–How much money would you take to risk your children’s and grandchildren’s lives?

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

Mitchell’s laws:
•Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
•Any monetarily NON-sovereign government — be it city, county, state or nation — that runs an ongoing trade deficit, eventually will run out of money.
•The more federal budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes. .
Liberals think the purpose of government is to protect the poor and powerless from the rich and powerful. Conservatives think the purpose of government is to protect the rich and powerful from the poor and powerless.
•The single most important problem in economics is
the Gap between rich and poor.
•Austerity is the government’s method for widening
the Gap between rich and poor.
•Until the 99% understand the need for federal deficits, the upper 1% will rule.
•Everything in economics devolves to motive, and the motive is the Gap between the rich and the rest..

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

It’s just a question of comparative risk.

How much money would you take to risk your children’s lives? How much would someone have to pay you for you to let your kids run across a busy, high-speed highway, or to take illegal drugs or to swim during a lighting storm?

After all, there is no proof they would be hit by a speeding truck, no evidence that everyone is harmed by drugs, and statistically, the odds are against being hit by lightning.

It’s just a question of risk. So, how much money would you take to put your children at risk?

That is the question the conservatives ask you.

About zero reputable climatologists deny that human activity is causing the earth’s climates to warm, and that this warming will have adverse effects on our lives.

According to the vast majority of climatologists, the science that supports global warming is settled, with the only questions being: How bad will it get and how soon? The answer to both questions is: It has begun, and it will get very bad, unless we do something about it, now.

Most politicians are dishonest. We put up with their dishonesty, because honest people won’t run for office, or if they do, they then become dishonest.

But intentionally destroying future life on our planet, so you can remain in office, falls way below mere dishonesty. It is dishonesty flavored with a dollop of stupidity and a dash of criminal intent.

Here are some of the dishonest and stupid with criminal intent:

Donald Trump: “This very expensive GLOBAL WARMING bullshit has got to stop. Our planet is freezing, record low temps,and our GW scientists are stuck in ice.”

“Scientist” Trump has determined the real scientists are wrong, and there is no risk to your children and grandchildren. Is that good enough for you?

Ben Carson: The climate change debate is “irrelevant.” Temperature change is cyclical. “There’s always going to be either cooling or warming going on.”

“Climatologist” Carson isn’t worried about your children and grandchildren. Their safety is “irrelevant.” Do you trust him on that?

Marco Rubio:We’re not going to make America a harder place to create jobs in order to pursue policies that will do absolutely nothing, nothing to change our climate. America is a lot of things, the greatest country in the world, absolutely. But America is not a planet.”

Climate “expert” Rubio believes there is nothing we can do to save our children’s lives, and anyway, it’s too expensive to try. Do you agree?

Ted Cruz: “If you look at satellite data for the last 18 years, there’s been zero recorded warming. The satellite says it ain’t happening. I’m saying that data and facts don’t support it.”

Well, that settles it. “Meteorologist,” Ted Cruz says the scientists are wrong; there is no danger. Do you feel safe with him determining the fate of your children and grandchildren?

Carly Fiorina: “Every one of the scientists that tell us that climate change is real and being caused by man-made activity also tells us that a single nation acting alone can make no difference at all.”

Blase Fiorina says there is no reason even to try to protect your children’s futures. Kids will run in the streets, smoke cigarettes or swim at dangerous times, and there’s nothing you can do to stop them. So why try? Don’t you agree?

Jeb Bush: “The climate is changing but I don’t think the science is clear on what percentage is man-made and…what percentage is natural. It’s convoluted. And for the people to say the science is decided on this is just really arrogant.”

Yes Jeb, when kids run into the street, it isn’t clear what percentage of the deaths are the kids’ fault and what percentage are the drivers’ fault. It’s really arrogant to prevent kids from running into the street.

Mike Huckabee:Now we’re told that we’re all burning up. Science is not as settled on that as it is on some things.”

Rand Paul: “The earth goes through periods of time when the climate changes, but (I’m) not sure anybody exactly knows why. “

You see, it’s like this. Given the bare possibility that 97% of climatologists are wrong when they say the world will suffer because of global warming, we conservatives recommend you ignore their warnings and endanger your children and grandchildren, rather than taking precautions.

After all, safety for your kids costs money, and our wealthy donors don’t like it.

The rejection of science and the lack of concern about your children’s future seems to be in proportion to how conservative one is. The more conservative, the less concerned about your children.

monetary sovereignty

66% of ALL REGISTERED VOTERS understand global warming is happening, but only 44% of Republicans think so.

A majority of liberal and moderate Republicans understand climate change is happening, but only 29% of Tea Party conservatives agree.

Politicians deny climate change because they are paid to deny. But, why would voters intentionally elect a candidate who will risk their grandchildren’s lives just to garner votes?

If the climate-change deniers are right, all we risk is reducing CO2 at an unnecessary financial cost.

But, if the deniers are wrong, we risk not reducing CO2 at the unnecessary cost of our children’s and grandchildren’s lives.

Which risk are you more willing to accept? What are your kids’ futures worth to you?

Bottom line: Either these conservative politicians care more about money than about your children and grandchildren, or they are just plain addled.

Either way, why would you support them?

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 Click here
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 and here)

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

The Ten Steps will add dollars to the economy, stimulate the economy, and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and the rest.
——————————————————————————————————————————————

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.
1. A growing economy requires a growing supply of dollars (GDP=Federal Spending + Non-federal Spending + Net Exports)
2. All deficit spending grows the supply of dollars
3. The limit to federal deficit spending is an inflation that cannot be cured with interest rate control.
4. The limit to non-federal deficit spending is the ability to borrow.

THE RECESSION CLOCK
Monetary Sovereignty

Recessions come after the blue line drops below zero.

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

–Microevolution, macroevolution, and the stupid party

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

Mitchell’s laws:
•Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
•Any monetarily NON-sovereign government — be it city, county, state or nation — that runs an ongoing trade deficit, eventually will run out of money.
•The more federal budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes. .
Liberals think the purpose of government is to protect the poor and powerless from the rich and powerful. Conservatives think the purpose of government is to protect the rich and powerful from the poor and powerless.
•The single most important problem in economics is
the Gap between rich and poor.
•Austerity is the government’s method for widening
the Gap between rich and poor.
•Until the 99% understand the need for federal deficits, the upper 1% will rule.
•Everything in economics devolves to motive, and the motive is the Gap between the rich and the rest..

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

We are in the year 2015, an enlightened year of science and technology, as contrasted with the Dark Ages, supposedly ruled by superstition and ignorance.

Yet, in this enlightened year:

A major survey of US opinions has revealed that huge numbers of people reject Darwinian evolution, consider GM foods unsafe to eat, and doubt that human activity is warming the planet.

monetary sovereignty

On January 24, 2013, Bobby Jindal, in one of his rare lucid moments said:

“We’ve got to stop being the stupid party. It’s time for a new Republican Party that talks like adults. We had a number of Republicans damage the brand this year with offensive and bizarre comments. I’m here to say we’ve had enough of that.”

To be criticized by Bobby Jindal for being stupid is akin to being criticized by a bear for being furry.

Still, in it’s never-ending efforts to replace science with myth, the religious right continues to promulgate ignorance:

Republican candidate, Ben Carson, the neurosurgeon and living embodiment of mental compartmentalization (i.e., smart in one area; stupid in others), denies Darwinian evolution.

When faced with enormous evidence, Carson backtracked and said: “Microevolution versus macroevolution are two different things.”

What did he mean by that?

Microevolution occurs within a species. For example, arctic bears evolved to be white to blend with the snow, while other bears evolved to be dark to blend with the forest. But they still are bears. They didn’t evolve to become bats.

Carson acknowledges that microevolution happens (though many evolution deniers don’t.) Carson, however, continues to deny that one species can evolve into another species (macroevolution).

The main problem with Carson’s desperate attempt replace science with biblical lore is that “species” is an artificial construct, created by people in an attempt to categorize living creatures. (Humans love to categorize.)

In that sense, nature does not create “species.” People do. And, there is no agreement about exactly what a “species” is.

One common, but sometimes difficult, question is how best to decide which species an organism belongs to, because reproductively isolated groups may not be readily recognizable.

This means that according to one popular definition, “species” refers to sexual reproduction, wherein the dividing line is: One species cannot impregnate another species.

Another common problem is how to define reproductive isolation, because some separately evolving groups may continue to interbreed to some extent, and it can be a difficult matter to discover whether this hybridization affects the long-term genetic make-up of the groups.

So when Carson denies macroevolution exists, he denies not only the tons and tons of scientific evidence, but he doesn’t even know what he is denying. There is no agreement on exactly what a “species” is.

And all of this begs the question, “From where did homo sapiens (that’s us) come?” “Homo” is the species, and presumably it had a beginning. Carson, and others of similar leanings, apparently claim that homo at some point sprang fully formed, as in “So God created man in His own image.”

It’s difficult to do justice to the full range of Carson’s scientific ignorance, but here are some excerpts:

Ben Carson: Evolution Is An Absurd Myth, ‘Give Me A Break’

“They (scientists) are so smart that if they can’t explain how God did something, then it didn’t happen which, of course means that they’re God. You don’t need a God if you consider yourself capable of explaining everything.”

The irony is that it is the religionists like Carson, who claim they can explain everything with the simple declaration: “God did it.”

By contrast, science is based on the admission that we don’t know everything, and the very purpose of science is to discover what we don’t know, and to verify what we may believe.

He claimed that “no one has the knowledge” of the age of the earth “based on the Bible,” adding that “carbon dating and all of these things really don’t mean anything to a God who has the ability to create anything at any point in time.”

Note that his statement has nothing to do with the validity of carbon dating. He merely rejects science in favor of religious faith.

(Carson) said evolution is unable to explain the development of an eyeball: “Give me a break. According to their scheme, it had to occur overnight, it had to be there. I instead say, if you have an intelligent creator, what he does is give his creatures the ability to adapt to the environment so he doesn’t have to start over every fifty years creating all over again.”

The “eyeball” objection has been used by evolution deniers for many years. It is completely untrue, and is a demonstration of Carson’s remarkable ignorance:

Scientists have traced the evolution of the eyeball from a “simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature (that) gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator.

Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight.

In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists’ hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve.

The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist’s calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch.

One well could wonder how a medical doctor could fail to know this. Don’t medical doctors take biology classes? Don’t they have to pass biology exams?

Oh, but it gets better (i.e. worse):

Ben Carson Forgets Baltic States Are in NATO, Dates Islam to Before Christ

and

But just when it seemed Carson couldn’t move any further from reality, he sat down with TV preacher Pat Robertson’s Christian Broadcasting Network and came up with a brand new fantasy.

Carson said Putin shares a deep historical tie with Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas, suggesting he became acquainted with them during their college days in Moscow when Putin was a young KGB operative.

The Christian Broadcasting Network’s report referred to this as a “little known historical fact.” The trouble is, it’s little known because it’s not a historical fact.

There’s literally no evidence to suggest Khamenei ever studied in the former Soviet Union. And since he and Abbas are several years older than Putin, the timeline doesn’t even make sense – Putin would have been a 16-year-old high school student at the time.

All together, Carson’s abysmal ignorance about evolution, geopolitics, climate change (“There’s always going to be either cooling or warming going on” “It’s ‘irrelevant.’”), gun control (“In case of an invasion by foreign power, the people will be able to aid the military. And also, if we have a time when we have the wrong people in office and they want to dominate the people, the people will be able to defend themselves.”), homosexuality (“It’s a choice.”), poverty (Create a regressive flat tax and eliminate policies sheltering the poor from having to pay taxes.), religious freedom (A Muslim should only be president if he or she “renounces the tenets of Islam.”) and other ideas of similar malodor, make Carson a perfect Republican — a perfect representative of Jindal’s “stupid party.”

The fact that Carson currently ranks #2 (to Donald Trump) says little about Carson and Trump, and much about the Republican electorate.

But then again, what choices do they have? The Republicans have created rules about what constitutes a REAL Republican, and to follow those rules, a candidate first must join the “stupid party.”

For once in his life, Bobby Jindal was right on target

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 Click here
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 and here)

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

The Ten Steps will add dollars to the economy, stimulate the economy, and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and the rest.
——————————————————————————————————————————————

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.
1. A growing economy requires a growing supply of dollars (GDP=Federal Spending + Non-federal Spending + Net Exports)
2. All deficit spending grows the supply of dollars
3. The limit to federal deficit spending is an inflation that cannot be cured with interest rate control.
4. The limit to non-federal deficit spending is the ability to borrow.

THE RECESSION CLOCK
Monetary Sovereignty

Recessions come after the blue line drops below zero.

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

–Why Costco always runs a deficit.

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

Mitchell’s laws:
•Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
•Any monetarily NON-sovereign government — be it city, county, state or nation — that runs an ongoing trade deficit, eventually will run out of money.
•The more federal budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes. .
Liberals think the purpose of government is to protect the poor and powerless from the rich and powerful. Conservatives think the purpose of government is to protect the rich and powerful from the poor and powerless.
•The single most important problem in economics is
the Gap between rich and poor.
•Austerity is the government’s method for widening
the Gap between rich and poor.
•Until the 99% understand the need for federal deficits, the upper 1% will rule.
•Everything in economics devolves to motive, and the motive is the Gap between the rich and the rest..

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

Almost every day, you read about some politician, economist or media writer bemoaning “the deficit” and/or “the debt.” Your own friends may do the same.

The word “deficit” merely means more money goes out than comes in. When one side runs a deficit, the other side runs a surplus. Always.

So when the federal government runs a deficit, who runs the surplus? The economy.

Visualize this scenario:

You are an employee of, say, Costco. They pay you a salary. You use some of that salary to buy from Costco, food, clothing, pharmaceuticals and hard goods.

So dollars flow back and forth, from Costco to you and your fellow employees (salaries), and from you and your fellow employees back to Costco (spending).

Which of the following is better for employees:

1. Costco pays it employees more than what the employees spend at Costco. In this example, Costco runs a “deficit” vs. its employees.

or

2. Costco pays its employees less than what the employees spend at Costco. Here, Costco runs a “surplus” vs. its employees.

Which of the above is better for the employees, #1 or #2?

The answer is obvious. It’s better for employees to receive more money from Costco than they give back to Costco. It’s better for employees when Costco runs a “deficit” with them.

And, in fact Costco, and almost every business, runs a deficit vs. its employees. Costco is able to do this, because Costco has additional income from other customers. That is the way business works.

In #2, if Costco ran an ongoing “surplus” vs. its employees, i.e. if Costco employees spent more with Costco than they received from Costco, the employees eventually would run short of money and go bankrupt.

Now let’s make some substitutions: Instead of “Costco,” use the words, “the federal government.” And instead of “employees,” use the words, “the economy.”

Which of the following will grow the economy:

1. The federal government pays the economy more than what the economy pays the federal government. The federal government runs a “deficit” vs. the economy (the current situation).

or

2. The federal government pays the economy less than what the economy pays the federal government. The federal government runs a “surplus” vs. the economy (the politicians’ proposal).

Which will grow the economy? Again, the answer is obvious. Economic growth is more likely when the economy receives more money from the federal government (federal spending) than the economy sends back to the federal government (in taxes).

The economy is more likely to grow when the federal government runs a “deficit.”

And, in fact, the federal government almost always runs a deficit vs. its residents. The federal government is able to do this, because the federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, creates its own income. That is the way a Monetary Sovereignty works.

In #2, if Costco ran an ongoing “surplus” with its employees, i.e. if Costco employees spent more with Costco than they received from Costco, the employees eventually would run short of money and go bankrupt.

There have been companies that have run surpluses with their employees. Coal mines, for instance, with their company stores, are infamous (“I owe my soul to the company store.”) for impoverishing their workers.

Similarly, governments that run surpluses with their residents are infamous for impoverishing their residents, which is why austerity (i.e. deficit reduction) always produces economic hardship.

Rather than bemoaning the federal government’s deficit, we should encourage the economy’s income. The federal deficit is one of the two primary sources of economic income (the other being Net Exports).

It mathematically is illogical to speak against federal deficits while hoping for economic growth.

Consider the irony of politicians railing against “big government” and for private economic growth, while simultaneously wanting more net dollars to flow to the government and fewer net dollars to flow to the private economy.

Costco runs a deficit vs. its employees. So must the federal government run a deficit vs. its residents.

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 Click here
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 and here)

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

The Ten Steps will add dollars to the economy, stimulate the economy, and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and the rest.
——————————————————————————————————————————————

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.
1. A growing economy requires a growing supply of dollars (GDP=Federal Spending + Non-federal Spending + Net Exports)
2. All deficit spending grows the supply of dollars
3. The limit to federal deficit spending is an inflation that cannot be cured with interest rate control.
4. The limit to non-federal deficit spending is the ability to borrow.

THE RECESSION CLOCK
Monetary Sovereignty

Recessions come after the blue line drops below zero.

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

–The magic of partial solutions

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

Mitchell’s laws:
•Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
•Any monetarily NON-sovereign government — be it city, county, state or nation — that runs an ongoing trade deficit, eventually will run out of money.
•The more federal budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes. .
Liberals think the purpose of government is to protect the poor and powerless from the rich and powerful. Conservatives think the purpose of government is to protect the rich and powerful from the poor and powerless.
•The single most important problem in economics is
the Gap between rich and poor.
•Austerity is the government’s method for widening
the Gap between rich and poor.
•Until the 99% understand the need for federal deficits, the upper 1% will rule.
•Everything in economics devolves to motive, and the motive is the Gap between the rich and the rest..

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

THERE ARE NO SOLUTIONS; ONLY PARTIAL SOLUTIONS.

Nearly all human problems are solved in increments. It is rare for any problem to be solved entirely, by one all-encompassing solution.

Influenza is a problem. It is not completely solved by vaccination, but vaccination does reduce the number and severity of cases. Vaccination is a partial solution.

The Chicago Bears’s problem is in winning games. A better defensive line, or a better defensive backfield or a better quarterback will not solve the problem. But each is a worthwhile partial solution.

The widening income/wealth/power gap between the rich and the rest is a serious problem. Step #1 in the 10 Steps to prosperity (Eliminate FICA), won’t solve the problem. It’s a partial solution.

The inability of the poor to obtain a college education is a problem. A partial solution is Step #4 in the 10 Steps to Prosperity: Free education (including post-grad) for everyone.

It won’t solve the whole problem. Many poor students don’t receive enough of a K-12 education to allow for success in 13+. And some so need to work for dollars, even free college isn’t enough to attract them. Step #4 is a partial solution.

Each of the Ten Steps to Prosperity is “only” a partial solution.

Every scientific, business and technical advance in history is one “car” in a long train of partial solutions.

Yet some people regard seriously, the quasi-logical objection, “It won’t solve the problem.”

Gun murder is a problem. But any suggestions regarding the evaluation of gun purchasers, stricter gun laws or less lethal guns are dismissed by the National Rifle Association and its gun-manufacturer sponsors as not solving “the problem.”

“It won’t prevent mass murder.” “It won’t stop bad guys from getting guns.” “If someone wants to kill, they can use a knife.” “If guns are illegal, only criminals will have guns.” Etc, etc, etc..

But each gun-control proposal is an attempt at a partial solution, that to some degree will lessen the problem. Problems are solved by partial solutions.

Restricting gun ownership to just a few types of less lethal weapons, won’t prevent all gun-related murders. Some “bad guys” might acquire the more lethal weapons, but some might not. And even less-lethal weapons can kill. But isn’t preventing some gun-related murders an improvement?

And using a national database to prevent gun ownership by the mentally challenged or by criminals, will not prevent all mass school shootings. Some crazies and criminals will get guns. But isn’t stopping some mass shootings worthwhile?

And no, requiring gun owners to belong to that “well-regulated militia” mentioned in the Constitution, will not prevent all “bad guys” from acquiring guns — but it would stop some of them.

And adding an automatic 20-year sentence to any crime involving a gun, will not prevent all gun-related crimes — but it would stop some of them.

We all are born good guys. The first time someone commits a crime, he becomes a “bad guy.” The easy availability of guns turns some good guys into bad guys. Making guns less available is a partial solution to gun crime.

Many gun-related murders are committed in the home, by husbands, wives and other relatives and friends. A law requiring anyone receiving an order of protection, to turn in all guns in their possession, might prevent some of those gun murders.

Gun accidents occur in the home. A law requiring guns to have trigger locks when stored might prevent some gun accidents.

(This begs the question, “Would the NRA’s call for more gun ownership eliminate gun murder?” Of course not. Even the NRA could claim it only would be a partial solution, though in all probability it greatly would exacerbate the problem.)

This post has focused on gun injuries and killings, partly as an example of partial solutions, and partly because partial solutions routinely are demeaned by gun owners.

The need for partial solutions applies to all problems and all laws.

One could argue that even with laws against burglary, “bad guys” burgle, while “good guys” (victims) are at a disadvantage. They lose by being burgled.

Eliminate laws against burglary, and everyone could burgle, which would “level the playing field,” just as allowing everyone to carry a gun supposedly levels the playing field. So, shall we eliminate laws against burglary?

One could argue that no law makes sense, because “bad guys” will break the law, and the only people obeying the law would be “good guy” victims. Shall we eliminate all laws?

In a world without laws, the less moral — the bad guys — have a tactical advantage over the more moral. But fortunately in our society, we do have laws, which we base on some elements of our perceived morality, to protect the moral from the immoral.

We pass our laws, not believing they will be totally curative, but rather because we believe they will, to greater or lesser degree, be ameliorative.

Some prevention is better than none.

Bottom line: All laws restrict “good guys” and all laws are partial solutions. But we need laws.

Never demean the power of “only” partial solutions. Partial solutions are all we have.

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 Click here
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 and here)

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

The Ten Steps will add dollars to the economy, stimulate the economy, and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and the rest.
——————————————————————————————————————————————

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.
1. A growing economy requires a growing supply of dollars (GDP=Federal Spending + Non-federal Spending + Net Exports)
2. All deficit spending grows the supply of dollars
3. The limit to federal deficit spending is an inflation that cannot be cured with interest rate control.
4. The limit to non-federal deficit spending is the ability to borrow.

THE RECESSION CLOCK
Monetary Sovereignty

Recessions come after the blue line drops below zero.

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