–The Big Lie triumphs. Darkness settles over America. The end of the American dream.

Mitchell’s laws: Reduced money growth never stimulates economic growth. To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments. Austerity breeds austerity and leads to civil disorder. Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
==========================================================================================================================================

. . . in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods.

It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.

Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation . . .

—Adolf Hitler , Mein Kampf, vol. I, ch. X

Once we believed that in America, hard work and a good plan would allow even the poorest among us to climb the economic ladder. We believed “rags-to-riches” was a natural outgrowth of the American experience. We believed in the American dream.

Now, the rich have used The Big Lie to convince the poor to vote against their own best interests. The so-called “99%” have been sold the idea that a mean, hardscrabble life is a noble life, that pain leads to pleasure and that austerity is the road to prosperity. The wealthy“1%” of America don’t believe these things for themselves, of course. They are exempt from The Big Lie, and the poor don’t object.

The American dream always has been a cooperative enterprise between Americans and the American government, each relying on the other. It begins with the belief that anything is possible, if you truly strive. It continues with the belief you can make a better life for yourself, and an even better life for your children, and they will make a better life for their children.

By necessity, the American dream includes a beneficial government that unlike those heavy-handed European monarchies of yore, encourages and assists entrepreneurial growth by providing financial and social support – a government that looks out for the little guy, a government that “has your back.”

That beneficial government first does what a government is formed to do: It creates money. And it assures that even the poorest among us have access, not only to dollars, but to the benefits dollars can buy – access to education, food, housing, health care, transportation, communication, protection and the law.

On August 15, 1971, the U.S. acquired the most valuable asset any nation can have– more valuable than its land or its minerals or its water or its crops – and that asset is Monetary Sovereignty, the unlimited ability to control its money supply. No longer would our government’s hands be tied by tax collections. Federal spending only would be limited by inflation, and inflation could be controlled with interest rates. The stage was set for the “99%” to receive the government support the American dream requires.

No longer would our government’s hands be tied by tax collections. Federal spending would be limited only by inflation, and inflation could be controlled with interest rates. The stage was set for the “99%” to receive the government support the American dream requires.

But though the underlying facts changed in 1971, the teaching of our leaders never did. Americans were told The Big Lie: That despite Monetary Sovereignty, federal finances continue to be like personal finances – limited by income – and that federal income pays for federal spending, and without income there can be no spending.

It was as though Monetary Sovereignty never happened.

Even today, the vast majority of economists, and virtually all politicians, media and columnists deny the implications of what happened in 1971. So, we remain blinded to the most important event in U.S. economic history.

Visualize any medical doctor denying the germ theory of disease or any physicist denying the existence of atoms, or any geographer denying the world is round, and you have a parallel with professional economists denying Monetary Sovereignty, so central is this basic truth of economics.

While there always have been worries about federal deficits and debt, and these worries earlier had a basis in fact, the federal government was not greatly hindered. Massive federal deficit spending cured the Great Depression at a time when the U.S. was monetarily non-sovereign. Now, ironically, when there should be no worries at all about deficits and debt, a group called the Tea Party has risen to focus on these meaningless numbers, and by spreading The Big Lie, has turned the entire nation into debt watchers.

Now, ironically, when there should be no worries at all about deficits and debt, a group called the Tea Party has risen to focus on these meaningless numbers, and by spreading The Big Lie, has turned the entire nation into debt watchers.

And this focus has impacted the poor more than the rich, contributing to the increased financial gap between them, destroying the American dream. The people have been taught federal deficits are “unsustainable,” a “ticking time bomb.”

They have been taught federal deficit spending will cause inflation “eventually,” though there is no historical relationship between federal deficits and inflation.

They wrongly have been taught our children and grandchildren will pay for today’s federal debt, a debt they neither own nor ever will pay.

The people have been taught that sacrifice now will protect our children and grandchildren, though in fact, sacrifice now actually will punish those children and grandchildren.

Cut Social Security? Cut Medicare? Cut support for education? Cut FDA oversight of food and drugs? Cut oversight of banks and other financial institutions? Cut support for medical and physical research? Cut support for education? Don’t extend unemployment benefits? Cut support for climate change prevention?

Every single cut punishes the children and grandchildren of the “99%.”

All of these facts should be obvious to even the most casual observer. Yet they disappear in the face of the Big Lie, which is that a Monetarily Sovereign nation somehow can run short of the money it has the unlimited ability to create, and that it must borrow and tax in order to obtain its money, and that like you and me, it can have difficulty paying its debts with its own money, and that federal benefits, particularly benefits to the “99%”, must be reduced.

The Big Lie comes from the “1%” influence on the economists, the media and the politicians, all of whom are financed by the wealthy. It is the “1%’s” method for protecting, and indeed, expanding the Gap between rich and poor.

That is the motivation, and we have seen the effect, but what is the cure?

Clearly, rational facts do not overcome The Big Lie. Instead, I believe there must be an event or series of events, so horrifying that a desperate public will ignore The Big Lie and seek refuge in a bigger truth.

Today, we are in the early stages of such an event – a terrible recession – and political action to reduce the federal deficit will exacerbate this recession until it turns into a full-blown depression, and the resultant riots and chaos perhaps will be sufficient to turn even the most brainwashed toward the fundamental truths of Monetary Sovereignty.

The wealthy will fight with every resource at their command. They will intimidate the economists and the media and the politicians. They will deny the facts. They will claim patriotism and moral high ground. They will shame and deceive.

And they might win, and if they do, we have seen the end of the American dream.

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. The key equation in economics: Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

–Why postage is really, really ignorant

Mitchell’s laws: Reduced money growth never stimulates economic growth. To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments. Austerity breeds austerity and leads to civil disorder. Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
==========================================================================================================================================

Amazing, isn’t it, how many areas of our lives are touched by the ignorance of Monetary Sovereignty.

Washington Post
Senators unveil bipartisan Postal Service rescue plan
Andrew Harrer/BLOOMBERG

A bipartisan Senate bill introduced Wednesday would give the U.S. Postal Service about $7 billion to pay for employee buyouts and other debt, allow a renegotiation of postal worker health-care benefits and require two years of studies before ending Saturday mail deliveries.

The plan, a modified version of proposals previously introduced by Sens. Thomas R. Carper (D-Del.) and Susan Collins -(R-Maine), will be considered by a Senate committee Wednesday.

The bill refunds about $7 billion that auditors agree the Postal Service has overpaid into federal worker retirement accounts. The money would be used in part to offer buyouts of up to $25,000 to as many as 100,000 eligible postal workers, with the rest of the funds put toward other debt.

Refunding the money “is not a bailout,” Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) said. “It’s the result of a legal analysis that everybody agrees with, that this was in fact an overpayment by the Postal Service” into the Federal Employee Retirement System.

House Republicans disagree. They consider any attempt to refund the Postal Service with money from federal retirement or health-care accounts would be a taxpayer-funded bailout.

The Senate bill also would scrap a 10-year payment schedule that requires the Postal Service to pay about $5.5 billion annually to prefund future worker retirements. The bill would spread out those payments over 40 years, significantly reducing the annual obligations that postal officials say cause much of the agency’s cash shortfalls. The Postal Service also would be allowed to renegotiate a new health-care plan with its major worker unions to help cut costs.

Short-term spending legislation passed last month by Congress gave USPS until Nov. 18 to make its annual prefunding payments. Aides said Wednesday that they did not know whether the Postal Service would get another extension or be forced to make the payment this month.

If the bill passes, plans to end Saturday mail deliveries would have to wait at least two more years until USPS and postal regulators further study the potential effects on customers and industries that rely on six-day mail deliveries.

The Postal Service also would have to scrap the delivery of mail to some doorside mailboxes in favor of sidewalk, curbside or centralized neighborhood boxes. The bill also would force the USPS to further study the effects of closing post offices and mail processing facilities — a move that postal officials said could save billions of dollars in operating costs.

“Without taking controversial steps like these, the Postal Service simply isn’t going to make it,” Lieberman said. “That would be terrible.”

Terrible, indeed. The post office provides one of our government’s most important services. How in the name of idiocy, was it decided that this particular federal agency must run a balanced budget? Why?

Shall we now demand that the U.S. Supreme Court run a balanced budget? Shall Congress and the White House run balanced budgets? Must the military, the FAA, the CIA, the FBI, FEMA and the other 1300 federal agencies each run balanced budgets?

The federal government very simply, should make the post office a free service, paid for by federal deficit spending. Here’s a little secret for you. Those dollars you spend on postage stamps do absolutely nothing to help the federal government spend. They do not pay for post office expenses. And as we have seen, the federal government can give the postal service dollars at will.

The only thing accomplished by postage costs is to reduce the use of the postal service. Is this a worthwhile goal? Is reducing the number of postal workers (thereby increasing national unemployment) a worthwhile goal? Is cutting Saturday deliveries a benefit to America?

Postage is a tax on mail users. All taxes are anti-stimulative in that they remove dollars from the economy. As always, those who do not understand Monetary Sovereignty do not understand economics.

I award 1 dunce cap to whomever first decided the post office must run a balanced budget, and to the politicians who continue this harmful charade. This will be my 1066th dunce cap awarded. Not running short, yet. Still sustainable. Still “prudent.” Still living within my means. And the value of each dunce cap has not gone down.

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. The key equation in economics: Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

–There are two, and only two, long-term solutions for Greece and the other euro nations.

Mitchell’s laws: Reduced money growth never stimulates economic growth. To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments. Austerity breeds austerity and leads to civil disorder. Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
==========================================================================================================================================

The news about Greece grows louder.

In giving up the drachma, and taking on the euro, Greece voluntarily surrendered the single most valuable asset any nation can have: Its Monetary Sovereignty.

Greece now is monetarily non-sovereign. There is an absolute rule in economics: No monetarily non-sovereign government can survive long term without money coming in from outside its borders. Germany, another nation that gave up its most valuable asset, the mark, and also is monetarily non-sovereign, survives on exports.

Nevada, which also is monetarily non-sovereign, survives mostly on tourism (aka gambling). No monetarily non-sovereign can survive long-term on internal taxes or borrowing.

By contrast, Monetarily Sovereign nations do not need money coming in from outside their borders, because they create unlimited money simply by paying bills.

For Greece and the other euro nations, long term survival requires one of two, and only two, events:

1. Adopt some form of a sovereign currency, and become Monetarily Sovereign
or
2. The EU give (not lend) euros to its member nations as needed.

There are no other solutions. None. All the running in circles by the European financial geniuses will be to no avail. Each day they come up with some new lending plan, and the next day abandon it in favor of some other lending plan.

But none of these plans has any long-term benefit. The euro nations are like rats in a cage, scurrying in all directions, with no hope of freedom. But still they scurry, at top speed.

If you read about any plan that does not include #1 or #2 above, know that it will fail.

Those who do not understand Monetary Sovereignty do not understand economics (and that goes for the U.S. politicians, media and old-line economists, who still claim to believe the pre-1971, anti-debt economics.)

I have been awarding one to five dunce caps for economic ignorance, but now the ignorance has grown so pervasive, with the euro nation leaders and our own Tea/Republican, Democrats, and the media and the columnists and the old-line economists –none of whom admit that what happened in August 1971 completely changed economics — I feel even five dunce caps does not do justice to the universal economic ignorance.

So today, I award 1000 dunce caps to all the self-styled experts, who blather on and on, spouting intuitive economics, but know nothing of the facts Monetary Sovereignty exposes.

———-1000———-

There is a second reason I award 1000 dunce caps: To demonstrate what sovereignty can do. I can create all I wish. I never will run short. I cannot be forced into dunce cap bankruptcy. I don’t have to “live within my means.” I don’t need a balanced budget. I don’t need to tax or borrow dunce caps. I don’t need to be dunce cap prudent. I am dunce cap sovereign.

In that sense I am identical with the United States government which is dollar sovereign. It too can create all the dollars it wishes, never will run short, cannot be forced into bankruptcy, doesn’t have to “live within its means,” doesn’t need a balanced budget, doesn’t need to tax or borrow and doesn’t need to be dollar prudent.

I now have awarded 1065 dunce caps. Because I levy zero dunce cap taxes, I have run a total deficit of 1065 dunce caps. If there were a dunce cap clock, it would read “1065 caps.” My children and grandchildren will not have to “pay for” my dunce cap deficit.

Attention American debt-hawks and euro nations: Is there any way I could draw a clearer picture for you? Now wake up. Your stubborn ignorance is killing your countries.

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. The key equation in economics: Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

–Osama bin Bowles’s plan to destroy America.

Mitchell’s laws: Reduced money growth never stimulates economic growth. To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments. Austerity breeds austerity and leads to civil disorder. Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
==========================================================================================================================================

Last month, the Chicago Tribune printed this letter I wrote:

”The ‘supercommitte’ needs to answer only one question: ‘How will a tax increase or spending decrease (also known as a ‘deficit cut’) reduce unemployment or grow the economy?’ If they, or the people who gave them their assignment, are unable to answer that question, the supercommittee should pack up and go home.

If their work will not reduce unemployment or grow the economy, what is their purpose?”

Short, sweet and specific. Yes, what is the purpose of the supercommittee if it won’t reduce unemployment or grow the economy? Here’s what Erskine Bowles thinks:

Supercommittee must not ‘fail the country,’ Bowles says, offering his own plan
Washington Post, By Lori Montgomery, Published: November 1

Erskine Bowles, the former White House chief of staff who has worked for months to tame the national debt . . .

“Tame the national debt” is a synonym for “reduce money growth,” which in turn is a synonym for “hamstring the economy.”

. . . bluntly warned members of a congressional panel Tuesday that they will “fail the country” if they do not break the impasse over taxes that is blocking a far-reaching agreement.

Bowles then surprised the committee by laying out a path to compromise that would split the difference between the competing debt-reduction proposals each side offered last week. He challenged Democrats to accept deeper cuts to federal health programs and Republicans to embrace $800 billion in new taxes, as House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) did during this summer’s negotiations over the federal debt limit.

In other words, screw the less-than-wealthy (the people most in need of health care support), and screw everyone by raising taxes, thereby removing dollars from the economy.

Added to previous budget cuts, such a deal would slice $3.9 trillion from projected borrowing over the next decade, Bowles said . . .

Worried about borrowing, Mr. Bowles? How about simply stop borrowing. As a Monetarily Sovereign nation, with the unlimited ability to create dollars, why does the U.S. continue to borrow dollars?

. . . stabilize the debt as a percentage of the economy. . .

Completely nonsensical. By “the economy,” I assume he means Gross Domestic Product. But GDP = government spending + private consumption + investment + net exports. Because government spending is one of the elements of GDP, a reduction in government spending reduces GDP. Is that what we want – a reduced GDP? Will that help reduce unemployment or grow the economy?

Further, what is the magic “percentage of the economy” he wants, and what is his evidence there is any such ideal percentage? He has no evidence of anything, so he speaks in broad, sweeping (i.e. ignorant) terms.

“You all know what we have to do,” added Republican former senator Alan Simpson (Wyo.), who served with Bowles, a Democrat, as co-chairmen of President Obama’s fiscal commission last year. “In your gut, you know what we have to do.”

And that’s the problem. These people are dealing with their intuition, rather than with the facts of Monetary Sovereignty, and intuition about economics has not changed in hundreds of years, though economics itself changed diametrically in 1971.

. . . former Clinton White House budget director Alice Rivlin and former senator Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) . . . urged the supercommittee members to set aside their differences on taxes and entitlements and craft a plan that would achieve as much as $4 trillion in savings, warning that nothing less than the country’s economic future is at stake.

Remember the formula for GDP? Visualize what a $4 trillion cut in federal spending would do. GDP would drop not just by $4 trillion. No, there is a multiplier effect, in which federal spending goes into the pockets of individuals and businesses, whose spending in turn, goes into other pockets. So a $4 trillion cut is guaranteed to sink the U.S. economy by far more than $ trillion.

In short, Mr. Bowles et al, have no concerns about unemployment or economic growth. Those problems are not even on their radar. All they know is: Federal debt is bad and federal spending is bad. They don’t know why. They just feel it in their guts. Now if only some of them would begin to use their brains . . .

Give Erskine Bowles his way, and he will do more damage to America than Osama bin Laden ever could have dreamed. Call him, “Osama bin Bowles.”

I award Mr. Bowles 5 dunce caps for true economic ignorance by a man who not only should know better, but has the influence to cause so much damage.

I now have awarded 65 dunce caps. Though I am dunce-cap sovereign, Mr. Bowles demands I cut my dunce cap awards to a more sustainable level. He wants me to “go big” and balance my dunce cap budget. He feels this in his gut.

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. The key equation in economics: Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY