Tag: monetarily sovereign

–Letter sent to National Public Radio re: “The U.S. is broke”

The debt hawks are to economics as the creationists are to biology. Those, who do not understand monetary sovereignty, do not understand economics. Cutting the federal deficit is the most ignorant and damaging step the federal government could take. It ranks ahead of the Hawley-Smoot Tariff.
================================================================================================================================================================

Yesterday (11/9/10), I sent the following letter to the people at National Public Radio. I’ll let you know in the unlikely event they respond. Even this self-styled, independent, “open-minded” medium, funded primarily by private donation, simply cannot bring itself to consider the possibility that the federal debt is not too high, and in fact, is necessary for economic growth. If NPR can’t handle the facts, what hope is there the for-profit media, which solely are interested in ad dollars fueled by popular wisdom, will understand?

You pride yourself on balance, but there is one area in which you are completely out of balance. Day after day I hear your interviewers talking to people who claim the U.S. is “broke,” and the federal debt is “unsustainable” and needs to be reduced. Entire radio programs are devoted to debating about which spending initiative should be cut. Interviewees tell us whether payments to doctors should be reduced. Or Social Security cut. Or can we afford health care?

Day after day your programs tell listeners the government can’t afford this and can’t afford that. Today, on one of your programs, I heard someone say the federal budget for Public Radio should be eliminated — a delicious irony, since you helped bring this on yourself by never presenting the other side of the story.

In 1971, the end of the gold standard, the federal government became monetarily sovereign. This changed everything in economics. Suddenly, the federal government had the unlimited ability to create money and to service any size debt. It is 100% impossible for any monetarily sovereign nation to be “broke.” There is nothing the government cannot afford.

Additionally, in a monetarily sovereign nation, federal spending is not constrained by taxes or borrowing. If taxes and borrowing both fell to $0, this would not change by even one penny, the federal government’s ability to spend any amount on any initiative.

The only thing that constrains federal spending is inflation, and as you can see, we are nowhere near inflation; in fact, deflation is the current worry. Meanwhile, millions of Americans suffer for lack of federal spending on health care, Medicare, Social Security, roads, bridges, poverty, affordable housing, education, etc. — all because of the incorrect belief the government is “broke.”

I would be glad to present the other side of the story. It’s time your audience heard a balanced presentation of this critical issue. If it’s a debate, my first question will be, “If America is broke, as you say, exactly when did it become broke? After that, my questions will become harder.

It’s time for a little balance

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

No nation can tax itself into prosperity. Those who say the stimulus “didn’t work” remind me of the guy whose house is on fire. A neighbor runs with a garden hose and starts spraying, but the fire continues. The neighbor wants to call the fire department, which would bring the big hoses, but the guy says, “Don’t call. As you can see, water doesn’t put out fires.”

–1937 Redux: How our leaders have learned nothing from history

The debt hawks are to economics as the creationists are to biology. They, who do not understand monetary sovereignty, do not understand economics.

For those of you who don’t remember the Great Depression (almost everyone, now), it began in 1929, after several years of federal surpluses ( Item 3.), but by the early-1930’s we already were on our way to recovery – something like today. Then, the government decided to reduce the federal deficit with increased taxes and reduced spending — something like today. So we had four more years of depression (something like tomorrow?)

According to Wikipedia: “The Recession of 1937–1938, sometimes called the Roosevelt Recession, was a temporary reversal of the pre-war 1933 to 1941 economic recovery from the Great Depression in the United States. Economists disagree about the causes of this downturn. Keynesian economists tend to assign blame to cuts in Federal spending and increases in taxes at the insistence of the US Treasury, while monetarists, most notably Milton Friedman tended to assign blame to the Federal Reserve’s tightening of the money supply in 1936 and 1937.”.

Hmmm. Let’s think about that. “Cuts in federal spending . . . and increases in taxes” = federal deficit reduction. “Tightening of the money supply . . .” also = federal deficit reduction. So here you had two different schools of thought, both saying essentially the same thing. The 1937 recession was caused by what we today refer to as “austerity.”

So what do our political leaders favor, now that we are creeping out of the latest recession. Yes, that same austerity. Republicans hate federal spending. They stand ready with dozens of proposals to slash the federal budget. Reportedly, they want to cut $260 billion (25%) from the federal budget. Now that should be stimulative.

Republicans also do not believe their proposed cuts in education, Medicare, unemployment compensation and many other worthy federal projects will hurt anything or anyone.

The Democrats are no smarter. They have to be dragged kicking and screaming, to retain (not even cut, just retain) the Bush era tax levels. They do not believe taxes, which remove money from the economy, slow the recovery. They want to tax the “wealthy,” because . . . well, because that is what Democrats, with their eternal class warfare strategy, do.

Then we have the media. My hometown newspaper, the Chicago Tribune repeatedly rails against the federal debt. They never explain why. They don’t provide data. They just don’t like it. The Tribune is typical of the media, which almost universally hate the debt, and almost universally don’t provide data supporting their position.

And then there is Fed Chairman Bernanke, who feels we must “act to bring down long-term fiscal deficits.” He too, has no clue about why and never gives a coherent reason.

Finally, we have the mainstream economists – all those Nobel winners – none of whom seem to understand monetary sovereignty, and all of whom call for less deficit spending.

Put them all together and things look very bad for this fragile economy. With leaders like these, who needs enemies?

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

No nation can tax itself into prosperity. Those who say the stimulus “didn’t work” remind me of the guy whose house is on fire. A neighbor runs with a garden hose and starts spraying, but the fire continues. The neighbor wants to call the fire department, which would bring the big hoses, but the guy says, “Don’t call. As you can see, water doesn’t put out fires.”

–What will the Fed’s $600 billion Treasury purchase accomplish?

The debt hawks are to economics as the creationists are to biology. They, who do not understand monetary sovereignty, do not understand economics.
==============================================================================================================================

Here’s how it works; you be the judge.

The first question is, if the Fed is buying, who is selling? Answer: The banks and the public. If the banks exchange their T-bonds for cash, will that stimulate the economy? Will that make banks more likely to lend? Are banks short of lending cash? The answers are, “No, no and no.”

Banks are not lending primarily because they can lend to the government, risk free, and make an easy 2% on their money. They are not short of lending funds. They don’t want the hassle of credit checking, defaults, collections, etc. Just borrow from the government at 0% and lend back at 2%. What could be easier?

The other reason banks haven’t lent is because business isn’t borrowing. Congress has made sure business has no idea what will happen, tomorrow. Taxes? Who knows? Interest rates? Unsure. A recovery? When? Expand my operations? Are you kidding? So with lenders and borrowers both unmotivated, lending is unlikely.

Well, what about the public? Do Fed bond purchases from the public stimulate the economy? When the Fed trades cash for T-bonds, this is tantamount to advancing the maturity date on those T-bonds. So what will the holder of T-bonds do when the government gives him cash for his bonds? He likes T-bonds, so if he can get a good price, he probably will buy more bonds – right back where he started.

But let’s say some people decide to invest those dollars in something other than T-bonds. Is that stimulative? Yes, but there is another problem. When the Fed buys bonds, the future interest on those bonds is not paid into the economy. The Fed’s purchase reduces future government interest payments, and that is anti-stimulative.

So my take on the $600 billion purchase is that it might have a very small and very temporary stimulative effect. Far better, and far more stimulative would be if the federal government cut taxes by $600 billion. But since our politicians don’t understand monetary sovereignty, that is unlikely to happen.

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

No nation can tax itself into prosperity. Those who say the stimulus “didn’t work” remind me of the guy whose house is on fire. A neighbor runs with a garden hose and starts spraying, but the fire continues. The neighbor wants to call the fire department, which would bring the big hoses, but the guy says, “Don’t call. As you can see, water doesn’t put out fires.”

–Will the party of “NO!” become the party of “I don’t know”?

The debt hawks are to economics as the creationists are to biology. Those, who do not understand monetary sovereignty, do not understand economics. Cutting the federal deficit is the most ignorant and damaging step the federal government could take. It ranks ahead of the Hawley-Smoot Tariff.
==========================================================================================================================================

This should be interesting. Will the party of “NO!” become the party of “I don’t know,” when asked how they plan to reduce federal spending without alienating all the people who receive federal spending, and without destroying the economy, too?

My hunch is all those “small government” types will begin to whine loudly when their favorite federal benefits begin to disappear. And then there is the presumed reduction in federal employees, “to save money” at just the time when we’re supposed to be creating jobs.

For a reminder about some of the things we voters will have to worry about, read: “14 ways to dismantle a monstrous government”.

And why cut federal spending? The debt hawks have no clue. They do not understand monetary sovereignty, and have no desire to learn.

Ignorance has its costs.

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

No nation can tax itself into prosperity. Those who say the stimulus “didn’t work” remind of the guy whose house is on fire. A neighbor runs with a garden hose and starts spraying, but the fire continues. The neighbor wants to call the fire department, which would bring the big hoses, but the guy says, “Don’t call. As you can see, water doesn’t put out fires.”