Tag: monetary non-sovereignty

The season of Schadenfreude approaches. Trump version

Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
It takes only two things to keep people in chains: The ignorance of the oppressed and the treachery of their leaders..
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

There is a German word that has no synonym in the English language.

You know that good feeling when a guy speeds past you and gives you the finger as he drives by, and later, up the road, you see that same guy stopped by a cop?  That feeling is called “Schadenfreude.”

Or it’s when you learn that the former football hero in your high school, who kicked your butt, and had all the adulation from the girls, now years later, comes begging you for a menial job in your company. That’s “Schadenfreude.”

Or when you’ve told people, over and over and over again, that the guy they planned to vote for was lying, bigoted sack of sh*t, who would hurt them if he ever is elected — but they vote for him anyway, and he gets elected, and he hurts them just as you said he would — you know that feeling? That’s “Schadenfreude.”

It’s something like that lovely “Nah, nah, I told you so” feeling.

I thought about Schadenfreude when I read about President Trump’s Environmental Protection head, Scott Pruitt, who has absolutely no intention of protecting the environment, thus damaging the future world of all those children and grandchildren of Trump voters  (though my Schadenfreude is completely ruined by the knowledge my own children’s world will be damaged, too. Darn!)

Then there are the black voters and brown voters and gay voters and elderly voters and female voters, who voted for Trump or didn’t even bother to vote at all, and now their worlds will be ruined by Trump’s bigotry against them. Plenty of good Schadenfreude for me there.

Schadenfreude is one of those feelings we all deny having but secretly find absolutely delicious. So I deny having had any wonderful, marvelous feelings of Schadenfreude when I read the following excerpts from an article in the 3/12/17 Chicago Tribune:

Health bill may hurt Trump’s supporters
Analysis finds older, rural, poorer votersat risk of losing out
By Noam N. Levey, Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON — Americans who swept President Donald Trump to victory — lower-income, older voters in conservative, rural parts of the country — stand to lose the most in federal health care aid under a Republican plan to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, according to a Washington Bureau analysis of county voting and tax credit data.

Among the hardest hit under the House bill are 60-year-olds with annual incomes of $30,000. In nearly 1,500 counties nationwide, such a person stands to lose more than $6,000 a year in federal insurance subsidies. Ninety percent of those counties backed Trump, the analysis shows.

And 68 of the 70 counties where these consumers would suffer the largest losses supported Trump in November.

Oh, this is just too great!

Er, ah, what I really mean to say is I truly am sorry (snicker) for those folks who were taken in by those right-wing charlatans.  How could these poor people (giggle) have known Trump would hurt them?

Most affected by the GOP plan would be parts of Alaska, Arizona, Nebraska, Oklahoma and Tennessee, where Obamacare subsidies have been critical to making insurance affordable. All five states went for Trump.

Also hit hard would be parts of key swing states that backed Trump, including Michigan, North Carolina and Pennsylvania.

Meanwhile, higher-income, younger Americans — many of whom live in urban areas won by Democrat Hillary Clinton — stand to get more assistance in the GOP bill.

Faring best would be the nation’s wealthiest residents, who would see a substantial tax cut with the elimination under the House GOP bill of two levies on high-income taxpayers. These taxes — on individuals making more than $200,000 and couples making more than $250,000 — were included in Obamacare to help offset the cost of assisting lower-income Americans.

What? The Trump-led Republicans, aka the “party of the rich,” plan to hurt the poor and help the (titter) wealthy? Who could (guffaw) have predicted it?

Excuse me. I don’t mean to laugh at your pain. (Chuckle) Not at all.

The disproportionate impact of the GOP plan threatens to undercut one of Trump’s core promises that he would take care of all Americans even if the health care law is repealed.

Only a small share of the electorate receives Obamacare subsidies, but the loss of aid could deprive tens of millions of a lifeline.

“People don’t realize that all it takes is one lost job and your goose is cooked,” said John Thompson, 59, of North Carolina.

Thompson said he voted Republican for three decades. He was let go from his work in 2013, however, and he found the only way to get health coverage was through Obamacare, whose insurance marketplaces opened in 2014.

“It literally saved my life,” said Thompson, who was diagnosed with cancer shortly afterward. Thompson is now back at work. But the Obamacare aid made him re-think his support for the Republican Party.

“People like me are going to get screwed,” he said of the GOP health care plan. “That’s just the reality.”

Yes, John, that is the reality. And I don’t mean to be cruel, but it’s not as though you weren’t warned. I mean, Trump practically begged you not to vote for him.

But you ignored his incessant lying about nearly everything, the grabbing women by the crotch, the bigotry against people of color, against immigrants, against Muslims. You ignored Trump University, his phony “birther” scandal, his cheating of his employees, the repeated warnings by every newspaper editor in America.

You ignored the pain Trump threatened to inflict on helpless minorities and on children. The list goes on and on — you ignored all that so long as you were taken care of.

And surely you remember how you stubbornly refused to listen to the people you demeaned as “libtards”? Remember them, the people who tried to help you with your health insurance coverage?

Instead, as you think about your hatred for Obama and for “Crooked Hillary,” does the phrase “from the frying pan into the fire” come to mind? Welcome to the fire, John.

And now John, as you are “rethinking” your support for the Republican party, and all your eggs are starting to hatch, I will do my best not to revel (snigger) in your pain.

I will be an adult and offer you my sincerest sympathy — more than sympathy — empathy, because your troubles only are beginning. Your world is about to come crashing down.

And it’s  your own damn fault.

But, I don’t have Schadenfreude, because you have learned something. You have learned not to be a stooge for a con artist, and you have learned not to join in the mob bigotry. And you have learned to use your brain rather than letting someone else use your brain.

And you have learned that if you lie down with swine, you will be treated like swine and be like swine.

You have learned these things, haven’t you, John?

John, haven’t you?

Ah, ’tis the season of Schadenfreude — but of course, not for me.

(Smirk)

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

The single most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the have-mores and the have-less.

Wide Gaps negatively affect poverty, health and longevity, education, housing, law and crime, war, leadership, ownership, bigotry, supply and demand, taxation, GDP, international relations, scientific advancement, the environment, human motivation and well-being, and virtually every other issue in economics.

Implementation of The Ten Steps To Prosperity can narrow the Gaps:

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 can afford better health care than can 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 A MONTHLY ECONOMIC BONUS TO EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA (similar to Social Security for All) (The JG (Jobs Guarantee) vs the GI (Guaranteed Income) vs the EB (Guaranteed Income)) 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 EVERYONE Five 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 benefitting 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 FEDERAL TAXES ON BUSINESS
Businesses are dollar-transferring machines. They transfer dollars from customers to employees, suppliers, shareholders and the federal government (the later having no use for those dollars). Any tax on businesses reduces the amount going to employees, suppliers and shareholders, which diminishes the economy. Ultimately, all business taxes reduce 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 business taxes would be a 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

Trade War! Oh, woe is US ?

Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
It takes only two things to keep people in chains: The ignorance of the oppressed and the treachery of their leaders..
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

I just received an Email from FT Exclusive. Here is the entire text:

White House civil war breaks out over trade

A civil war has broken out within the White House over trade, leading to what one official called “a fiery meeting” in the Oval Office pitting economic nationalists close to Donald Trump against pro-trade moderates from Wall Street.

According to more than a half-dozen people inside the White House or dealing with it, the bitter fight has set a hardline group including senior adviser Steve Bannon and Trump trade adviser Peter Navarro against a faction led by Gary Cohn, the former Goldman Sachs executive who leads Mr Trump’s National Economic Council.

At the centre of the debate is Mr Navarro, a firebrand economist who has angered Berlin and other European allies by accusing Germany of exploiting a “grossly undervalued” euro and calling for bilateral discussions with Angela Merkel’s government over ways to reduce the US trade deficit with Europe’s most powerful economy.

The officials and people dealing with the White House said Mr Navarro appeared to be losing influence in recent weeks. But during the recent Oval Office fight, Mr Trump appeared to side with the economic nationalists, one official said.

When evaluating the above, the key thing to remember is the U.S. government is Monetarily Sovereign. It creates unlimited dollars at will.

Bannon et al want the other nations to make our imports more expensive and our exports less expensive, so we can export more and import less. That leaves us with two questions:

  1. Should we want our Net Imports to be more expensive?
  2. Should we want to increase Net Exports?

Question #1 seems like a no-brainer.  Do you really want all the things you import to cost you more? Do you really want inflation?

No? Well, that’s the way to reduce imports, which is what Bannon and Trump want. (Though not even Trump knows what Trump wants, today. Tomorrow’s 4:00AM tweet could change everything.)

Which gets us to the meat of the argument, question #2. Should we want to increase Net Exports?

That is a no-brainer too, but not in the way you may think.

The fundamental effect of increased Net Exports is to increase the money supply, which on the surface would seem to be a good thing.

But remember, the U.S. government is Monetarily Sovereign. It has the unlimited ability to increase our money supply.

Congress controls the money supply by spending, which it has the unlimited ability to do. So, there is no money-supply need to increase or to decrease imports or exports.

Some may argue that increasing Net Exports by weakening the dollar helps American businesses that export — but it hurts American businesses that import, as well as hurting consumers who will need to pay more dollars for imports.

And if our government really wants to help American business, it simply would reduce or even eliminate business taxes. Then there would be no need for silly trade conflicts like the Bannon, Cohn, Navarro, Trump ado about nothing.

Ah, but if the government reduced or eliminated business taxes, the populace first would complain about business not paying its “fair share,” as though business expenses somehow benefit the populace.

And then after the “fair share” argument ran its course, the populace might come to see that the federal government neither needs nor uses the tax dollars anyway.

Imagine the kerfuffle when government flunkies try to explain why our Monetarily Sovereign government does not need tax dollars, but has been collecting them all these years.

Here is the teapot on this tempest:

  1. A Monetarily Sovereign nation does not need to export. It can control its money supply, and can support its industries, endlessly.
  2. Importing benefits the nation. When we import we exchange dollars, which cost essentially zero to create, for goods and services which cost time, materials, and labor to create.

In effect, when a Monetarily Sovereign nation imports it gives nothing and gets something.

For instance, when we import from China, we give them dollars we create at the touch of a computer key, and they give us products and services that cost them the blood, sweat, and tears of their workforce along with their precious raw materials.

So who comes out the winner? Clearly, the importer. That so-called “grossly undervalued euro” benefits America.

Those are the simple facts of import/export for a Monetarily Sovereign nation.

Now, sit back and watch the fighting dispassionately, and shake your head in wonder at the treachery of our leaders and the ignorance of the populace.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

THE RULES

•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..

•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 limit to non-federal deficit spending is the ability to borrow.

•Until the 99% understand the need for federal deficits, the upper 1% will rule.

•Progressives 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 the rich and the rest.

•Austerity is the government’s method for widening the Gap between the rich and the rest.

•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

Healthcare plans: Ignorance and treachery

The lead to our recent posts never has been more appropriate than with regard to the current discussion of health care:

“It takes only two things to keep people in chains: The ignorance of the oppressed and the treachery of their leaders.”

Wisconsin Representative, Paul Ryan, the GOP’s version of an insurance genius, the man who came up with the latest “repeal and replace” plan, described his “Patients’ Choice Act” this way:

My plan, The Patients’ Choice Act, ensures universal, affordable health care for all Americans. Under The Patients’ Choice Act, patients and doctors would control their health care decisions – not insurance companies and federal government bureaucrats.

Of course, it does no such thing, because if you go to the “Short Summary” you will read the following:

“(My plan) creates State Health Insurance Exchanges to give Americans a one‐stop marketplace to compare different health insurance policies and select the one that meets their unique needs.”

According to the genius, insurance companies no longer will control health care decisions because you will be able to compare insurance policies. HUH??

(And by the way, why would you have to compare policies unless you will have to pay for less-than-complete coverage?)

And:

“(My plan) gives Americans the same standard health benefits as Members of Congress, so all Americans have a wide range of choices”

See, it’s like this: Federal government bureaucrats will not control your health care decisions, because you will receive the same standard health benefits that federal government bureaucrats created and control for Congress. Huh??

And:

Creates a non‐profit, independent board to risk adjust among participating insurance companies to penalize companies that “cherry pick” health patients and reward insurers that encourage prevention/wellness and cover patients with pre‐existing conditions.

In other words, Federal bureaucrats will tell insurance companies whom they must cover, what coverages to offer, and what to charge.  Huh??

But it gets worse, much worse. The GOP insurance genius even is clueless about how insurance actually works:

Insurance 101 For Paul Ryan: The Healthy Are Supposed To Help Pay For The Sick
Obamacare is in a “death spiral” because the insured are sharing the risk, explains congressman.
By Mary Papenfuss

Paul Ryan is aghast that healthy individuals are paying into an insurance pot that’s used when people are sick. But … that’s exactly the way insurance works.

Twitter positively erupted Thursday to school Mr. Health Insurance on the concept.

Everyone pays into the pot and draws on it when they’re sick. Younger people, who tend to be healthier than older people, pay for health insurance like everyone else.

They’ll rely on it when they need it, probably more when they’re older and there are younger, healthier people filing in behind them.

It’s the same with car insurance. Some people pay for decades and never get into an accident and never collect on their coverage.

Yes, Mr. Ryan, that’s how insurance works — fire insurance, liability insurance, all kinds of insurance. Each year, we pay into it hoping we won’t use it this year.

O.K., so the Republican insurance genius says he wants to replace Obamacare with a plan that doesn’t allow insurance companies and federal government bureaucrats to control health care decisions — except that is exactly what his plan does.

And the insurance genius objects to young people paying for insurance they may not need, except that is how insurance works.

But it continues to get worse:

“Economic analysts across the political divide agree that the tax code is stacked in favor of the wealthy . . . (My plan) provides an advanceable and refundable tax credit of $2,300 per individual or $5,700 per family. “

Sounds swell, except the GOP insurance genius didn’t know about two problems:

  1. That $2,300 per person and $5,700 per family isn’t enough to cover even current, let alone future health care insurance of the quality Members of Congress receive, and
  2. It’s not even money; it’s a tax credit, and the poorest among us don’t benefit from a a tax credit. They need actual money. The whole point of Obamacare was to cover those who can’t afford health care.

And, it continues to get worse and worse, because the entire Ryan plan is based on reducing costs for the federal government (which being Monetarily Sovereign, has the unlimited ability to pay) and instead piling costs onto doctors, insurance companies, and the public.

“The Patients’ Choice Act would give every American the opportunity to choose the health care plan that best meets their individual needs.”

Except, few of us know in advance, what our individual needs will be. Accidents and sickness come unexpectedly. Do you know whether you will have a heart attack this year? A stroke? Cancer? A serious car accident? A rare illness you never heard of?

The whole concept of “individual needs,” when applied to health care insurance, is ridiculous and misleading.

“It will utilize state‐driven exchanges to facilitate real competition between private plans and give Americans—for the first time—a choice of health care plans.  This solution will actually fix the incentives in the health care system so that health providers and insurers provide higher quality plans at lower cost.”

Said another way, doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies will have to cut costs while providing better service.

What does that tell you about the future availability of doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies?

Right. There will be fewer. So, services will be scarcer.  And what happens when services are scarcer? Right. Quality decreases and prices increase — exactly the opposite of what the GOP insurance genius expects.

Obamacare, with all its warts (and it has many), was an attempt to provide health care to the millions of us who cannot afford to pay for health care. The Republicans — the party of the rich — hate it, not only because it is “Obama,” but because it narrows the Gap between the rich and the rest.

The rich don’t want that.

So the party of the rich proposes a plan that:

  1. Saves money for the only entity in America that has no need to save money — our Monetarily Sovereign federal government
  2. Burdens financially the private sector, i.e. the burdens economy
  3. Eliminates coverage for the millions of our poorest.
  4. Widens the Gap between the rich and the rest

The GOP plan truly is based on “the ignorance of the oppressed and the treachery of our leaders.”

What should the plan be? See Steps #1 and  #2 of the Ten Steps to Prospertity (below): ELIMINATE FICA, and FEDERALLY FUND MEDICARE — PARTS A, B & D, PLUS LONG TERM CARE — FOR EVERYONE

The federal government can afford, and should pay for, what you and our fellow citizens cannot. That is the purpose of a Monetarily Sovereign government.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

The single most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the have-mores and the have-less.

Wide Gaps negatively affect poverty, health and longevity, education, housing, law and crime, war, leadership, ownership, bigotry, supply and demand, taxation, GDP, international relations, scientific advancement, the environment, human motivation and well-being, and virtually every other issue in economics.

Implementation of The Ten Steps To Prosperity can narrow the Gaps:

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 can afford better health care than can 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 A MONTHLY ECONOMIC BONUS TO EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA (similar to Social Security for All) (The JG (Jobs Guarantee) vs the GI (Guaranteed Income) vs the EB (Guaranteed Income)) 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 EVERYONE Five 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 benefitting 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 FEDERAL TAXES ON BUSINESS
Businesses are dollar-transferring machines. They transfer dollars from customers to employees, suppliers, shareholders and the federal government (the later having no use for those dollars). Any tax on businesses reduces the amount going to employees, suppliers and shareholders, which diminishes the economy. Ultimately, all business taxes reduce 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 business taxes would be a 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

The healthcare screwing: You voted for it; you have it

Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
It takes only two things to keep people in chains: The ignorance of the oppressed and the treachery of their leaders..
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Primum non nocere

It means, “First, do no harm,” and it is the primary principle of bioethics. It means, “Given any medical situation, it is better to do nothing than to do something that causes more harm than good.”Image result for first do no harm

That concept is the key element of the doctors’ Hippocratic Oath. It is the fundamental of medicine.

And it is what the Republicans have ignored in their efforts to erase everything “Obama.”

For the Republicans, the motto seems to have been, “Pass anything that eliminates ‘Obama,’ anything the rich like, and anything that won’t get the voters too angry — and to hell with the lower income people the program was designed to help.”

‘What other explanation can you offer for the 7-years-in-the-making plan the Republicans have put forward?

Here are some excerpts:

“What’s in the House Republicans’ replacement plan?” 3/8/17, Chicago Tribune, By Noam N. Levey

Washington Bureau, WASHINGTON — House Republicans have finally unveiled legislation to repeal and — just as important — replace the Affordable Care Act.

Here’s a short guide to what’s in the Republican plan and what it could mean for Americans’ health coverage:

Obamacare required Americans to have health insurance or pay a tax penalty. The penalty is assessed annually when people file their taxes.

How it would change: The tax penalty is eliminated. But the Republican bill still penalizes people who don’t get insurance. If consumers allow coverage to lapse for as long as two months, insurers would be required to charge them a 30 percent penalty when they buy a health plan.

That penalty could discourage many people from getting new coverage if they lose their plan.

As you regular readers know, the Obamacare penalty and the “Trumpcare” penalty, both are based on the “Big Lie” — the lie that our Monetarily Sovereign federal government cannot afford to pay for healthcare, so the people must pay.

(The federal government never can run short of dollars.  Can you?)

Image result for eliminate medical careThe Republican plan is more onerous for the poorest among us; it will prevent them from receiving any insurance, and thus, from receiving healthcare. The Republican plan will make America sicker.

 

 

Poor adults without children were barred from Medicaid coverage in most states. Obamacare tried to change that by offering states billions of dollars to expand Medicaid to childless adults. Thirty-one states have done so.

That has helped millions of low-income Americans get health coverage over the last several years.

The House GOP plan would phase out the additional federal money that has helped states expand their Medicaid programs.

The GOP plan would give each state a fixed amount of money every year for every person who qualifies for Medicaid. Many advocates and medical groups fear that change would force states to scale back coverage.

The sole purpose of the Republican change is to widen the Gap between the rich and the rest, by helping the Monetarily Sovereign federal government save money (which doesn’t need saving), and by charging poorer people more money.

(In the Republican plan), insurers would now be able to charge older consumers five times more than younger consumers.

If you are poor and old — the very people who most need healthcare support — what are you supposed to do about unaffordable insurance and unaffordable healthcare charges? This is yet another Gap-widening effort by the “party of the rich.”

One of the most important features of the current law are insurance subsidies that are available to low- and moderate-income people who use the marketplaces to get coverage.

Subsidies are linked to consumers’ incomes, so people who earn less get bigger subsidies.

Subsidies also are pegged to how much insurance plans cost. That means that if health plans are very expensive in one market, the subsidies in that market are larger. There are huge variations in how much health care costs around the country. So people who live in higher-cost areas are protected.

Subsidies are automatically applied to consumers’ monthly insurance bills, so low-income people don’t have to pay a large premium every month and then wait for a rebate, something that can be difficult for consumers.

The House plan completely scraps Obamacare’s subsidy system. Instead, Americans who don’t get coverage through an employer would qualify for a tax credit based on how old they are.

Older consumers would get larger credit, as much as $4,000 annually for people over 60. And younger consumers would get a smaller credit, as little as $2,000 for people younger than 30.

Linking the credit to consumers’ age risks leaving lower-income consumers without enough financial aid to buy a health plan.

And because the subsidies would increase annually at a rate slightly above inflation, they risk not keeping up with rising health insurance premiums.

In total, the above subsidy cuts reduce federal government payments by reducing support for the lower-income consumers.

Ultimately, all consumers would pay more for medical insurance than they now pay, but the poor are punished most.

Obamacare’s architects cobbled together a mix of taxes to offset the cost of subsidizing insurance for tens of millions of low- and moderate-income Americans. –

The House Republican plan scraps all Obamacare taxes. That’s a big tax cut for the medical device and insurance industry.

It’s also a large tax cut for the wealthiest taxpayers, who would no longer be subject to the Medicare payroll surtax.

Obamacare was based on the fiction (“The Big Lie”) that our Monetarily Sovereign federal government cannot afford to pay for healthcare. (Fact: Even if all federal taxes were $0, the federal government could continue spending, forever.)

As with virtually all facets of the Republican plan, the purpose is threefold:

  1. To save money, unnecessarily, for the Monetarily Sovereign federal government.
  2. To save money for the insurance and medical device industries.
  3. To widen the Gap between the rich and the rest by costing the lower income groups more and/or by eliminating healthcare coverage for these groups.

Other than the above, the plan is “change-for-the-sake-of-change,” to eliminate anything related to Obama, despite the damage caused to America.

Obamacare is not a good plan. It is based on “The Big Lie” of federal unaffordability. But the Republican plan is horrible. Ironically, it will hurt most those lower income people who formed the basis for Trump’s following.

But perhaps the ultimate irony is that the party-of-the-rich tries to reduce federal spending, not seeming to get the fact that federal spending is economically stimulative, thus helping business.

See Step 2 of the Ten Steps to Prosperity (below):

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

The single most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the have-mores and the have-less.

Wide Gaps negatively affect poverty, health and longevity, education, housing, law and crime, war, leadership, ownership, bigotry, supply and demand, taxation, GDP, international relations, scientific advancement, the environment, human motivation and well-being, and virtually every other issue in economics.

Implementation of The Ten Steps To Prosperity can narrow the Gaps:

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 can afford better health care than can 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 A MONTHLY ECONOMIC BONUS TO EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA (similar to Social Security for All) (The JG (Jobs Guarantee) vs the GI (Guaranteed Income) vs the EB (Guaranteed Income)) 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 EVERYONE Five 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 benefitting 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 FEDERAL TAXES ON BUSINESS
Businesses are dollar-transferring machines. They transfer dollars from customers to employees, suppliers, shareholders and the federal government (the later having no use for those dollars). Any tax on businesses reduces the amount going to employees, suppliers and shareholders, which diminishes the economy. Ultimately, all business taxes reduce 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 business taxes would be a 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