Tag: monetarily non-sovereign

Voting under red-state rule

Native Americans in Nevada Will Have to Travel Almost 100 Miles Round-Trip to Vote

Two tribes, the Pyramid Lake Paiutes and Walker River Paiutes, filed a lawsuit in federal court last week demanding that Nevada establish satellite election offices on their reservations so they have the same ballot access as white members of their community.

Both tribes argue that the lack of voter registration offices and early voting locations on their reservations hurts Native American voter turnout.

“She happens to be a Tea Party Republican,” said Bret Healy, a consultant with the Native American voting rights group Four Directions.

“It’s not unknown if you look at data at all, that ‘those Indians, they vote the wrong way.’ It’s a one-point, two-point Trump-Clinton race and the Senate race is that tight too.”

“She would get, I’m sure, excoriated by her Republican colleagues if she would make it easier for a constituency that leans Democratic to vote,” he continued.

Meanwhile, white residents of the same counties have voting centers located within their communities. Residents of Incline Village, a wealthy town near northern Lake Tahoe, only need to drive a few miles.

Frankly, we don’t know why they are complaining. Here is a very fine, satellite, election office they can use. Note the happy smiles on the two, typical voters:

Here, in one picture, are two more scenic election office locations, one right behind the other:

And here is one low-income voter going to a convenient, red-state voting location:

So quitcher bitchin’, you poor “takers.” We Republicans are on your side. Trust us.

Anyway, a vote isn’t all that important, is it?

(Don’t forget to bring your driver’s license and all other forms of identification we hope you don’t have.)

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

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

•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 short of money. By contrast, a Monetarily Sovereign government cannot run short of its own sovereign money.

•The more federal budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes..

•No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth.

•Cutting federal deficits to grow the economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia.

•A growing economy requires a growing supply of money (GDP = Federal Spending + Non-federal Spending + Net Exports)

•Deficit spending grows the supply of money

•The limit to federal deficit spending is an inflation that cannot be cured with interest rate control. The United States never has had such an inflation. •The limit to non-federal deficit spending is the ability to borrow.

•The federal government does not borrow. The so-called “debt” is deposits in T-security accounts at the Federal Reserve Bank.

•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 the rest..

•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..

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Obamacare and the Big Lie

Today, in its seemingly unending effort to promulgate The Big Lie (i.e. that, “federal taxes fund federal spending”), the Chicago Tribune published an editorial titled, “Why Obamacare Failed.”

Here are some excerpts:

Come November, Illinois consumers likely face staggering price hikes for individual insurance policies.

Some types of plans could cost an average of 43 percent to 55 percent more. Ditto across the country:

Many Illinois consumers will find fewer choices because major carriers fled this market.

The Affordable Care Act has been criticized (because) its success depended on states supporting their marketplaces and enrolling healthy consumers.

Yes, the ACA depended on monetarily non-sovereign states and monetarily non-sovereign people paying for the health insurance that the Monetarily Sovereign federal government easily could have, and should have, paid for. (See: Medicare for All.)

Those insurers fled because they didn’t want to lose more money on a market they think likely will never be profitable for them.

So let’s look at the failings and how they can drive solutions:

Obamacare failed because it flunked Economics 101 and Human Nature 101. It straitjacketed insurers into providing overly expensive, soup-to-nuts policies.

It wasn’t flexible enough so that people could buy as much coverage as they wanted and could afford — not what the government dictated. Many healthy people primarily want catastrophic coverage.

Obamacare couldn’t lure them in, couldn’t persuade them to buy on the chance they’d get sick.

Obamacare failed because it charged the public for benefits the government should fund.

The Tribune’s “logic” could apply to all government spending. (i.e. Allow each individual to pay only for as much federal highway as he wants, as much grade school as he wants, as much fire protection as he wants, as much military as he wants, as much food inspection as he wants, as much air safety as he wants, etc.)

And how does anyone know in advance how much healthcare funding he will need? If someone miscalculates and suddenly needs more hospital care than he can afford, what should America do about that person?  What about a poor person who can’t even afford an annual exam?

The rich love pay-for-service plans. Being able to pay for more, they receive the best service.  This may be O.K. in Las Vegas casinos, but not for healthcare.

Obamacare failed because the penalties for going uncovered are too low when stacked against its skyrocketing premium costs.

Next year, the penalty for staying uninsured is $695 per adult, or perhaps 2.5 percent of a family’s taxable household income. That’s far less than many Americans would pay for coverage.

Financial incentive: Skip Obamacare.

True, and that is the whole point of federally funded healthcare insurance.

We shouldn’t penalize people for not being able to afford insurance. Medicare for All would solve that problem.

Obamacare failed because insurance is based on risk pools — that is, the lucky subsidize the unlucky.

The unlucky who have big health problems (and big medical bills) reap much greater benefits than those who remain healthy and out of the doctors’ office.

But Obamacare’s rules hamstring insurers.

They can’t exclude people for pre-existing conditions, and can’t charge older customers more than three times as much as the young.

Those are good goals, but they skew the market in ways Obamacare didn’t figure out how to offset.

True: That is why regular Medicare exists.

Old people get sick more often than do young people. Private insurance is based on the profit motive. If private insurance companies had their way, old people either could not find health insurance or could not afford to pay for it.

Apparently, the rich insurance executives would be happy if insurance companies could “exclude people for pre-existing conditions, and charge older customers more than three times as much as the young.”

Federally funded Medicare for All would solve that problem.

Obamacare failed because it allowed Americans to sign up after they got sick and needed help paying all those medical bills.

Insurance should be structured so that, although you don’t know if you’ll need it, you pay for it anyway, just in case; your alternative is financial doom.

But if you can game the system and, for example, buy auto coverage after you crash into your garage, then you have no incentive to buy insurance beforehand.

True. But Medicare for All would be funded by the federal government, thus solving that problem.

Obamacare failed because it hasn’t tamed U.S. medical costs. Health care is about supply and demand: People who get coverage use it, especially if the law mandates free preventive care.

Iron law of economics: Nothing is free; someone pays. To pretend otherwise was folly. Those forces combined to spike the costs of care, and thus insurance costs.

When the Chicago Tribune says, “People who get coverage use it, especially if the law mandates free preventive care,” they really are saying, “Only the rich should receive full health care, including preventive care. You middle- and lower-income people should settle for the lower quality of the health care you can afford.”

And as for that supposed “Iron law of economics, nothing is free.” Total hogwash.  It is the fundamental expression of what has become known as THE BIG LIE.

The federal government, unlike you, and me, and the cities, counties, and states, is Monetarily Sovereign. It creates free dollars every single day. 

No, your federal taxes do not fund federal spending. Even if FICA and all other federal taxes fell to $0, the federal government could continue spending, forever. Dollars are created by laws, and laws are free.

And no again, this would not cause inflation. Being Monetarily Sovereign, the federal government has absolute control over the value of its own sovereign currency, the dollar. It has the unlimited ability to cause, prevent, or cure inflation.

Obamacare failed because too many carriers simply can’t cover expenses, let alone turn a profit, in this rigidly controlled system. Take Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Illinois, the state’s dominant Obamacare insurer.

Last year, for every dollar the carrier collected, it spent $1.32 buying care and providing services for customers, according to BCBS President Maurice Smith. No wonder BCBS is proposing rate increases from 23 percent to 45 percent for its individual plans.

Correct: That is the fundamental weakness of private health-care insurance. It relies on the profit motive. 

Federally funded Medicare for All would solve that problem.

The solutions to Obamacare are implicit in its failures. A repaired or replaced system has to be more flexible, letting insurers offer a wider range of plans so that consumers, not lawmakers or bureaucrats, dictate what’s best for them.

“A wider range of plans” is code for: Plans that cover less and have larger deductibles, i.e poor plans for the poor, and platinum plans for the rich.

The Tribune is correct that the solutions are implicit in its failures. The failure is privately funded insurance that relies on the profit motive.

The solution is to remove the profit motive and provide federally funded insurance: Medicare for All.

That system should protect those who carry continuous coverage, not coddle those who duck in and out of plans when their health needs change.

In short, the Tribune does not want to “coddle” you people who struggle every day to make ends meet.

They don’t want to “coddle” you coupon-clippers, who buy your clothing at resale stores, and drive ten-year-old cars.

They don’t want to “coddle” you if you don’t know how you will pay for rent and food, much less for college tuition or for student debt.

The very rich people know you are a lazy, good-for-nothing “taker,” always trying to get something free, when you should pay for it like the rich people do, even when you can’t.

(We’re talking about those rich people who apparently aren’t “coddled,” even when they bribe politicians to create tax dodges, tax havens, and  tax manipulations. Allowing the rich to duck their taxes — that’s not coddling in the world of the Chicago Tribune.)

A new system also should let Americans not covered via an employer reap tax credits to help finance their insurance purchases on the open market.

Ah, the old “tax credits” scam. It’s the right-wing’s gift to the insurance companies, so they can charge as much as they wish and profits can be supported further by “tax credits.”

Never mind that tax credit savings won’t nearly cover health insurance costs. And never mind that a “tax credit” means a great deal more to those in a high tax bracket than to you.

Apparently, the Tribune owners think everyone is in a high tax bracket.

No, they really don’t. They are well aware that what they are proposing will widen the Gap between the rich and the rest.

And tell us again: Why can’t insurers sell policies across state lines? Imagine the pricing competition that would unleash.

O.K., so long as you’re asking, we’ll tell you.

Historically, insurance has been one of the most scam-based industries in the world. It’s complex and filled with fine print.  So, by necessity, is highly regulated — by the states.

But if insurance were sold across state lines, who would regulate it? Answer: The state with the flimsiest regulations.

People would shop around for the state in which the insurance companies have done the best bribery job, and that is where the lowest priced (worst) insurance scams would be found.

The Tribune seems to hate regulations.  Presumably, it wants to allow the rich insurance executives to do whatever they please. Let the consumer be damned.

Anyway, there would be no need to sell insurance across state lines if the government offered federally funded Medicare for All.

Not only would high insurance costs not be a problem, but federal payments for those high costs actually would benefit the economy.

The bottom line: The pro-rich, anti-poor want you not just to be dissatisfied with Obamacare (reasonable),  but to let your dissatisfaction turn you to an even worse system that will enrich the rich and impoverish the rest.

And it all begins with The Big Lie.

The real solution to the faults of Obamacare is found in Steps #1 and #2 of the Ten Steps to Prosperity (below).

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

===================================================================================
Ten Steps to Prosperity:
1. ELIMINATE FICA (Ten Reasons to Eliminate FICA )
Although the article lists 10 reasons to eliminate FICA, there are two fundamental reasons:
*FICA is the most regressive tax in American history, widening the Gap by punishing the low and middle-income groups, while leaving the rich untouched, and
*The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, neither needs nor uses FICA to support Social Security and Medicare.
2. FEDERALLY FUNDED MEDICARE — PARTS A, B & D, PLUS LONG TERM CARE — FOR EVERYONE (H.R. 676, Medicare for All )
This article addresses the questions:
*Does the economy benefit when the rich afford better health care than the rest of Americans?
*Aside from improved health care, what are the other economic effects of “Medicare for everyone?”
*How much would it cost taxpayers?
*Who opposes it?”
3. PROVIDE AN ANNUAL ECONOMIC BONUS TO EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA, AND/OR EVERY STATE, A PER CAPITA ECONOMIC BONUS (The JG (Jobs Guarantee) vs the GI (Guaranteed Income) vs the EB) Or institute a reverse income tax.
This article is the fifth in a series about direct financial assistance to Americans:

Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Employer of Last Resort is a bad idea. Sunday, Jan 1 2012
MMT’s Job Guarantee (JG) — “Another crazy, rightwing, Austrian nutjob?” Thursday, Jan 12 2012
Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Jobs Guarantee is like the EU’s euro: A beloved solution to the wrong problem. Tuesday, May 29 2012
“You can’t fire me. I’m on JG” Saturday, Jun 2 2012

Economic growth should include the “bottom” 99.9%, not just the .1%, the only question being, how best to accomplish that. Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) favors giving everyone a job. Monetary Sovereignty (MS) favors giving everyone money. The five articles describe the pros and cons of each approach.
4. FREE EDUCATION (INCLUDING POST-GRAD) FOR EVERYONEFive reasons why we should eliminate school loans
Monetarily non-sovereign State and local governments, despite their limited finances, support grades K-12. That level of education may have been sufficient for a largely agrarian economy, but not for our currently more technical economy that demands greater numbers of highly educated workers.
Because state and local funding is so limited, grades K-12 receive short shrift, especially those schools whose populations come from the lowest economic groups. And college is too costly for most families.
An educated populace benefits a nation, and benefiting the nation is the purpose of the federal government, which has the unlimited ability to pay for K-16 and beyond.
5. SALARY FOR ATTENDING SCHOOL
Even were schooling to be completely free, many young people cannot attend, because they and their families cannot afford to support non-workers. In a foundering boat, everyone needs to bail, and no one can take time off for study.
If a young person’s “job” is to learn and be productive, he/she should be paid to do that job, especially since that job is one of America’s most important.
6. ELIMINATE CORPORATE TAXES
Corporations themselves exist only as legalities. They don’t pay taxes or pay for anything else. They are dollar-tranferring machines. They transfer dollars from customers to employees, suppliers, shareholders and the government (the later having no use for those dollars).
Any tax on corporations reduces the amount going to employees, suppliers and shareholders, which diminishes the economy. Ultimately, all corporate taxes come around and reappear as deductions from your personal income.
7. INCREASE THE STANDARD INCOME TAX DEDUCTION, ANNUALLY. (Refer to this.) Federal taxes punish taxpayers and harm the economy. The federal government has no need for those punishing and harmful tax dollars. There are several ways to reduce taxes, and we should evaluate and choose the most progressive approaches.
Cutting FICA and corporate taxes would be an good early step, as both dramatically affect the 99%. Annual increases in the standard income tax deduction, and a reverse income tax also would provide benefits from the bottom up. Both would narrow the Gap.
8. TAX THE VERY RICH (THE “.1%) MORE, WITH HIGHER PROGRESSIVE TAX RATES ON ALL FORMS OF INCOME. (TROPHIC CASCADE)
There was a time when I argued against increasing anyone’s federal taxes. After all, the federal government has no need for tax dollars, and all taxes reduce Gross Domestic Product, thereby negatively affecting the entire economy, including the 99.9%.
But I have come to realize that narrowing the Gap requires trimming the top. It simply would not be possible to provide the 99.9% with enough benefits to narrow the Gap in any meaningful way. Bill Gates reportedly owns $70 billion. To get to that level, he must have been earning $10 billion a year. Pick any acceptable Gap (1000 to 1?), and the lowest paid American would have to receive $10 million a year. Unreasonable.
9. FEDERAL OWNERSHIP OF ALL BANKS (Click The end of private banking and How should America decide “who-gets-money”?)
Banks have created all the dollars that exist. Even dollars created at the direction of the federal government, actually come into being when banks increase the numbers in checking accounts. This gives the banks enormous financial power, and as we all know, power corrupts — especially when multiplied by a profit motive.
Although the federal government also is powerful and corrupted, it does not suffer from a profit motive, the world’s most corrupting influence.
10. INCREASE FEDERAL SPENDING ON THE MYRIAD INITIATIVES THAT BENEFIT AMERICA’S 99.9% (Federal agencies)Browse the agencies. See how many agencies benefit the lower- and middle-income/wealth/ power groups, by adding dollars to the economy and/or by actions more beneficial to the 99.9% than to the .1%.
Save this reference as your primer to current economics. Sadly, much of the material is not being taught in American schools, which is all the more reason for you to use it.

The Ten Steps will grow the economy, and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and you.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Job Openings for Trumpsplainers.

Though official data show unemployment in the U.S. has fallen below 5%, many people still unsuccessfully are looking for work.

There is one job that always will be open, because so many people are needed to fill it: Trumpsplainer — the people who ‘splain what Trump “really” meant after he says something stupid.

Currently, that job is filled by Mike Pence, and Donald Trump, Jr., and Kellyanne Conway (who took over after Corey Lewandowski, and Paul Manafort et al).

Trumpsplaining is not easy because of volume.  There simply are so many comments to ‘splain:

“On birtherism, Donald Trump’s campaign manager wants him to be somebody Trump doesn’t want to be

(Trumpsplainer) Kellyanne Conway, Donald Trump’s campaign manager, sat for an interview with CNN Friday morning in which she became the latest prominent surrogate for the Republican presidential candidate to attempt a walk away from his long support of the disproved notion that President Obama was not born in the United States.

==========================================================================================================================================================
Mike Pence defends Donald Trump comments on Vladimir Putin

“I think it’s inarguable that Vladimir Putin has been a stronger leader in his country than Barack Obama has been in this country. And that’s going to change the day that Donald Trump becomes president,” (Trumpsplainer) Pence said.

But pressed on the difference between the two nation’s governments — namely that in the US democracy presidents share power with Congress, Pence acknowledged that Trump was not advocating for a dictatorship.

“Donald Trump said last night he doesn’t particularly like the system,” Pence said in reference to Russia.

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

Watch Kellyanne Conway fail to explain why Trump’s new immigration stance is different than Cruz, Rubio or Bush

Donald Trump campaign manager (and Trumpsplainer) Kellyanne Conway couldn’t explain how Donald Trump’s new immigration plan is any different than those proposed by Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush during the primaries.

We’re sure Kellyanne will become a better Trumpsplainer as she gets more and more and more experience.

There will be an ongoing need for Trumpsplaining — enough ‘splaining that she clearly is overwhelmed and needs help.

So, contact the Trump campaign and apply for the Trumpsplaining job.

Trumpsplaining may be what Donald Trump meant when he said he would be “The Greatest Jobs President God Ever Created”

The need for Trumpsplainers alone could cut the unemployment rate a few points.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

===================================================================================
Ten Steps to Prosperity:
1. ELIMINATE FICA (Ten Reasons to Eliminate FICA )
Although the article lists 10 reasons to eliminate FICA, there are two fundamental reasons:
*FICA is the most regressive tax in American history, widening the Gap by punishing the low and middle-income groups, while leaving the rich untouched, and
*The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, neither needs nor uses FICA to support Social Security and Medicare.
2. FEDERALLY FUNDED MEDICARE — PARTS A, B & D, PLUS LONG TERM CARE — FOR EVERYONE (H.R. 676, Medicare for All )
This article addresses the questions:
*Does the economy benefit when the rich afford better health care than the rest of Americans?
*Aside from improved health care, what are the other economic effects of “Medicare for everyone?”
*How much would it cost taxpayers?
*Who opposes it?”
3. PROVIDE AN ANNUAL ECONOMIC BONUS TO EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA, AND/OR EVERY STATE, A PER CAPITA ECONOMIC BONUS (The JG (Jobs Guarantee) vs the GI (Guaranteed Income) vs the EB) Or institute a reverse income tax.
This article is the fifth in a series about direct financial assistance to Americans:

Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Employer of Last Resort is a bad idea. Sunday, Jan 1 2012
MMT’s Job Guarantee (JG) — “Another crazy, rightwing, Austrian nutjob?” Thursday, Jan 12 2012
Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Jobs Guarantee is like the EU’s euro: A beloved solution to the wrong problem. Tuesday, May 29 2012
“You can’t fire me. I’m on JG” Saturday, Jun 2 2012

Economic growth should include the “bottom” 99.9%, not just the .1%, the only question being, how best to accomplish that. Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) favors giving everyone a job. Monetary Sovereignty (MS) favors giving everyone money. The five articles describe the pros and cons of each approach.
4. FREE EDUCATION (INCLUDING POST-GRAD) FOR EVERYONEFive reasons why we should eliminate school loans
Monetarily non-sovereign State and local governments, despite their limited finances, support grades K-12. That level of education may have been sufficient for a largely agrarian economy, but not for our currently more technical economy that demands greater numbers of highly educated workers.
Because state and local funding is so limited, grades K-12 receive short shrift, especially those schools whose populations come from the lowest economic groups. And college is too costly for most families.
An educated populace benefits a nation, and benefiting the nation is the purpose of the federal government, which has the unlimited ability to pay for K-16 and beyond.
5. SALARY FOR ATTENDING SCHOOL
Even were schooling to be completely free, many young people cannot attend, because they and their families cannot afford to support non-workers. In a foundering boat, everyone needs to bail, and no one can take time off for study.
If a young person’s “job” is to learn and be productive, he/she should be paid to do that job, especially since that job is one of America’s most important.
6. ELIMINATE CORPORATE TAXES
Corporations themselves exist only as legalities. They don’t pay taxes or pay for anything else. They are dollar-tranferring machines. They transfer dollars from customers to employees, suppliers, shareholders and the government (the later having no use for those dollars).
Any tax on corporations reduces the amount going to employees, suppliers and shareholders, which diminishes the economy. Ultimately, all corporate taxes come around and reappear as deductions from your personal income.
7. INCREASE THE STANDARD INCOME TAX DEDUCTION, ANNUALLY. (Refer to this.) Federal taxes punish taxpayers and harm the economy. The federal government has no need for those punishing and harmful tax dollars. There are several ways to reduce taxes, and we should evaluate and choose the most progressive approaches.
Cutting FICA and corporate taxes would be an good early step, as both dramatically affect the 99%. Annual increases in the standard income tax deduction, and a reverse income tax also would provide benefits from the bottom up. Both would narrow the Gap.
8. TAX THE VERY RICH (THE “.1%) MORE, WITH HIGHER PROGRESSIVE TAX RATES ON ALL FORMS OF INCOME. (TROPHIC CASCADE)
There was a time when I argued against increasing anyone’s federal taxes. After all, the federal government has no need for tax dollars, and all taxes reduce Gross Domestic Product, thereby negatively affecting the entire economy, including the 99.9%.
But I have come to realize that narrowing the Gap requires trimming the top. It simply would not be possible to provide the 99.9% with enough benefits to narrow the Gap in any meaningful way. Bill Gates reportedly owns $70 billion. To get to that level, he must have been earning $10 billion a year. Pick any acceptable Gap (1000 to 1?), and the lowest paid American would have to receive $10 million a year. Unreasonable.
9. FEDERAL OWNERSHIP OF ALL BANKS (Click The end of private banking and How should America decide “who-gets-money”?)
Banks have created all the dollars that exist. Even dollars created at the direction of the federal government, actually come into being when banks increase the numbers in checking accounts. This gives the banks enormous financial power, and as we all know, power corrupts — especially when multiplied by a profit motive.
Although the federal government also is powerful and corrupted, it does not suffer from a profit motive, the world’s most corrupting influence.
10. INCREASE FEDERAL SPENDING ON THE MYRIAD INITIATIVES THAT BENEFIT AMERICA’S 99.9% (Federal agencies)Browse the agencies. See how many agencies benefit the lower- and middle-income/wealth/ power groups, by adding dollars to the economy and/or by actions more beneficial to the 99.9% than to the .1%.
Save this reference as your primer to current economics. Sadly, much of the material is not being taught in American schools, which is all the more reason for you to use it.

The Ten Steps will grow the economy, and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and you.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Which is more important to you: Your privacy or your life?

Your privacy vs. your lifespan might seem like a strange alternative, something like baseball vs. celery, but in fact, it is one of the great questions of today and of tomorrow.

DISCOVER MAGAZINE, October 2016 edition:

Eric Dishman, a former Intel executive now at the National Institutes of Health, was a 19-year-old college sophomore when he was diagnosed with a rare form of kidney cancer.

Over the course of the next 23 years, he would receive 62 different kinds of chemotherapy, immunotherapy and radiation. Some slowed the tumor’s growth, but never for long. The cancer spread from his left kidney to right kidney.

Just when it seemed Dishman had run out of options, a chance encounter in 2012 with a scientist working for a now-defunct genome-testing company presented an opportunity he couldn’t refuse.

He had his cancerous tissue sequenced, a process that would compare his cancer’s mutated DNA with a healthy patient’s genome.

This would let doctors look for genetic mutations and other abnormalities that support cancer growth, and to use that information to devise a treatment strategy.

Dishman says he was “literally at death’s door,” when he got the call from his doctor. Computer scientists and data crunchers analyzed Dishman’s genetic data and pinpointed a drug — for pancreatic cancer — that targeted the unique features of his cancer.

This experimental drug homes in on the abnormal gene suspected to cause Dishman’s disease.

Within three months of starting treatment, he was cancer-free and eligible for the kidney transplant that ultimately saved his life.

Finding the differences among the myriad of different cancers, and then locating the single drug that will attack one specific cancer, requires massive amounts of information about massive numbers of people.

Today’s medicine esentially is a “one-size-fits-all” process.  Have a pain? Take ibuprofen or one of a dozen other common pain relievers, regardless of your physical, mental and emotional uniqueness.

If that doesn’t work, try something else. Keep trying, until you find something that works, even though it may cause unpleasant side effects, and even though it stops working in a short time.

Many people suffer and/or die while their doctors search and search for a treatment, and even then, who knows if the “treatment that works” is the best treatment?

Tomorrow’s medicine would know exactly what treatment works best for YOU. No experimentation needed.

But in order for that to become a reality, first, you must tell the scientists everything about you — and that means EVERYTHING — your lifestyle (where you live and have lived, what you’ve eaten, drunk, and smoked, your age, your diseases throughout your life), plus all your relative’s lifestyles, your genome, your epigenome, their genomes, and epigenomes, etc., and you will update this constantly changing information every day of your life.

Everyone else in the world must do the same, to create a gigantic human database that can be used to find individual cures, not only for cancer, but presumably for all other human ailments.

Medical perfection, the medicine of the future –all we need are big enough computers:

Brian Druker, the director of the Knight Cancer Institute at Oregon Health and Science University (said) “You really need a dataset of 500,000 or a million people to start seeing patterns.”

Intel and OHSU have teamed up through a new, open-source platform called the Collaborative Cancer Cloud (CCC).

Today, when Druker wants to gain insight from patient data beyond his own institution, he must do so manually, by phone or email. It’s a painstaking process that can take weeks or months.

Though the CCC has just launched, its goal is to make this happen in less than a day by 2020 as more cancer centers join and share data.

“You get sequenced in the morning,” says Druker. “Your data is then compared against millions of other patients. By the end of the day, your doctor can say, ‘Yes, we have found the treatment for you and the data to support that choice.’

“You can’t tell a patient to be patient. They need treatments today,” he added.

If you have cancer, or some other intractable disease,  or simply are frightened about growing infirm and dying, you want this personalized treatment, now. But . . .

Many scientists cite patient privacy concerns, particularly given the recent spate of data breaches within health care organizations.

And data detached from names can still sometimes be used to identify supposedly anonymous patients.

Somewhere, in the “cloud,” you as an individual will exist as a stream of data, accessible by people you don’t know.

These people will be able to control your life, as though you are a puppet on strings.

More from the October 2016 Discover Magazine, By Cathy O’Neil

Credit scores are one of the formulas that determine our world. They often work against us, from job prospects to how long we’re on hold.

In the 50s, a mathematician named Earl Isaac and his engineer friend, Bill Fair, devised a model they called Fair, Isaac, and Corporation (FICO) to evaluate the risk of an individual defaulting on a loan.

This FICO score was fed by a formula that looked only at a borrower’s finances — mostly his or her debt load and bill-paying record.

Since Fair and Isaac’s pioneering days, the use of scoring has proliferated wildly. Today, we’re added up in every conceivable way as statisticians and mathematicians patch together a mishmash of data, from our ZIP codes and internet surfing patterns to our recent purchases (e-scoring).

Consider the nasty feedback loop e-scores create.

There’s a very high chance the e-scoring system will give the borrower from the rough section of East Oakland a low score.

Lots of people default there. So the credit card offer popping up will be targeted to a riskier demographic. That means less available credit and higher interest rates for those who are already struggling.

Fair and Isaac’s great advance was to (analyze) relevant financial data, like past bill-paying behavior. They focused their analysis on the individual — not on other people with similar attributes.

E-scores, by contrast, carry out thousands of “people like you” calculations.

And if enough of these “similar” people turn out to be deadbeats or, worse, criminals, that individual will be treated accordingly.

According to a survey by the Society for Human Resource Management, nearly half of America’s employers screen potential hires by looking at their credit reports.

Some of them check the credit status of current employees as well, especially when they’re up for a promotion.

The practice of using credit scores in hirings and promotions creates a dangerous poverty cycle. After all, if you can’t get a job because of your credit record, that record will likely get worse, making it even harder to land work.

Bottom line: Big Data can cure your diseases. It can find what you want and help you avoid what you don’t want.

But it can widen the gap between the rich and the rest, making permanent a worldwide caste system, dominated by those few elite having access to your data.

You can lead a perfect life, but if “people like you” lead imperfect lives, you will be tarred with the same brush, and no matter what you do, you will not be able to escape.

You will be who they say you are.

So we ask again, “Which is more important to you: Your privacy or your life?”

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

===================================================================================
Ten Steps to Prosperity:
1. ELIMINATE FICA (Ten Reasons to Eliminate FICA )
Although the article lists 10 reasons to eliminate FICA, there are two fundamental reasons:
*FICA is the most regressive tax in American history, widening the Gap by punishing the low and middle-income groups, while leaving the rich untouched, and
*The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, neither needs nor uses FICA to support Social Security and Medicare.
2. FEDERALLY FUNDED MEDICARE — PARTS A, B & D, PLUS LONG TERM CARE — FOR EVERYONE (H.R. 676, Medicare for All )
This article addresses the questions:
*Does the economy benefit when the rich afford better health care than the rest of Americans?
*Aside from improved health care, what are the other economic effects of “Medicare for everyone?”
*How much would it cost taxpayers?
*Who opposes it?”
3. PROVIDE AN ANNUAL ECONOMIC BONUS TO EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA, AND/OR EVERY STATE, A PER CAPITA ECONOMIC BONUS (The JG (Jobs Guarantee) vs the GI (Guaranteed Income) vs the EB) Or institute a reverse income tax.
This article is the fifth in a series about direct financial assistance to Americans:

Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Employer of Last Resort is a bad idea. Sunday, Jan 1 2012
MMT’s Job Guarantee (JG) — “Another crazy, rightwing, Austrian nutjob?” Thursday, Jan 12 2012
Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Jobs Guarantee is like the EU’s euro: A beloved solution to the wrong problem. Tuesday, May 29 2012
“You can’t fire me. I’m on JG” Saturday, Jun 2 2012

Economic growth should include the “bottom” 99.9%, not just the .1%, the only question being, how best to accomplish that. Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) favors giving everyone a job. Monetary Sovereignty (MS) favors giving everyone money. The five articles describe the pros and cons of each approach.
4. FREE EDUCATION (INCLUDING POST-GRAD) FOR EVERYONEFive reasons why we should eliminate school loans
Monetarily non-sovereign State and local governments, despite their limited finances, support grades K-12. That level of education may have been sufficient for a largely agrarian economy, but not for our currently more technical economy that demands greater numbers of highly educated workers.
Because state and local funding is so limited, grades K-12 receive short shrift, especially those schools whose populations come from the lowest economic groups. And college is too costly for most families.
An educated populace benefits a nation, and benefiting the nation is the purpose of the federal government, which has the unlimited ability to pay for K-16 and beyond.
5. SALARY FOR ATTENDING SCHOOL
Even were schooling to be completely free, many young people cannot attend, because they and their families cannot afford to support non-workers. In a foundering boat, everyone needs to bail, and no one can take time off for study.
If a young person’s “job” is to learn and be productive, he/she should be paid to do that job, especially since that job is one of America’s most important.
6. ELIMINATE CORPORATE TAXES
Corporations themselves exist only as legalities. They don’t pay taxes or pay for anything else. They are dollar-tranferring machines. They transfer dollars from customers to employees, suppliers, shareholders and the government (the later having no use for those dollars).
Any tax on corporations reduces the amount going to employees, suppliers and shareholders, which diminishes the economy. Ultimately, all corporate taxes come around and reappear as deductions from your personal income.
7. INCREASE THE STANDARD INCOME TAX DEDUCTION, ANNUALLY. (Refer to this.) Federal taxes punish taxpayers and harm the economy. The federal government has no need for those punishing and harmful tax dollars. There are several ways to reduce taxes, and we should evaluate and choose the most progressive approaches.
Cutting FICA and corporate taxes would be an good early step, as both dramatically affect the 99%. Annual increases in the standard income tax deduction, and a reverse income tax also would provide benefits from the bottom up. Both would narrow the Gap.
8. TAX THE VERY RICH (THE “.1%) MORE, WITH HIGHER PROGRESSIVE TAX RATES ON ALL FORMS OF INCOME. (TROPHIC CASCADE)
There was a time when I argued against increasing anyone’s federal taxes. After all, the federal government has no need for tax dollars, and all taxes reduce Gross Domestic Product, thereby negatively affecting the entire economy, including the 99.9%.
But I have come to realize that narrowing the Gap requires trimming the top. It simply would not be possible to provide the 99.9% with enough benefits to narrow the Gap in any meaningful way. Bill Gates reportedly owns $70 billion. To get to that level, he must have been earning $10 billion a year. Pick any acceptable Gap (1000 to 1?), and the lowest paid American would have to receive $10 million a year. Unreasonable.
9. FEDERAL OWNERSHIP OF ALL BANKS (Click The end of private banking and How should America decide “who-gets-money”?)
Banks have created all the dollars that exist. Even dollars created at the direction of the federal government, actually come into being when banks increase the numbers in checking accounts. This gives the banks enormous financial power, and as we all know, power corrupts — especially when multiplied by a profit motive.
Although the federal government also is powerful and corrupted, it does not suffer from a profit motive, the world’s most corrupting influence.
10. INCREASE FEDERAL SPENDING ON THE MYRIAD INITIATIVES THAT BENEFIT AMERICA’S 99.9% (Federal agencies)Browse the agencies. See how many agencies benefit the lower- and middle-income/wealth/ power groups, by adding dollars to the economy and/or by actions more beneficial to the 99.9% than to the .1%.
Save this reference as your primer to current economics. Sadly, much of the material is not being taught in American schools, which is all the more reason for you to use it.

The Ten Steps will grow the economy, and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and you.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY