–The real reason for the QEs.

Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

Mitchell’s laws:
●The more federal budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes.
●Austerity is the government’s method for widening the gap between rich and poor,
which ultimately leads to civil disorder.
●Until the 99% understand the need for federal deficits, the upper 1% will rule.
To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments.
●Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
●The penalty for ignorance is slavery.
●Everything in economics devolves to motive,
and the motive is the gap.
===================================================================================

Here is why the Fed continues with Quantitative Easing (QE) — and it’s not what Chairman Bernanke tells you.

Background: What is the single biggest problem facing the American economy? No, it’s not the federal deficit or the debt, not inflation, deflation, recession or depression, not reduced employment or unemployment, not health care or Social Security.

No, the single biggest problem facing the American economy is the growing gap between the few very rich and the rest of us.

monetary sovereignty

THE GINI RATIO — A MEASURE OF INCOME INEQUALITY — CONTINUES TO WORSEN

(“0” means everyone receives the same; 1.00 means one person gets it all. The rising line means rising inequality.)

When a large percentage of a nation’s citizens suffer from poor housing, inadequate access to medical care, less affordable and less nutritious food and less affordable, quality education, poor prospects and opportunities for success — and when that large percentage is growing — the nation and its leaders have failed.

President Kennedy was wrong when he said, “Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.” For what, after all, is the fundamental purpose of a nation, if not to care for its citizens?

The Situation: The Fed, under Chairman Bernanke, claims QE (Quantitative Easing) stimulates the economy. His theory goes like this:

Under QE, the Fed buys $85 billion dollars worth (currently) of T-bonds from the private sector every month. Bernanke would have you believe that each month this pumps $85 billion into the American economy.

Utter nonsense.

When the private sector purchases T-bonds, dollars are transferred from private sector checking accounts at various banks, to T-bond accounts at the Federal Reserve Bank. (Think of transferring dollars from your bank checking account to your bank savings account.)

Then, when the Fed buys those T-bonds from the private sector, dollars are transferred back from T-bond accounts to private checking accounts. No new dollars are added to the economy.

What does happen however, is that the Fed’s bond purchases increase the demand for T-bonds, which increases the price of T-bonds, which in turn, decreases the interest rate paid by T-bonds. In short, QE simply is a gigantic long-term-interest-rate-reduction device. Nothing more.

Because the Fed controls short-term interest rates (via the Fed Funds rate), QE closes the circle, by lowering longer-term interest rates. So the question becomes, “Why does the Fed want low interest rates?”

The usual claim is that low rates make borrowing more attractive, which supposedly is economically stimulative. But, while low rates make borrowing more attractive, those same low rates make lending less attractive.

As a result, there is no historical relationship between low rates and GDP growth. See: Low interest rates do not help the economy.”

If QE merely keeps interest rates low, and low rates don’t stimulate the economy, why QE?

The Fed is a creature of the rich, and the rich want low interest rates. Low rates reduce federal bond interest payments, so when rates are low, the government pumps less money into the economy. And, low rates make borrowing less costly for businesses, thereby adding to business profits.

Thus, QE causes two complementary effects: Less money coming into the economy plus higher profits for business: The perfect combination for taking money from the poor and giving it to the rich.

Here is how that works:

Spiegel

Near Zero: ECB Interest Rate Cuts Hit Savings Hard

By SPIEGEL staff

As the European Central Bank pushes interest rates to a new low, Germans are growing increasingly concerned about their savings. The money in their accounts is losing value and life insurance policies are yielding lower returns.

Only a few years ago, Germans were convinced that they could offset the cuts lawmakers had made to government-mandated pensions by saving more money on their own. Because Germans tend to be risk-averse, they invest most of their money in savings deposits, life insurance and fixed-income products.

But savings can only grow in real terms if the interest rate is higher than the rate of inflation.

“In Germany today, people can no longer provide for their retirement by saving,” says Walter Krämer, a statistics professor in the western city of Dortmund.

The percentage of young people in the population is shrinking, and yet they must generate greater economic output to reduce the debts they are inheriting from the current generation.

Because this is unsustainable, a redistribution from creditors to borrowers, or from savers to the state, is now occurring. The government makes money when interest rates on government bonds are lower than inflation. Its debt burden is decreased, while savers are left to foot the bill, with their assets losing value in real terms.

The consequence is a massive redistribution. McKinsey, the consulting firm, has calculated that the governments of the United States, Great Britain and the euro zone already saved $1.6 trillion between 2007 and 2012 as a result of low interest rates. This is offset by a loss to private households of $630 billion. Older citizens are losing more than younger people, because the latter tend to have more debt and fewer savings.

As much as savers are being fleeced, there are also those who profit from low interest rates. People who own real estate have benefited from increases in value in recent years, while stock owners have seen Germany’s DAX share index climb from one record high to the next. But this primarily benefits those who are not worried about having enough retirement income.

In this way, the low-interest-rate policy doesn’t just lead to a transfer of assets from citizens to the state, but also from the poor to the rich</strong>. Affluent households are in a better position to shift their focus to stocks, real estate and other investments than those with average incomes.

Bottom line: The Bernanke purpose of QE is to reduce interest rates while convincing the public this is beneficial. It is beneficial, but only to those who invest in stocks and real estate. Low rates are detrimental to the vast majority of Americans who try to save via bank accounts, insurance accounts and other “safe,” interest-paying investments — i.e. the middle class and the poor.

QE, deficit reduction, debt reduction and interest rate reduction all have been sold to the American public as economically stimulative and beneficial to the poor and middle classes. But, in fact, they widen the gap between the rich and the rest.

That is why Bernanke and the rich bankers love QE. It is the gap that makes the rich rich. If there were no gap, no one would be rich, and the wider the gap, the richer the rich are.

Bernanke, the politicians, the media and the mainstream economists have been paid by the rich to widen the gap. That is the purpose of QE.

So far, it’s working.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

===================================================================================
Ten Steps to Prosperity:
1. Eliminate FICA (Click here)
2. Federally funded Medicare — parts A, B & D plus long term nursing care — for everyone (Click here)
3. Provide an Economic Bonus to every man, woman and child in America, and/or every state a per capita Economic Bonus. (Click here) Or institute a reverse income tax.
4. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone. Click here
5. Salary for attending school (Click here)
6. Eliminate corporate taxes (Click here)
7. Increase the standard income tax deduction annually
8. Tax the very rich (.1%) more, with higher, progressive tax rates on all forms of income. (Click here)

9. Federal ownership of all banks (Click here)

10. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99% (Click here)

—–

10 Steps to Economic Misery: (Click here:)
1. Maintain or increase the FICA tax..
2. Spread the myth Social Security, Medicare and the U.S. government are insolvent.
3. Cut federal employment in the military, post office, other federal agencies.
4. Broaden the income tax base so more lower income people will pay.
5. Cut financial assistance to the states.
6. Spread the myth federal taxes pay for federal spending.
7. Allow banks to trade for their own accounts; save them when their investments go sour.
8. Never prosecute any banker for criminal activity.
9. Nominate arch conservatives to the Supreme Court.
10. Reduce the federal deficit and debt

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:
1. Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings
2. Gross Domestic Product = Federal Spending + Private Investment and Consumption – Net Imports

THE RECESSION CLOCK
Monetary Sovereignty

Monetary Sovereignty

Vertical gray bars mark recessions.

As the federal deficit growth lines drop, we approach recession, which will be cured only when the growth lines rise. Increasing federal deficit growth (aka “stimulus”) is necessary for long-term economic growth.

#MONETARYSOVEREIGNTY

–What is missing from this article about the Senate’s “nuclear option”

Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

Mitchell’s laws:
●The more federal budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes.
●Austerity is the government’s method for widening the gap between rich and poor,
which ultimately leads to civil disorder.
●Until the 99% understand the need for federal deficits, the upper 1% will rule.
To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments.
●Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
●The penalty for ignorance is slavery.
●Everything in economics devolves to motive.

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

The U.S. Congress, as a political system, is broken. It does not and cannot work.

The House of Representatives is broken because of Gerrymandering. Supposedly illegal, Gerrymandering never is challenged.

So, Representatives no longer worry about the needs or desires of the nation. They need only to please their tiny, local constituency, no matter how wrong-headed, bigoted or harmful those narrow beliefs might be.

The Senate is broken by the filibuster, which allows any one Senator to block all action by Congress. The filibustering Senator no longer needs even to stand and talk. He just notifies the Senate that he’s filibustering — then takes a nap, while the nation waits.

Yesterday, the Senate’s Democratic majority voted to modify the Republican’s use of the filibuster to block some Presidential nominations.

Sides have been taken and threats delivered. But what is missing from the discussion? Here are excerpts from an article in the 1/22/13 Chicago Tribune:

Democrats made a historic change to Senate rules Thursday, ending the minority party’s ability to use filibusters to block most presidential nominations and, in the process, virtually guaranteeing that the rest of President Obama’s term will be dominated by executive actions and court battles rather than legislation.

What else is new? Up ’til now, Congress has been engaged in anything but legislation.

The Senate Republican minority, which will see its power dramatically curtailed, threatened reprisals.

What “reprisals”? Lack of cooperation? End of bipartisanship? When your entire agenda has been obstructionism, what possible “reprisals” are left?

The decision by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to deploy the so-called nuclear option means Senate confirmations of presidential appointments — except for Supreme Court justices — will proceed by a simple majority vote. Previously, a 60-vote threshold had become the norm to avoid a filibuster by the minority party. The change does not affect filibusters on legislation.

So legislation still can and will be filibustered, thereby assuring no meaningful legislation will come out of Congress.

“You may regret it a lot sooner than you think,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). “It only reinforces the narrative of a party that is willing to do and say just about anything to get its way.”

Not sure to which party he refers. The Republicans have taken great pride in being obstructionists. Back in 2011, when Republicans were so obstructionist they were accused of being the “party of No,” Sarah Palin said, “We’re the party of ‘hell no,'” such was her pride in making nothing happen.

The vote reflected the view of many Democrats that the chance of any major legislation passing the divided Congress over the next year already had dwindled to almost nothing. As a result, Reid and his allies felt they had little to lose.

“We’d much prefer the risk of up-or-down votes and majority rule than the risk of continued total obstruction,” said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.). “That’s the bottom line no matter who’s in power.”

“I’d rather fight over policy,” said Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska), who is running for reelection for the first time in the conservative state. “It’s not a Republican or Democratic issue. It’s that the American people are asking us to fix this system.”

“I recognize that I could be back in the minority again, but that’s OK if that happens,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who just began a fifth term and who recently decided to support changing the rules. “I want, in the remainder of my five-plus years, to get something done, to be able to get nominees approved, to be able to get bills moved.”

Excuse me Senators, but your “nuclear option” does not include policy. It applies only to appointments. So Congress will continue to do nothing — and to be paid for it.

The move to end filibusters was probably only a matter of time, reflecting the long-term shift in American politics toward ever-greater polarization, particularly over the last two decades.

Even during the Bush Jr. terms, there was compromise. All bipartisanship ended with the Obama Presidency, probably related to his skin color. The red states hate blacks and browns. Making a black Presidency fail follows up very nicely with the old Nixon “Southern Strategy.”

Congress has moved toward a parliamentary system characterized by near-lock-step party voting and deep, consistent ideological differences between the two parties.

Bipartisan coalitions have dwindled, and so have incentives on other side of the aisle to bend the majority party’s agenda. For both parties, winning a majority now comes with heavy pressure from constituents to actually adopt the majority’s program.

And from Yahoo News:

Most recently, Republicans blocked three straight nominees to the powerful U.S. District Court of Appeals, not because of any qualms with the candidates’ credentials, but merely because they didn’t want Obama filling vacancies on an influential court that tilts conservative.

Translation: “The candidates are fine, but we don’t want them because Obama appointed them. We don’t want anything Obama.

Outraged Republicans vowed retribution, saying they would use the process to stack future courts in their favor once they’re back in control.

What? If the Republicans gain power, they threaten to stack the courts with right wing extremists? Hard to believe. And I was so sure they would appoint bleeding-heart liberals — like Thomas, Scalia and Alito, for instance.

Anyway, what is missing from all this? You are. There is no mention of what is good for you as Americans. The only concern is beating the other party, and saying “No” to anything the other party wants.

The filibuster has become a system for doing nothing. We didn’t send representatives to Congress just to obstruct and do nothing. They don’t receive generous salaries, expenses and perks just to sit on their hands.

The filibuster supposedly prevented one of the great disadvantages of a democratic system — the majority exercising dictatorial powers over the minority. But, in recent use, the filibuster has created the opposite problem: The minority exercising dictatorial power over the majority.

The filibuster has become an anachronism in a nation where winning is everything, and to hell with the American people (except for the rich, who always get their way).

Unfortunately, the filibuster remains for legislation, so look forward to continuing obstructionism.

Congress is broken. The system has been “gamed” by those whose sole concern is power. The result will be a continued widening of the gap between the rich and the rest.

And as for you, nobody even thinks about you. You are like a bag of popcorn at a football game. Both coaches care only about winning.

Neither coach — and neither party — cares about you.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

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

—–

10 Steps to Economic Misery: (Click here:)
1. Maintain or increase the FICA tax..
2. Spread the myth Social Security, Medicare and the U.S. government are insolvent.
3. Cut federal employment in the military, post office, other federal agencies.
4. Broaden the income tax base so more lower income people will pay.
5. Cut financial assistance to the states.
6. Spread the myth federal taxes pay for federal spending.
7. Allow banks to trade for their own accounts; save them when their investments go sour.
8. Never prosecute any banker for criminal activity.
9. Nominate arch conservatives to the Supreme Court.
10. Reduce the federal deficit and debt

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:
1. Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings
2. Gross Domestic Product = Federal Spending + Private Investment and Consumption – Net Imports

THE RECESSION CLOCK
Monetary Sovereignty Monetary Sovereignty

As the federal deficit growth lines drop, we approach recession, which will be cured only when the lines rise.

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

The suicide bombers of American Society

Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

Mitchell’s laws:
●The more federal budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes.
●Austerity is the government’s method for widening the gap between rich and poor,
which ultimately leads to civil disorder.
●Until the 99% understand the need for federal deficits, the upper 1% will rule.
To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments.
●Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
●The penalty for ignorance is slavery.
●Everything in economics devolves to motive.

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

Have you wondered why the so-called “religious” right has turned into a forum for mean-spirited, cold-hearted, selfish people, who are as far from religion as one could stray?

Have you wondered where all these negative generalizations about the poor, the immigrant, the black, the Jewish, the gay and virtually everyone other than a white, adult, has-a-good-job and American-born-to-American-citizens, came from?

We are not born bigots. We are not born haters. Those traits must be learned. Consider, for instance, the Cato Institute:

The Cato Institute was founded as the Charles Koch Foundation in 1974 by Ed Crane, Murray Rothbard, and Charles Koch.

Cato Policy Analysis No. 224 April 27, 1995
SSI: The Black Hole of the Welfare State
by Christopher M. Wright, Southern lawyer (Alexandria, Virginia), and publisher of The Deficit Letter and Activists Online.

Executive Summary
Congress is finally reforming the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program. Unfortunately, the reforms currently under consideration fall far short of the dramatic overhaul that open-ended entitlement program needs.

In Cato-speak, “reform” means cutting any program that primarily benefits the lower income groups.

SSI is one of the fastest growing welfare programs in the federal budget, and its costs are projected to accelerate by another 60 percent by 2000.

Translation: “’Welfare’ is our little code word for money given to lazy, low-income people (All low-income people are lazy). SSI pumps dollars into the pockets of low income Americans and into the economy, which stimulates the economy.

“This narrows the income gap between the very rich and the rest of you – a bad thing for us very rich people.”

SSI was originally designed to provide a safety net for low-income senior citizens, but it is now experiencing spectacular growth in recently eligible population groups, including drug addicts, the mentally ill, immigrants, and children.

Government projections indicate that between 1990 and 2000 the number of immigrants on SSI will have grown fivefold and the number of drug addicts and alcoholics eightfold.

Translation: “Addicts, the mentally ill and children are at fault for their own misery. As a lesson, they should be made to starve in the streets. Or let them commit crimes to support themselves. Then, the government can support them in jail.”

Many of the House Republican proposals, such as ending SSI for immigrants, are sensible, but they are insufficient to cap SSI’s skyrocketing costs.

In Cato-speak, “sensible” (and the aforementioned “reform”), means cutting any program that benefits the lower income groups. Sure, we’re cutting benefits to immigrants, but we have to keep cutting, cutting, cutting — to drive these people into the ground.

Some of the SSI reforms recommended in this study include the following: (1) terminating automatic cost-of-living increases for SSI . . .

Translation: “Reduce real (inflation adjusted) benefits to the poor.”

(2). . . eliminating lump-sum payments to SSI recipients . . .

Translation: “The lump sums are generated because the claims process and resulting appeals drag on for months and even years, and benefits are paid retroactively to the date of application. The solution is not to speed up the claims process, but to punish the needy for government inefficiency.

(3). . . ending all childhood disability benefits . . .

Translation: “There is no need to pay childhood disability benefits. Kids don’t work, and it doesn’t cost anything to care for a disabled kid, does it?”.

, (4). . . creating an enrollment cap . . .

Translation: “We should help only a certain (diminishing) number of poor people. Any additional people can simply starve.”

(5). . . scaling back mental impairment benefits . . .

Translation: “We don’t believe the psychiatrists’ definitions of ‘mental impairment,’ and anyway, if you’re nuts, you don’t deserve to get any help. You should wander the streets, get a job, commit a crime or go to jail to feed yourself. We’ll be glad to pay for your jail time, but not for anything else.”

“Hitler was right. These people are lazy slugs, who are a drag on the economy and a blot on the gene pool.”

. . . and (6) ultimately privatizing disability insurance.

Translation. “We are the Koch brothers. We own Koch industries. Forbes called it the second largest privately held company in the United States, with an annual revenue of about $98 billion. We like rich people. Rich people are our friends.

“Some of our friends own insurance companies and other investment companies. Can you imagine how much richer we and our friends will become if SSI is privatized. Wow! We can smell the meat a’cookin.’”

Over the past several years, the Supplemental Security Income program (SSI) has been plagued by exploding costs for taxpayers.

Translation: “O.K., so SSI is paid for by our Monetarily Sovereign government. It doesn’t cost taxpayers a dime. But let’s not quibble over details.”

The combined federal expenditures of SSI and its sister program, Disability Insurance (DI), are now $55.3 billion. Disability has become the fourth largest area of federal entitlement spending after Social Security retirement, Medicare, and Medicaid.

SSI is a troubling case study in how federal entitlements continually expand beyond their original mission. Today, SSI is one of Washington’s primary fiscal black holes.

In Cato-speak, a “fiscal black hole” is a program that pays increasing amounts of money to the poor and to the economy. It is NOT a program that gives wonderful tax breaks to us rich people.

Possible reform measures include terminating the SSI program at the federal level and returning to the states the responsibility for providing assistance to low-income aged, blind, and disabled persons.

Translation: “The federal government, which has the unlimited power to pay any bill of any size, without collecting taxes (i.e. it’s Monetarily Sovereign), should not have to pay for SSI.

Instead, let the states, which already teeter on the brink of insolvency (i.e. they’re monetarily non-sovereign) should be burdened. This will assure that SSI benefits to the poor cease to exist, which is what we really want.”

If SSI continues at the federal level, enrollment should be capped and expenditures limited. And children and substance abusers should no longer receive cash assistance.

Other federal programs already address the needs of children, and substance abusers should be forced to compete for new drug treatment slots.

Translation: “The federal government is broke, but poor people are getting rich on SSI payments. Drug addicts and children are perfectly able to compete for treatment. Why should we have to care about them, anyway?”

The Senate Finance Committee report at the time of SSI’s inception declared that federal assistance would “provide a positive assurance that the Nation’s aged, blind, and disabled people would no longer have to subsist on below-poverty-level incomes.”

Despite the focus on adult assistance, disabled children were included in SSI, apparently without much discussion or examination of what the costs might be.

Translation: “O.K., so a bunch of bleeding-heart liberals wanted to help the Nation’s aged, blind and disabled. And I know it doesn’t cost me a cent, but why do we also have to help kids?”

Why SSI Keeps Growing and Growing
No one knows precisely why SSI has grown so rapidly and unexpectedly in the past six years. Many factors are probably responsible for the cascade.

Translation: “We have no idea what we are talking about, but if anything helps the aged, the poor or the disabled, and above all, if it helps disabled children, we are firmly against it.”

A sharp increase in disability claims followed the 1990 recession. Similar correlations have been observed in other nations between a poorly performing economy and spikes in the number of disability claims.

Translation: “We can’t understand why, during recessions, people actually lose their jobs and their health insurance.

“And, we can’t understand why, being in desperate straits, they claim disability, rather than simply firing a few of their maids and gardeners, like we do.

“This makes me so mad, I hardly can enjoy sailing my yacht.

Several states, including Illinois, California, and Michigan (which has terminated general assistance), have taken steps to switch disabled residents from state relief programs to SSI.

Translation: “The states (which are going broke, because they must rely on taxes) want the federal government (which never can go broke, because it does not rely on taxes) to pay for relief programs.

“This makes me so mad I hardly can enjoy flying in my private jet.”

Should their claims be denied, claimants can pursue several layers of appeal; 80 percent of appeals are now ultimately successful.

Lawyers in Pennsylvania run ads declaring, “Social Security is well known for denying meritorious claims that later are approved. . . . Don’t let a bureaucrat determine your future. Keep appealing.”

Translation: “The government denies meritorious claims, so for some reason, the greedy people appeal again. Outrageous.

“This makes me so mad, I no longer enjoy my hourly compliments from my butler.”

So that’s Cato, founded by Koch, Rothbard and Crane. Yes, we know about billionaire Koch. What about Rothbard?

To promote his economic and political ideas, Rothbard joined Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. and Burton Blumert in 1982 to establish the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Alabama.

Are you conservative, libertarian, anarchist, socialist, or what? We are Misesians! The media will typically describe all non-socialists as conservatives, so we are usually lumped in among them, though the actual orientation of the Institute is libertarian.

This designation can encompass a wide range of thought from Jeffersonian classical liberalism to the modern anarcho-capitalism of Murray N. Rothbard.

The core conviction is what matters: peaceful exchange makes everyone better off; private property is the first principle of liberty; intervention destroys wealth; society and economy need no central management to achieve orderliness.

Anarcho-capitalism (also referred to as free-market anarchism, market anarchism, private-property anarchism is a political philosophy which advocates the elimination of the state in favor of individual sovereignty in a free market.

Translation: “Private property is most important, and those who have the most private property should rule. Intervention (i.e government aid to the poor) destroys the wealth (i.e. the income gap) of the rich.

“Big government is unnecessary, because it can prevent the orderliness of the rich ruling the poor.”

And finally, we come to Edward Crane:

Edward Harrison Crane is a co-founder of the Cato Institute and served as its President until October 1, 2012.

In the 1970s, he was one of the most active leaders of the Libertarian Party. In 1980, Crane served as Communications Director to the Libertarian Party presidential ticket of Clark and Vice Presidential candidate David Koch.

Crane sits on the boards of various political organizations, including Americans for Limited Government.

Translation: “I, Edward Harrison Crane, think David Koch should be Vice President of the United States of America. He may be a billionaire, who wants to cut federal aid to the poor, but really, in his heart, he loves you little people.”

Americans for Limited Government (ALG) is committed to advancing free-market reforms, private property rights and core American liberties. For these liberties to be achieved, it is essential to reduce the role of government and put citizens back in charge of their own lives.

Translation: “Free market reforms” means allow the rich to do whatever they please.

“Reduce the role of government” means cut spending on anything that benefits the middle class and the poor.

“Put citizens back in charge of their own lives” means let the poor swim or drown.

Bottom line: The Kochs and their wealthy cronies not only have bribed the politicians (via campaign contributions and promises of lucrative employment), the media (via ownership) and the university economists (via contributions to universities), but also have been very effective in brainwashing the middle class and the poor to believe what the rich want them to believe.

The notion that the poor are at fault for their own misery, is fundamental to the religious right’s “core American liberties.”

Ironically, the vast majority of the religious right is part of the very group who will be most punished by conservatism.

Brainwashed, they use the words the rich have put in their mouths.

They have dedicated themselves to destroying the lives of the poor — and they get mad as hell if anyone tries to warn them that by helping the rich, they are destroying their own lives.

Conservatives are the trained suicide bombers of American society.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

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

—–

10 Steps to Economic Misery: (Click here:)
1. Maintain or increase the FICA tax..
2. Spread the myth Social Security, Medicare and the U.S. government are insolvent.
3. Cut federal employment in the military, post office, other federal agencies.
4. Broaden the income tax base so more lower income people will pay.
5. Cut financial assistance to the states.
6. Spread the myth federal taxes pay for federal spending.
7. Allow banks to trade for their own accounts; save them when their investments go sour.
8. Never prosecute any banker for criminal activity.
9. Nominate arch conservatives to the Supreme Court.
10. Reduce the federal deficit and debt

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:
1. Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings
2. Gross Domestic Product = Federal Spending + Private Investment and Consumption – Net Imports

THE RECESSION CLOCK
Monetary Sovereignty Monetary Sovereignty

As the federal deficit growth lines drop, we approach recession, which will be cured only when the lines rise.

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

–A new Fed chairman, a new myth is born: Optimal Control

Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

Mitchell’s laws:
●The more federal budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes.
●Austerity is the government’s method for widening the gap between rich and poor,
which ultimately leads to civil disorder.
●Until the 99% understand the need for federal deficits, the upper 1% will rule.
To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments.
●Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
●The penalty for ignorance is slavery.
●Everything in economics devolves to motive.

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

A new Fed chairman, a new myth is born.

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke gave us the myth of quantitative easing (QE) as an economic stimulus. QE, very simply, is the Federal Reserve’s purchasing of Treasury bonds, which supposedly stimulates the economy by adding dollars to the economy and reducing long term interest rates.

It is true that adding dollars to the economy does stimulate, but the purchase of Treasury bonds doesn’t do it. In fact, these monthly, $85 billion purchases subtract dollars from the economy.

The myth is based on the wrong-headed belief that when the Fed buys T-bonds, it creates dollars, which then go into the private sector. In actual fact, no dollars are created, and although the process does increase liquidity somewhat (cash is more liquid than bonds), QE has been reducing the total dollar supply.

Here is how that works:

When you, or China or anyone else buys a T-bond, you instruct your bank to debit your checking account and to credit your T-bond account at the Federal Reserve Bank (FRB).

So you, China and anyone still own the dollars. You simply have transferred them from one of your bank accounts to another of your bank accounts. Since a T-bond account essentially is a bank savings account, visualize that you have transferred dollars from your checking account to your savings account.

Now, visualize that the Fed decides to buy your savings account. What will happen? Your savings account will be debited and your checking account will be credited. Will this stimulate the economy? Of course not.

In the case of T-bonds, however, there actually will be a negative effect. With the Fed owning more T-bonds, the Treasury will pay less interest into the private sector – which is recessive. On balance, QE is a stimulative myth.

And now comes Janet Yellen. No QE for her. She has a new idea. It’s called “Optimal Control (OC). Here is how Business Insider explains it:

Everyone On Wall Street Is Buzzing About ‘Optimal Control’ — The Janet Yellen Approach To Monetary Policy
Matthew Boesler, Nov. 4, 2013,

Michael Feroli, chief U.S. economist at JPMorgan: “This approach starts with a forecast for the economy, and then solves a large-scale macroeconomic model to find the path of the funds rate that minimizes the deviation of inflation and unemployment from their respective targets.

The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) targets an annual inflation rate of 2% over the long run and an unemployment rate of 6% (the latter number an estimate of the economy’s “natural” unemployment rate).

Under the optimal control approach, the central bank would then use a model to calculate the optimal path of short-term interest rates in order to hit these targets. As long as unemployment is further away from the target level than inflation, then monetary policymakers would keep interest rates low in an attempt to correct this, even if it means inflation runs slightly above target for a while.

The upshot of a Yellen Fed employing an optimal control strategy is simply the notion that the central bank would take a more aggressive stance toward fighting above-target unemployment, implying lower short-term rates for longer.

The Yellen Optimal Control approach requires four beliefs to be correct:

1. Raising interest rates fights inflation
2. Lowering interest rates fights unemployment
3. Excessive inflation and excessive unemployment do not occur simulatiously.
4. Interest rate control is a more powerful inflation and unemployment fighter than other economic factors, so that the Fed actually has significant control.

1. RAISING INTEREST RATES FIGHTS INFLATION
This is correct, and in fact, is the method the Fed successfully has used to fight inflation.

Inflation is the loss in value of the dollar. But the dollar is a commodity, the value of which is determined by Supply and Demand. And Demand is determined by Risk and Reward. All other factors held constant, increasing the Reward for owning a dollar, increases the value of the dollar, thereby fighting inflation.

Interest is the Reward for owning a dollar.

There are two counter effects: Higher interest rates increase business costs (inflationary), but for most businesses, interest is a very small part of their costs, so the effect is slight. And higher interest rates require the Treasury to pay more interest into the private sector, which adds dollars, which in turn increases Supply – also inflationary.

So there are opposing Supply and Demand forces, but the Demand force is stronger, which is why raising interest rates has fought inflation:

The following graph shows how the Fed anticipates and fights inflation by raising interest rates, after which inflation falls.

monetary sovereignty

The relationship would be clearer, but for one important factor: The prime cause of inflation for the past 40 years has been oil prices, not low interest rates. (This is one example of the falsity of belief #4, above).

Count #1 as True.

2. LOWERING INTEREST RATES FIGHTS UNEMPLOYMENT
High interest rates fight inflation (i.e. high rates are deflationary), so low rates must be inflationary. But for low rates to fight unemployment, inflation also must correspond with unemployment. This is nonsensical on its face.

The belief is based on the myth that low rates stimulate the economy by encouraging business borrowing. But as described in more detail in the post, The low interest rate/GDP growth fallacy, there is no positive relationship between low interest rates and economic growth.

An excerpt from the post:

What seems to be ignored is the lending side of the equation. When interest rates are low, lenders receive less money. And who are the lenders? Businesses and consumers.

You are a lender when you buy a CD or a bond, or put money into your savings account. When interest rates are low, you receive less money, which means you have less money to spend on goods and service — which means less stimulus for the economy.

Also, when rates are low, the Treasury sends less interest money into the private sector, and banks are less encouraged to lend.

Count #2. as False.

3. EXCESSIVE INFLATION AND EXCESSIVE UNEMPLOYMENT DO NOT OCCUR SIMULTANEOUSLY
The problem with having one tool (interest rates) for solving two different problems is, what does one do when both problems are in opposition. If your only available food is sugar, and you are suffering from both diabetes and starvation, what do you do?

In fact, excessive inflation and excessive unemployment do occur together, and this is known as “stagflation.”

Count #3 as False.

4. INTEREST RATE CONTROL IS A MORE POWERFUL INFLATION AND UNEMPLOYMENT FIGHTER THAN OTHER ECONOMIC FACTORS, SO THAT THE FED ACTUALLY HAS SIGNIFICANT CONTROL.
We already have seen that low interest rates do not stimulate the economy, so do not fight unemployment. On that basis alone, #4 is False.

The most powerful unemployment fighter in America is Congress, which through its spending, creates demand for goods and services. Additionally, the federal government directly employs a great many civilian and military personnel – and none of this is under the Fed’s control.

In summary, the Fed has some control over inflation but has very little effect on unemployment. Janet Yellen’s OC is as big a myth as Ben Bernanke’s QE.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

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

—–

10 Steps to Economic Misery: (Click here:)
1. Maintain or increase the FICA tax..
2. Spread the myth Social Security, Medicare and the U.S. government are insolvent.
3. Cut federal employment in the military, post office, other federal agencies.
4. Broaden the income tax base so more lower income people will pay.
5. Cut financial assistance to the states.
6. Spread the myth federal taxes pay for federal spending.
7. Allow banks to trade for their own accounts; save them when their investments go sour.
8. Never prosecute any banker for criminal activity.
9. Nominate arch conservatives to the Supreme Court.
10. Reduce the federal deficit and debt

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:
1. Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings
2. Gross Domestic Product = Federal Spending + Private Investment and Consumption – Net Imports

THE RECESSION CLOCK
Monetary Sovereignty Monetary Sovereignty

As the federal deficit growth lines drop, we approach recession, which will be cured only when the lines rise.

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY