batteries, at its Mountain Pass mine in California.

China accounts for about 95 per cent of worldwide rare earth production. Because of their use in military technologies including cruise missiles and fighter aircraft, rare earths have increasingly been seen as a strategically significant resource.

Here are metals needed for a wide range of vital technologies. They are in short supply worldwide, not because they actually are rare in the earth, but because they are spread so thinly, mining them wastes a great deal of energy. Running out of rare earths could cripple our economy. But we export them.

China and the U.S. receive in exchange, their respective sovereign currencies, which each nation, being Monetarily Sovereign, can create without limit. Is this logical?

Getting back to the title question, “What if the U.S. passed a law against exporting,” there are several considerations. Without exporting, the U.S. would expend less energy and raw materials — valuable and limited commodities — while dollars are limitless and free to the U.S. government. So, from that standpoint, the tradeoff makes no sense.

Yet, for the most part, it is not the U.S. government, but private businesses, that exports. So, if the U.S. prevented all exports, many private businesses would suffer. Unless – and here’s where it really gets complicated – unless these private businesses received the same amount of dollars from the government as they profit from exporting.

With few exceptions, private industry exports in exchange for dollars. So for instance, rather than losing 2 million barrels of oil every day, what if the U.S. government simply paid the oil companies for that oil and stored it for future needs?

While the meaningless federal deficit and debt would increase, there would be no inflationary effect. Rather than dollars entering our economy from outside our borders, the same number of dollars would enter our economy from the federal government.

The U.S. government has experience with this kind of storage. The US Strategic Petroleum Reserve stores more than 4 billion barrels of oil. The Commodity Credit Corporation began buying and storing cheese back in the 1960’s. The Federal Emergency Management Agency stores powdered and canned food for emergencies. So do the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security, which also store tools and weapons.

From a financial standpoint, the federal government easily could afford to buy every product that otherwise would be exported. Of course, there would be many devils in the details, mainly regarding what to buy, how much to buy and how much to pay. Quality would be a problem. Perishables, both physical and style, would be a problem. Perhaps the program would work with standardized commodities such as oil, metals, ores, sugar, water, etc.

But would the government actually have to buy and store anything? What if the government merely said, “There will be no exports of anything. No one will be allowed to sell any product or service to any foreigner. If your current business involves exporting, adjust your business. From now on, sell only to Americans.

No doubt, this initially would cause a great upset. All major change does. But is it workable? Visualize every other nation on earth suddenly disappearing. Could America survive as a world unto itself — at least from the standpoint of exports? Native Americans didn’t export to other nations. Could a modern America do the same?

I suspect America could survive quite well without exports, particularly if the government helped ease the transition by supplying the economy with the dollars it otherwise would have received from outside our borders. And it is even more likely the nation could survive well, if the government specified only certain items that couldn’t be exported, such as: oil, coal, wood, metals, ores.

As if all of the above weren’t complex enough, we also would have to deal with world politics. If America stopped all exporting — or even stopped exporting oil — what would the rest of the nations do? Would they stop exporting to America? Probably not. Many of them would be happy not to have to deal with competition from American exports.

The world’s reaction might be related specifically to the product not being exported. If we stopped exporting wood, the rest of the world’s forests might suffer. If we stopped exporting grains or meats, some nations might face starvation.

Clearly the subject has vast implications that require far more attention than this simple blog post. But there is a bottom-line message which is:

For a Monetarily Sovereign nation, exporting has many negatives. Exporting uses up scarce resources in exchange for the freest of resources, sovereign currency. Some of those resources simply should not be exported, as they are irreplaceable. Oil is one. Natural gas, another. Most ores, yet another. Wood shouldn’t be exported, as this denudes our forests. The export of electricity uses up the energy to make the electricity.

Despite the fact that every single item of export uses up some irreplaceable asset, it is unrealistic to expect all exporting to disappear. Too many political and economic complications. I’d begin with a law against oil exports, and then add items to the list.

Meanwhile, our protectionist politicians try to restrict imports, which cost us nothing but free dollars. Ah, the irony.

What are your thoughts?

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


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

How our leaders and our teenagers take responsibility: “Don’t blame us. It’s all China’s fault.”

Mitchell’s laws: The more budgets are cut and taxes inceased, the weaker an economy becomes. 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.
==========================================================================================================================================

Here are excerpts from a brief article at Yahoo Finance, showing how our government and businesses leaders accept responsibility.

U.S. Treasury says China yuan move helpful

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Treasury Department said on Sunday that a wider yuan trading band could help reduce global trade imbalances if it allows more play for market forces.

“China’s decision to widen the daily trading band for its exchange rate, if implemented in a way that allows the value of the exchange rate to reflect market forces, could contribute rebalancing, which would be positive for China, the United States, and the global economy,” a Treasury Department official told Reuters.

But the Treasury said the process of correcting a “misalignment” of China’s exchange rate is still incomplete and said more progress was needed.

U.S. manufacturers complain that China’s yuan is so undervalued that it gives Beijing an unfair trading advantage and they blame it for having cost millions of lost American factory jobs.

Yes, having a “weak” (exchange rate) currency allows for more exports. But so does imposing a tax on corporate profits, one of the looniest ideas among a world of loony economic ideas foisted on us by our Monetarily Sovereign government (You know; it’s the government that neither needs nor uses tax income, because it has the unlimited ability to create its sovereign currency).

So rather than whining about China, wouldn’t we be better simply to eliminate corporate taxes? Nope, we can’t do that, because American’s believe corporations pay too little in taxes, not understanding that corporations merely pass 100% of their tax burden on to their customers and employees.

If you set out to make our corporations less competitive internationally, what is the very first thing you would do? Right. You would tax them.

Our government and the private sector leaders find it easier to find a whipping boy, China. If they took the trouble to learn MS, they would understand that this simple fact:

When China exports to America, it expends massive amounts of energy, manpower, time and scarce resources to create products, which it sends to us in exchange for dollars, which we create at no cost, by touching a computer key. Thus, China is our slave, working and sweating essentially for nothing.

Remember also that China too, is Monetarily Sovereign. The can create unlimited numbers of their sovereign currency. So why do they want to obtain our dollars in exchange for their valuable resources? First, they don’t need dollars, and second they can get all the dollars they might want simply by buying them on the open market, in exchange for yuan.

I have the same feeling you get when watching teenagers engaged in self-destructive acts. No matter how often you tell them why they should not do that, they just keep doing it.

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


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