The trade war of ignorance

THE TRADE WAR

Image result for suicide by gun
America: “Take that, China”
Image result for suicide by gun
China: “Take that America”

.

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

Imagine this: You own a large fresh-water lake and all the land around the lake. You live in a house on the shore, and you alone freely can draw endless fresh water from the lake to meet all your needs.

Image result for lovely lake
Imagine that you own this lake and all the land around it.

Your children, who do not live on the lake, grow crops and do some manufacturing. They sell their crops and their manufactured goods to your neighbors, and in payment they receive . . .

. . . Water!

That’s right. In return for your children’s labor and expenses, they receive water, which you can obtain from your own lake, and simply give to your children, at virtually no cost.

Crazy, isn’t it? But wait, it gets crazier.

Since you have unlimited water, and your neighbors need water, you are able to buy food, clothing and manufactured goods from them, and pay your neighbors in the endless water you can draw from your lake.

One day, you become angry at one of your neighbors for not buying enough of your children’s crops and manufactured goods. You want him to buy more from them and to give your children even more water — the same water you could give them at no cost.

Image result for pouring water into a lakeSo to punish your neighbor for not buying enough of your children’s labor, and sending them more water, you take some of the water he gives your children, and you pour it back into the lake!

That’ll show him!

You may think this story is insanity, but what I just have described is the U.S. trade war with China.

The U.S. government, unlike state and local governments, unlike the euro nations, and unlike you and me, is Monetarily Sovereign.

That means the U.S. government has the unlimited ability to create infinite U.S. dollars at the touch of a computer key.

In the above parable, U.S. dollars correspond to the unlimited water you freely can draw from your lake.

China pays for our exports with U.S. dollars, which to the U.S. government are nothing more than water. But the Trump administration is angry at China for not buying enough of our products and sending us more dollars (water).

So the Trump administration decides to “punish” China by levying an import duty on Chinese goods, which is exactly like pouring our children’s water back into your lake.

For every export, there must be an import. When the U.S. exports goods and services, it imports the dollars that pay for the export.

The U.S. does not need to import dollars. 

Remember the above parable as you read excerpts from a story that appeared in THE WEEK Magazine:

China is getting Trumpy
By Jeff Spross

President Trump rails against Chinese manufacturing for stealing U.S. jobs.

In retaliation, he’s used tariffs to cut down on the goods Americans import from China — and, by extension, bulk up the “Made in America” goods they buy.

Translation: Trump is angry at the Chinese for not buying enough of your children’s products (in exchange for water).

So he takes some of your children’s dollars (water) in tariffs (pours it back into your lake).

Meanwhile, Trump’s critics paint this as an absurd and destructive quest; they assert that our economic entanglement with China is good for the United States.

It’s good for the United States because we receive valuable goods, made by the sweat of Chinese labor and valuable assets, and all we give them is the dollars that cost us nothing to produce.

Ironically enough, unlike Trump’s U.S. critics and despite what it says abroad, China’s government has its own downright Trumpian plan to get Chinese consumers to buy more Chinese-made products.

Quite literally, the plan is called “Made in China 2025.” The Chinese government — whose economic policy is a weird hybrid of market liberalization and communist-style state ownership and central planning — announced the plan back in 2015.

Basically, it’s a 10-year industrial strategy to increase China’s ability to manufacture high-tech products like superconductors, computer chips, and airplanes.

China wants to consolidate those supply chains within its own borders, so its consumers can buy more of those types of goods from domestic producers. Sound familiar?

Yes, very familiar.

Like the U.S. government, China’s government is Monetarily Sovereign. It has the unlimited ability to create the Chinese renminbi. It never can run short of renminbi.

It can pay millions of Chinese workers billions of renminbi to manufacture everything locally. It has the financial ability to consolidate all supply chains locally.

And/or, it can use the foreign exchange markets to obtain unlimited dollars, and buy whatever it wants to buy from the U.S.

China is caught in the “middle income trap.”

Most of what it exports to the world is low-cost manufactured goods — think clothes, shoes, or consumer electronics — which are low cost because the workers who make them aren’t paid a lot.

Meanwhile, it imports a lot of  high-tech products, which are much more expensive.

Quite often, this setup traps middle-income countries in perpetual trade deficits.  (They’re exporting cheap stuff and importing expensive stuff.)

The word “deficit” and the word “debt,” are the most misunderstood words in all of economics. Both have pejorative implications.

Consider “deficit.” No one likes to run a deficit. Everyone prefers a surplus. But, a federal deficit is an economic surplus. Money flows from the federal government to the economy.

Which is better? For the federal government, which already has infinite dollars, to run a dollar surplus, or for the economy, which can run short of dollars, to run a dollar surplus?

Similarly, a trade deficit can be viewed as a trade surplus: Goods flow from nation “A” to nation “B,” and money flows from nation “B’ to nation “A.”

So which nation runs the “deficit,” and which nation runs the “surplus”? If you are nation “A,” and you receive valuable goods in exchange for the water you freely take from your lake, are you running a surplus or a deficit?

Every day, you run a “deficit” with your grocer, your neighborhood restaurant, your pharmacist, your clothing store, etc. What if you could pay for all these “deficits” with the free water from your lake? Are you bothered by those deficits?

For a Monetarily Sovereign entity, there is absolutely nothing wrong with “perpetual trade deficits.” In fact, they are beneficial.

You receive valuable goods and services, created by the labor and assets of other nations, and you pay with a commodity that has no cost to you: Your own sovereign currency.

That trap drives them into exchange rate crises every so often.

For a Monetarily Sovereign nation,  there are no “exchange rate crises. They have absolute control over every facet of their currency, including the value of that currency. They are sovereign over the currency.

China’s largely managed to run a trade surplus with the rest of the world despite all this, albeit with the occasional dip into trade deficit.

Which is a testament to the intelligence and aggressiveness of Beijing’s macroeconomic and trade strategies.

Translation: China largely managed to use its valuable labor and resources to obtain renminbi, which it could have created without using any of its labor or resources.

That is no testament to “intelligence” and aggressiveness.”

But now the Chinese government would like to get the country out of the middle-income trap entirely.

They are in a trap created by ignorance, not by reality. Like the U.S., they easily could support “perpetual trade deficits,” i.e. buy endless goods in exchange for their endless sovereign currency.

Ironically, here in America, the Made in China 2025 plan isn’t the kind of thing that Trumpian critics of free trade or establishment champions of free trade want to see.

Critics of free trade want America to close its own trade deficit by selling more stuff to China, which is obviously in tension with China’s desire to produce more domestically.

And neither camp likes the idea of China providing more direct subsidies to its domestic companies, or continuing to grab technological know-how and intellectual property from the rest of the world.

The Trump administration actually released a report in 2018 concluding that aspects of Made in China 2025 were “unreasonable and discriminatory.” And other European countries have complained about it as well.

The only people who should complain about China’s “Made in China” efforts are the euro nations — nations like France, Germany, Italy, Portugal, et al, who do not have a sovereign currency.

They use the euro, which is the sovereign currency of the European Union (EU), not of any individual nations.

Euro nations do not have the unlimited ability to produce euros. They can, and often do, run short of euros, and they depend on the “charity” of the EU for survival.

Like you and me, the euro nations are monetarily non-sovereign. They need to export enough goods and services (i.e., import enough euros) to cover their shortfall of euros.

Similarly, all U.S. cities, counties, and states are monetarily non-sovereign. They use the U.S. dollar, which is the sovereign currency of the federal government. They can, and often do, run short of dollars, a problem that never can happen to the federal government.

As payback for Trump’s tariffs on Chinese exports, China jacked up tariffs on American exports.

Translation: To punish America, China raised taxes on its own people,the same thing Trump did to Americans to punish China.

Not surprisingly, China’s imports from the U.S. have fallen since 2018.

But China’s imports from the rest of the world fell by a comparable amount over the same period. It’s not that Chinese demand for foreign goods shifted from American producers to other countries — it’s that the demand just fell, period.

China is producing and paying for more goods and services internally, which being Monetarily Sovereign, it can do endlessly — as can America.

Both the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund have noted the shift, while France’s central bank came right out and said “the recent trade deceleration is closely linked to the shift of China’s production towards domestic demand.”

Yes, European euro nations should be worried. They cannot control their own finances. They are slaves, not only to the EU, but to the rest of the world, and it all was so predictable.

Because of the Euro, no euro nation can control its own money supply. The Euro is the worst economic idea since the recession-era, Smoot-Hawley Tariff. The economies of European nations are doomed by the euro.” The Meteorology of Economics,” 2005

The austerity and free-market policies of the modern global trade order create a permanent shortfall in global demand, thus driving a race to the bottom as every country tries to outwit its neighbor and grab more of the demand that remains.

Rather than attempt to change that game, both Trump’s and China’s protectionism are just attempts to be the player who comes out on top.

Austerity is merely the attempt by the very rich to widen the income/wealth/power gap and to squeeze more dollars out of the middle and the poor.

No people in human history (other than the rich) have benefited from their nation adopting austerity.

By contrast, protectionism by a Monetarily Sovereign nation can be quite beneficial to that nation’s populace.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty
Twitter: @rodgermitchell
Search #monetarysovereignty Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

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

The most important problems in economics involve:

  1. Monetary Sovereignty describes money creation and destruction.
  2. Gap Psychology describes the common desire to distance oneself from those “below” in any socio-economic ranking, and to come nearer those “above.” The socio-economic distance is referred to as “The Gap.”

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 Monetary Sovereignty and The Ten Steps To Prosperity can grow the economy and narrow the Gaps:

Ten Steps To Prosperity:

1. Eliminate FICA

2. Federally funded Medicare — parts A, B & D, plus long-term care — for everyone

3. Provide a monthly economic bonus to every man, woman and child in America (similar to social security for all)

4. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone

5. Salary for attending school

6. Eliminate federal taxes on business

7. Increase the standard income tax deduction, annually. 

8. Tax the very rich (the “.1%”) more, with higher progressive tax rates on all forms of income.

9. Federal ownership of all banks

10. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99.9% 

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

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Do you believe fortune tellers, Nigerian princes, and people who say the federal debt is a “ticking time bomb”?

Do you believe fortune-tellers, Nigerian princes, and assorted other snake oil salesmen? Do you accept phone calls from strangers offering you free time-shares and cruise vacations?Image result for crystal ball

No, fortunately, you are too smart to fall for those scams perpetrated by liars and fools.

But somebody must be deceived because those frauds have been around for a long time. If they didn’t work they would have died out by now.

In this world where presumably we have graduated from the dark ages, actual facts are easy to obtain from legitimate sources. But, many of us still accept the words of Tarot card readers, crystal ball gazers,  and other mass deceivers. Trump University is one proof of that.

Even today, you continue to be barraged with sad phone calls from non-existent grandchildren and claims by fake IRS employees, telling you urgently to send money, now, now, now.

It never ends.

And that is why you continue to experience the “federal-debt-is-a-ticking-time-bomb” scam, one of the most subtle, yet long-lived scams in history.

It is subtle and long-lived for three reasons:

  1. The speaker (or writer) does not directly ask you for money. No, he/she asks for something even more valuable: Your vote. He wants you to vote against your own best interests.
  2. It sounds so logical, so every-day reasonable, so innocent, so prudent — far more logical, reasonable, innocent, and prudent than that $5 million you will receive from Nigeria.
  3. It isn’t immediately clear to you who exactly benefits from the scam, but there are beneficiaries, big beneficiaries, and later in this article, I’ll tell you who they are.

As recently as August of this year, we added yet another example to the list of ticking-time-bomb scams that goes back to 1940, when the federal debt was only $40 billion. (It’s above $20 trillion today, and that ole time-bomb still’s a’tickin’.)

And here’s yet another one: Same wording to the same lies.  It even includes that same ridiculous “debt clock” currently parked in a Manhatten alleyway.Image result for debt clock

Our national ticking time bomb
By Bill Yeargin, SPECIAL TO THE SUN SENTINEL |
SEP 12, 2019

The U.S. has a big problem that, if not corrected soon, will have a significant negative impact on our country, including Florida.

Our growing national debt has resulted in a debt-to-GDP ratio that is over 100 percent, one of the world’s worst.

See the scam language. Something has to be done “soon”. (Even though the federal debt has grown more than 50,000% over the past 70 years, and the U.S. economy is the strongest in the world, something must be done, SOON. Don’t think. Just act, soon!)

And that meaningless debt-to-GDP ratio, which is one of the world’s “worst.” For the U.S., it’s a bit above 100%.  Don’t you wish it was more like Russia’s (14%) or Zimbabwe’s (21%)? Or does Mr. Yeargin prefer Guatemala’s ratio of 25% or Nigeria’s ratio of 30%?

Or how about Japan’s ratio of 238%? Which economy and which inflation would you prefer, Japan’s or Zimbabwe’s?

Here is a list of national debt/GDP ratios for countries. See if you can see a relationship between that useless ratio and the strength of a nation’s economy. Save your effort. There is no relationship. As we said, it is a useless ratio.

Mr. Yeargin’s article continues:

In retrospect, it is hard to believe in the late 90s, the U.S. was running budget surpluses and on track to have no national debt by 2006.

Uh, excuse me, Mr. Yeargin, but the Clinton surpluses of 1998-2001 led directly to the recession of 2001. We actually were lucky then, because surpluses, which remove dollars from the economy, often have a worse result than a recession:

1804-1812: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 48%. Depression began 1807.
1817-1821: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 29%. Depression began 1819.
1823-1836: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 99%. Depression began 1837.
1852-1857: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 59%. Depression began 1857.
1867-1873: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 27%. Depression began 1873.
1880-1893: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 57%. Depression began 1893.
1920-1930: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 36%. Depression began 1929.

Ah, those pesky facts.

And the ignorance becomes laughable:

Now, we have a national debt approaching $23 trillion dollars — about $68,000 per citizen — and it’s still growing fast.

The past two years the federal deficit has exploded to over a trillion dollars a year (yep, a trillion.) It is endangering our country and state’s future. We need our leaders to deal with this problem now.

The “per citizen” line is supposed to make you think you owe the federal debt, or your taxes will be taken to pay it off. Neither is true.

The so-called federal debt is not like your debt or my debt. The federal debt is nothing more than the total of deposits into Treasury security accounts, which are paid off every day simply by returning the dollars in those accounts to the account holders. Neither you nor your taxes are involved.

The federal government does not use those dollars. They remain in the T-security accounts until maturity, at which time they are returned.

Even if the federal government did not collect a single penny in taxes, it could pay off the entire federal debt today, simply by closing all those accounts and sending the dollars back.

And then there’s the line that includes the words, “and states.” The false implications seem to be either that state financing is like federal financing, or that somehow states are liable for federal debt.  Mr. Yeargin isn’t clear about what he means, but either meaning is wrong.

And now we come to the really, really ignorant part (Yes, amazingly even less knowledgeable than the preceding).

So, how did we get here?

After World War 2, the U.S. had a huge national debt, but a growing economy and fiscal discipline (at least more than we have now) reduced it to manageable levels.

Here is the “fiscal discipline” Mr. Yeargin claims we had, but no longer have: Beginning in 1945, we had 5 recessions in only 15 years. That is his version of “fiscal discipline.”

By contrast, our “undisciplined,” debt-based economy has not had a single recession in 11 years, and is not even close to one now.

But it gets even worse:

By the late 90s, the president and Congress had worked to generate national surpluses and were heading toward a debt-free U.S.

If the federal debt is, as Mr. Yeargin warns, “approaching $23 trillion,” to have a “debt-free U.S.” would require us to have a combination of spending cuts and tax increases totaling $23 trillion!

Can you imagine what taking $23 trillion out of the U.S. economy would do? It would be a financial disaster unparalleled in U.S. history.

The Great Depression was caused by a removal of only 36% of the debt; Mr. Yeargin wants to remove 100%. It boggles.

And it continues:

Then, in the early 2000s, the combination of tax cuts, increased Medicare benefits for the elderly, and waging two wars on a credit card resulted in the return of national deficits and we lost our opportunity to be debt-free.

The financial crisis in 2008 resulted in huge government spending to avert a depression.

Mr. Yeargin manages to confuse even his own confusion. He claims correctly that huge government spending averted a recession, but he already has claimed that huge government spending is a danger, a “ticking time-bomb.”

Federal spending pumps dollars into the economy, which grows the economy. Federal surpluses take dollars from the economy, which causes depressions and recessions.

So which is it Mr. Yeargin? Did huge spending endanger us or save us? You can’t have it both ways. Or, if you know nothing about economics, perhaps you can have it both ways — in your imagination.

After we got through the Great Recession, our deficit was high but dropping. The past three years has seen increased spending and tax cuts, which have exploded the annual deficit to over $1 trillion.

(Meaning that the federal government, which never can run short of dollars, will add $1 trillion to the economy, which needs dollars to grow. And this is a bad thing?)

And then, just when you hope it could not possibly be dumber, yes, it gets even dumber.

So, why is it a problem?

At some point investors will become concerned about lending to a debt-riddled U.S., which will result in having to offer higher interest rates to attract the money.

Even with rates low today, interest expense is the federal government’s third highest expenditure following the elderly and military.

The U.S. already borrows all the money it uses to pay its interest expense, sort of like a Ponzi scheme. Lack of investor confidence will only make this problem worse.

Because the U.S. federal government has the unlimited ability to create its own sovereign currency the U.S. dollar, it has no need to borrow dollars from anyone.

And indeed, despite the misleading use of the words “debt” and “borrow,” the U.S. government does not borrow. It provides T-security accounts, into which investors can deposit dollars.

Why does it provide these accounts if it doesn’t touch the dollars in them? Two primary reasons:

  1. To provide a safe “parking place” for unused dollars, which helps stabilize the dollar, and
  2. To assist the Federal Reserve in setting interest rates.

No, Mr. Yeargin, the federal government is not like state and local governments; it is not like businesses; it is not like you and me. It doesn’t borrow. It doesn’t need or use borrowed money.

St. Louis Federal Reserve: “As the sole manufacturer of dollars, whose debt is denominated in dollars, the U.S. government can never become insolvent, i.e.,unable to pay its bills. In this sense, the government is not dependent on credit markets to remain operational.”

The federal government uniquely is Monetarily Sovereign, a term Mr. Yeagin clearly does not understand. The government creates dollars by passing laws, at the press of a computer key.

The article drones on, sliding ever downhill from a low beginning:

Additionally, we have lost two of our most powerful tools to pull out of a future recession.

From Economics 101, recall that deficit spending and low interest rates are tools used to end a recession. But we are now using them in a good economy, which is sort of like eating your seed corn.

Except that the federal government has the unlimited ability to deficit spend, and contrary to popular perception, low interest rates are not stimulative. They help control inflation, but do not add growth dollars to the economy.

So, why do we accept this?

It feels good to spend. Just like anyone who borrows to buy something they cannot afford, the U.S. finds it to easy to use its credit card (deficit spending).

In the short run, this spending makes politicians look like geniuses because it fuels the economy and drives votes.

In the long run, the politicians will be out of office when the problems occur. When the economy is doing well — even when artificially propped up with huge deficit spending — people feel like things are going well and don’t worry about those huge credit card bills (national debt) piling up.

Well, golly, the so-called “credit card bills (national debt)” has been “piling up” for 70 years, and here we are, stronger than ever. Again, those pesky facts.

So, what’s the solution?

We need leaders who have the will, character and courage to tackle this problem like any business leader would for their organization.

More ignorance. He still doesn’t understand the differences between federal (Monetarily Sovereign) financing and business (monetarily non-sovereign) financing.

If we want low taxes, then we must decide how to cut expenses. The challenge with federal expenses is that most of the money goes to the elderly, through Social Security and Medicare, and the military.

Unlike state and local governments, which being monetarily non-sovereign and so use tax dollars to pay for spending, the Monetarily Sovereign federal government does not use tax dollars.

So why does the federal government collect taxes?

  1. To control the economy by taxing things it wishes to discourage and by giving tax breaks to things it wishes to encourage
  2. To help the rich, who run America, widen the Gap by giving them tax breaks not available to the non-rich.
  3. To convince the public that benefits must be rationed or taxes increased. The rich, who run America, fear that if you, the public, knew the truth, you would demand more benefits, thereby narrowing the Gap. (Think of Medicare for All and Social Security for all, etc.)

And finally, we get to the heart of it. Mr. Yeargin suggests the need to cut Social Security and Medicare which mostly benefit the middle-classes and the poor.

Gap Psychology tells us that the rich promulgate lies about federal financing, in order to widen the Gap between the rich and the rest.

It is the Gap that makes them rich (Without the Gap no one would be rich; we all would be the same.) And the wider the Gap, the richer they are.

One easy way to widen the Gap is to cut benefits to the non-rich.

The “federal-debt-is-a-ticking-time-bomb” scam benefits the rich because it widens the Gap between the rich and the rest.

I apologize if I seem to pick on Mr. Yeargin this way. He may be a very nice, honest gentleman, but clearly, he is not an economist. Perhaps, all the errors in his article are innocent and without any malicious intent.

But he writes about economics, which is typical of what you read, day after day: Writings by people who do not understand that federal finances are nothing like personal finances, though you are led to believe they are alike.

Your intuition and incorrect information combine to fool you.

I don’t know Mr. Yeargin, but according to his web site:

“Bill Yeargin is CEO of Correct Craft, a boat-building business based in Orlando. He’s also on the board of the University of Central Florida.”

Someone please, please assure me that Mr. Yeargin has nothing to do with the teaching of economics at the University of Central Florida.  Please.

What will trigger the next recession?

Longtime readers of this blog are quite familiar with the following graph:

It shows the relationship between U.S. federal debt/deficit growth (green line) and U.S. recessions (vertical gray bars).

You can see this relationship detailed at: The relationship between federal deficit spending and GDP growth, but in summary, recessions follow a period of reduced federal debt/deficit growth, and are cured by increased federal debt/deficit growth.

The reasons relate to these fundamental truths:

  1. Every form of money is a form of debt. Debts require collateral. The U.S. dollar is a debt of the U.S. federal government. The collateral for the U.S. dollar is the full faith and credit of the U.S. government.
  2. Economic growth requires debt/money growth. Large economies have more money than do small economies. To move from smaller to larger, an economy must have an increased supply of debt/money.
  3. To cure a recession requires growing the economy which requires increasing growth in the debt/money supply.
  4. Federal deficits add money to the economy, and federal surpluses take money from the economy.

The above is why every depression in U.S. history has been introduced with a period of federal surpluses. (See item #3 of “To understand economics, you must understand Monetary Sovereignty.”),  and every depression has been cured by federal deficit spending.

We have discussed these facts many times with respect to federal deficits and debt.

However federal debt is only a fraction of total deficits and debt.

The above graph compares federal debt (green line) with the total debt of all sectors (blue line — state & local governments, domestic non-financial sectors, etc.).

While federal debt currently approximates $20 trillion, the total of all sectors approximates $75 trillion.

While federal deficits and debt are under direct federal control, and can be made to fluctuate significantly, “all-sectors” debt is not directly controlled, and has much greater inertia.

Though federal debt is an important source of U.S. dollars, there can be periods when federal debt changes in one way, while all-sectors debt changes another way.

Because the origin of money has less economic effect than does the existence of money, the all-sectors data (blue) most parallel Gross Domestic Product (red line in the below graph).

Total debt % annual change of all sectors (blue); GDP % annual change (red).

Yet, in a September 2, 2019 article in Fortune Magazine, you can read:

“We do know that there is a recession coming,” said Cindy Kuppens, the COO of O’Brien Wealth Partners. “Maybe next year, maybe 2021. We’re coming to the end of a business cycle.”

We could even be in a recession now without knowing. Economists have to wait for the data to measure GDP and new estimates come as additional information arrives. A previous quarter can slide in hindsight and a current period may be starting to slow.

That is just one example of numerous “recession is coming” predictions based on “this can’t growth go on forever” pontificating.

But “this can’t go on forever” is not a prediction. Nothing goes on forever. The world can’t go on forever. Predicting a recession because we haven’t had one recently, is the height of ignorance.

So pay no attention to the “it can’t go on forever” Chicken Littles.

Then there are the more scientific types, as in the article: “Is there a recession coming? Keep an eye on these key indicators.  They talk about such factors as: Yield curve inversion, employment figures, unemployment figures, housing prices, construction rates, housing supply, Consumer Confidence Index, manufacturing numbers, business sentiment, and a summary index like the Conference Board’s Leading Economic Index.

So which is/are the most important predictors, and how should these factors be weighted? No one knows, but we do know this: The U.S. economy, and indeed all economics, is ruled by money.

With federal debt growth, all-sector debt growth, and GDP growth all increasing, there are no signs of a coming recession, and until we see growth declining in at least one of the three, there absolutely will not be a recession.

The GOP, despite its long-time opposition to federal deficits, especially when a Democrat was in the White House, has now created what is predicted to be a $1 trillion deficit — and that is a good thing for the American economy.

Ironically, it will be remembered as the sole beneficial act by President Donald Trump’s administration.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty
Twitter: @rodgermitchell
Search #monetarysovereignty Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

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

The most important problems in economics involve:

  1. Monetary Sovereignty describes money creation and destruction.
  2. Gap Psychology describes the common desire to distance oneself from those “below” in any socio-economic ranking, and to come nearer those “above.” The socio-economic distance is referred to as “The Gap.”

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 Monetary Sovereignty and The Ten Steps To Prosperity can grow the economy and narrow the Gaps:

Ten Steps To Prosperity:

1. Eliminate FICA

2. Federally funded Medicare — parts A, B & D, plus long-term care — for everyone

3. Provide a monthly economic bonus to every man, woman and child in America (similar to social security for all)

4. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone

5. Salary for attending school

6. Eliminate federal taxes on business

7. Increase the standard income tax deduction, annually. 

8. Tax the very rich (the “.1%”) more, with higher progressive tax rates on all forms of income.

9. Federal ownership of all banks

10. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99.9% 

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

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Would you like free healthcare for life? Don’t accept the Big Lie

This is a message for all Americans: Free healthcare for life truly can be yours, unless you accept the Big Lie.Image result for big lie

Unfortunately, you are treated to the Big Lie almost everywhere. Case in point: Here are excerpts from a typical, Big Lie article that appeared in the 11/25/2019 issue of Reason.com.

More Americans Want Bigger Government—If It’s Free
A more active government wins growing approval, but only so long as it doesn’t raise taxes, require tradeoffs, or interfere with private enterprise.
J.D. Tuccille | 11.25.2019 7:30 AM

Good news for control freaks and nanny-staters across the U.S.: Americans’ support for a bigger, more active government is edging up, potentially creating an opening for politicians and activists who want their countrymen to snuggle in the warm bosom of a nurturing state that provides an ever-greater variety of goods, services, and rules for people’s lives.

There’s just one catch: Americans don’t want to pay for it.

Support for a big, muscular government falls off a cliff if it comes with a price tag.

Consider that the article was published by the “any-government-is-too-much-government” Reason.com, don’t be surprised at the sarcasm delivered by such phrasing as “control-freaks,” “nanny-staters,” “warm bosom of a nurturing state,” and “ever variety of . . . rules for people’s lives.”

If one is blessed with the notion that good people need or want no help, and that only the lazy and indolent ask for it, one can sneer smugly, as J.D. Tuccille does, at those less fortunate.

And when one also is blessed with the abject ignorance of the federal government’s Monetary Sovereignty, one can declare, “Americans don’t want to pay for it” without disclosing that Americans do not pay for any federal spending.

That is why net federal deficits now total more than $20 trillion, and neither the government, nor the economy, nor the federal taxpayers have suffered any ill effects.

On the contrary, the economy has been booming since 2008 because the federal government has pumped trillions of dollars into consumers’ pockets (aka “running trillions of dollars in deficits”).

The article continues:

“Since 2010, the percentage of Americans saying government should do more to solve the country’s problems has increased 11 percentage points, to 47%, and the percentage wanting government to take active steps to improve people’s lives is up eight points, to 42%,” Gallup reported last week.

Forty-nine percent think the government is doing too much, and 29 percent prefer a government that provides just basic services.

It gets back to the question, “What is the purpose of our government?”

The answer is:

“The purpose of our government is to protect us and to improve our lives.”

Why else would we, and people all over the world, create governments?

Yes, bad government can be burdensome, but bad anything is burdensome: Bad police, bad roads, bad banks,  and bad phones, etc. But we don’t suggest doing without police, roads, banks, and phones. Similarly, it is foolish to suggest doing without government.

Can there be “too much” government? Yes, if the government interferes with the economy, negatively. But even then, it’s not a matter of “too much,” but rather “bad.”

A tiny government can be bad and a huge government can be good. Or vice versa. It’s not quantity; it’s quality that matters.

Here’s the opportunity politicians—especially Democrats—have been looking for as they promise “Medicare for All,” student loan forgiveness, universal basic income, government-supported housing, subsidized child care, and more.

And what is wrong with that? Are we to believe that Americans must suffer in order to be “good”? Must life be difficult so that we may “earn” a decent life?

If so, why then do the rich seem to avoid the miseries we foist upon ourselves?

Why do we allow ourselves to accept the myth that there is no such thing as a free lunch, and so we must sweat and hurt, and strain, while the rich glide through life blissfully?

Though the rich do not want you to know this, our government really does have the ability to provide a “free lunch.” You simply need to understand the facts of Monetary Sovereignty.

The Reason.com article continues:

Progressive standard-bearers Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) have made particular waves with their plans for government largesse, but Pete Buttigieg and others have their own schemes for turning the federal government into Santa Claus with a bottomless bag of gifts.

To continue the sarcastic analogy, I don’t hear anyone asking Santa for fewer gifts. The author doesn’t believe the government should provide anything that benefits the poor and middle classes.

Apparently, he believes Medicare should be ended, and students should be burdened with loans. And as for the poor, why give them any help, because it’s their own fault. Right?

But tax cuts for big business and for the very rich are just fine. Isn’t that correct, Mr. Tuccile?

But a government that provides everything to everybody is going to run up some bills.

Oh, you can cut some existing programs and transfer the funds to other programs, but that’s hardly going to satisfy the demands of “Americans saying government should do more.”

Or, you simply can provide programs without cutting anything. The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, is perfectly capable of doing that.

More programs and spending will require more resources that have to come from somewhere.

And since bake sales usually fall a bit short when you’re talking about funding government takeovers of large segments of the economy and extensive new programs, that’s going to mean turning tax collectors into busy beavers.

Whoops.

VA Hospital: Socialist

“Whoops,” indeed. Clearly, J.D. Tuccille, the author, is ignorant of the difference between state/local governments’ finances, vs. the federal government’s finances.

If he had even a modicum of understanding about federal finances, he would know that not only does the government not need bake sales, it doesn’t need tax collectors.

And as a further demonstration of his economic ignorance, Medicare for All does not involve a government “takeover of a large segment of the economy,” or a takeover of any segment of the economy.

Like the current Medicare, which Tuccille clearly hates, Medicare for All simply would pay for medical care, not take it over.

“A more active government would almost certainly result in higher taxes,” Gallup adds.

“However, relatively few Americans favor that approach… In the latest poll, 25% would opt for increased taxes and services, 32% want no change and 42% prefer smaller government.”

Support for higher taxes to pay for expanded government is up a bit in the survey from years past, but it remains a distinctly minority taste.

Private hospital: Not socialist

And here is the crux of the problem: The very rich, who control the government, want you to believe that the only way you can have the same benefits the rich and the politicians have (paid-for healthcare, no need for college loans, plenty of money for retirement, etc.) is for you to pay more taxes — and that idea is a gigantic, smelly pile of bull poop.

Keeping you down is the easiest way for the rich to lift themselves up (See: Gap Psychology), and the easiest way to keep you down is to indoctrinate you with the false belief that your taxes are necessary to fund federal spending.

That means Americans are growing increasingly enthusiastic about placing orders for health care, higher education, housing, and more from the government—for free.

But when they see prices on the menu, they balk, big time.

And balk they should, for the “prices on the menu” are a lie. Federal taxes do not fund federal spending. Period.

You, as a federal taxpayer, do not pay for anything. Not only are your tax dollars not used by the federal government, but they are destroyed upon receipt.

Once your tax dollars are received by the U.S. Treasury, they cease to exists in any money supply measure. To pay it’ s bills, the federal government creates brand new dollars. That is how the federal government can continue to deficit spend without ever running short of money.

Medicare for All gains overwhelming support—as high as 71 percent in a Kaiser Family Foundation survey—from Americans so long as they think it’s entirely cost-free and devoid of tradeoffs.

But throw in some real-world qualifiers, and that support erodes.

Unfortunately, those “real-world qualifiers” are as “real-world” as the bogey man meets the tooth fairy.

But this does demonstrate the strong desire for free medical availability. It’s want Americans want, and it is what Americans should receive from an infinitely wealthy government.

“Net favorability drops as low as -44 percentage points when people hear the argument that this would lead to delays in some people getting some medical tests and treatments,” the Kaiser survey adds.

The notion that there would be “delays in some people getting some medical tests and treatments” is based on one truth and one fiction.

The truth is that more people would get medical tests and treatment, which is a wonderful thing. Every year, literally millions of poor and middle-income Americans stay sick too long and die too early for lack of funds.

“Net favorability is also negative if people hear it would threaten the current Medicare program (-28 percentage points), require most Americans to pay more in taxes (-23 percentage points), or eliminate private health insurance companies (-21 percentage points).”

Those so-called “real-world qualifiers” are about as “real-world” as the bogey-man meets the tooth fairy.

The argument about “delays in some people getting some medical tests and treatments,” is based on one implied truth and one implied fiction.

The implied truth is that more people would get medical tests and treatments, which is a wonderful thing.

Today, millions of Americans stay sick too long and die too early because they can’t afford medical tests and treatments. Apparently, some (i.e. rich) Americans think this is a good idea, so that doctors and hospitals will be freed up to treat the rich.

So yes, when medical tests and treatments are free, more Americans would use them and live better, longer lives. Isn’t this what we should want?

The implied fiction is that there is a fixed number of doctors, nurses, hospitals, etc. to go around, so if the poor start to make use of them, that will cause a shortage, and there won’t be enough for wealthier patients.

Utter nonsense. The creation of today’s Medicare made it possible for millions of the elderly, who formerly could not afford medical care, now to enjoy it. That has not caused a shortage of medical tests and treatment.

On the contrary, the additional money that Medicare has pumped into the medical field has caused a massive expansion of medical resources.

And the expansion would be even greater if Medicare stopped cutting doctors’ fees so much, didn’t require deductibles, and fully funded pharmaceuticals.

Availability follows money. The more money, the more availability. Medicare for all, properly done, would increase the availability of medical tests and treatment.

Costs for these plans are unavoidable.

Warren’s spending schemes would run to at least $26 trillion in new taxes, although she likes to pretend that her scheme would be paid for by a wealth tax that would simultaneously extract funds from successful people while punishing them for their success.

Sanders himself concedes that his plan for government-run health care would cost between $30-$40 trillion over ten years. He honestly admits that it would be the middle class that constitutes the majority of the population—not just some rich people somewhere—who would foot the bill.

Tens of trillions of dollars in new taxes are likely to prove a bit of a hurdle for Americans who want lots of new goodies from the government only if they’re entirely free.

Anyone who understands Monetary Sovereignty knows the above is “The Big Lie,” that federal taxes are necessary to fund federal spending.

It should be obvious, even to the ill-informed, that the federal government continually deficits spends and never seems to have any trouble paying its bills.

You can’t do that. Your state, county, and city can’t do that. Your business can’t do that. But the federal government uniquely can.

Why? It is Monetarily Sovereign. It created the very first dollars simply by creating laws from thin air. And those laws allowed the federal government to continue creating dollars from thin air.

The federal government simply cannot run short of its own sovereign currency.

It has no need for tax dollars. It has no need to borrow. Even if all federal taxes and all issuance of Treasury Certificates totaled $0, the federal government could continue spending, forever.

Despite Elizabeth Warren’s and Bernie Sanders’s ridiculous and ironic statements that Medicare for All would require an increase in federal taxes, it simply is not true.

The U.S. government easily could provide a no-deductible, comprehensive Medicare for All, that covered 100% of all hospital, doctor, drug, and equipment costs, along with long-term care, without collecting a single penny in taxes.

If you’re looking for more evidence that people are a little confused about what they want, try asking Americans about the widely reported growing enthusiasm for socialism.

Capitalism—the free market—remains the preferred choice of 60 percent of respondents, with 39 percent having a positive view of socialism, according to Gallup.

As with everything in this country, the division is increasingly partisan: Positive views of socialism have risen to 65 percent among Democrats and declined to 9 percent among Republicans. Fifty-two percent of Democrats have a positive view of capitalism vs. 78 percent of Republicans.

No, if you’re looking for more evidence that people are a little confused about what they want, try asking Americans, “What is socialism?”

Contrary to popular wisdom,  Medicare is not socialism. Neither is Social Security. Neither are food stamps and other poverty aids.

The word “socialism” is the handy pejorative the rich like to use whenever federal spending for benefits are discussed. So if anything helps the middle or the poor, the rich shout “socialism.” (Of course, benefits to the rich, like special tax breaks, never are called “socialism.”)

Socialism is government ownership and administration of production and distribution.

The Veterans Administration hospitals, which are owned and administered by the federal government, are socialist. The military is socialist. The federal highway system is socialist. In many communities, the water system is socialist. Most dams are socialist. NASA, the U.S. Treasury, and the Lincoln Memorial are socialist. Your street probably is socialist.

But Medicare is not. Medicare does not own anything. It merely pays for things. The same with Social Security and food stamps and other poverty aids. Paying for things is what all governments do, socialist or not.

Why does the article’s author introduce the word, “socialism”? Either he truly is ignorant of what “socialism” means, which seems impossible considering that he is a former managing editor of Reason.com and current contributing editor. Or, knowing that the word “socialism” has negative connotations to most Americans, he is trying to con you into believing Medicare for All is a bad idea, and that only the rich deserve the best possible medical care.

Don’t fall for the con. Don’t fall for the Big Lie. Medicare for All could be a free blessing upon you and this nation if you understand the truth: The federal government has unlimited control over its own sovereign currency, the U.S. dollar. That means it can control both the supply and the value of the dollar.

It never can run short of dollars; it can pay for anything, even without collecting taxes; it can prevent and cure inflation.

If you don’t believe me, believe them:

Alan Greenspan: “A government cannot become insolvent with respect to obligations in its own currency.”

Ben Bernanke: “The U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost.”

St. Louis Federal Reserve: “As the sole manufacturer of dollars, whose debt is denominated in dollars, the U.S. government can never become insolvent, i.e., unable to pay its bills. In this sense, the government is not dependent on credit markets to remain operational.

Yes, America, free healthcare for life can be yours . . .  unless you accept the Big Lie.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty
Twitter: @rodgermitchell
Search #monetarysovereignty Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

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

The most important problems in economics involve:

  1. Monetary Sovereignty describes money creation and destruction.
  2. Gap Psychology describes the common desire to distance oneself from those “below” in any socio-economic ranking, and to come nearer those “above.” The socio-economic distance is referred to as “The Gap.”

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 Monetary Sovereignty and The Ten Steps To Prosperity can grow the economy and narrow the Gaps:

Ten Steps To Prosperity:

1. Eliminate FICA

2. Federally funded Medicare — parts A, B & D, plus long-term care — for everyone

3. Provide a monthly economic bonus to every man, woman and child in America (similar to social security for all)

4. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone

5. Salary for attending school

6. Eliminate federal taxes on business

7. Increase the standard income tax deduction, annually. 

8. Tax the very rich (the “.1%”) more, with higher progressive tax rates on all forms of income.

9. Federal ownership of all banks

10. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99.9% 

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

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY