Tag: monetary sovereignty

America’s #1 Gun Myth exposed

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

Mitchell’s laws:
•Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
•Any monetarily NON-sovereign government — be it city, county, state or nation — that runs an ongoing trade deficit, eventually will run out of money.
•The more federal budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes..

•Liberals think the purpose of government is to protect the poor and powerless from the rich and powerful. Conservatives think the purpose of government is to protect the rich and powerful from the poor and powerless.

•The single most important problem in economics is the Gap between rich and the rest..
•Austerity is the government’s method for widening the Gap between rich and poor.
•Until the 99% understand the need for federal deficits, the upper 1% will rule.
•Everything in economics devolves to motive, and the motive is the Gap between the rich and the rest..
============================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================

Every time America suffers yet another multiple shooting (there have been an average of one a day this year) four claims are sure to be made:

Claims:

1. We need more (or fewer) laws vetting gun ownership

2. If the victims had been carrying guns, they would have been able to prevent the multiple shooting.

3. If gun ownership were restricted, then only “bad guys” would have guns and the “good guys” would be helpless to defend themselves.

4. The mere knowledge that “good guys” have guns prevents “bad guys” from committing mass shootings.

All four claims are deficient in that they misdirect us from the real problem.

How do I know?

Australia enacted one of the largest gun reforms ever nearly 2 decades ago — and gun deaths plummeted
Christina Sterbenz, Oct. 11, 2015

A push for tighter gun laws in the US has once again taken center stage in the wake of a 26-year-old man opening fire on Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon, and killing 10 people. The suspected shooter, Chris Mercer, carried with him three pistols, a rifle, and five extra magazines — all legally obtained.

Forced to react to yet another mass shooting, President Barack Obama reiterated points he’s made before: That the US is the “only advanced country in the world that sees these mass shootings every few months” and “this type of mass violence does not happen in other developed countries.”

By strange “coincidence,” the U.S. has more guns per capita than any other nation on earth — nearly double the next highest country, Serbia.

We are the only nation on earth with more guns than people.

America’s #1 gun myth is: Widespread gun ownership reduces gun killings and makes American’s safer.

In 1996, a man named Martin Bryant became the worst killer in Australia’s history. After walking into a cafe in Port Arthur, Tasmania, he killed 35 people and wounded 23 others with a semiautomatic rifle and another semiautomatic assault weapon.

As a result, Australia enacted one of the largest gun reforms in recent history — and gun deaths plummeted. The changes remain the gold standard for advocates of gun control today.

Note the difference? In America, whenever we have a mass shooting, the the gun manufacturersand their paid stooge, the NRA, call for more guns. Australia did the opposite.

Australia gives its national government only limited powers. So Prime Minister John Howard challenged the country’s various states to support nationwide reform while the national government banned the import of specific weapons.

For a while, some states seemed unwilling to pass the reform.

Just as would happen in America.

Howard, however, made clear his government would counter with a referendum to alter Australia’s Constitution and give itself the power to regulate guns.

“The fundamental problem was the ready availability of high-powered weapons, which enabled people to convert their murderous impulses into mass killing.

Certainly, shortcomings in treating mental illness and the harmful influence of violent video games and movies may have played a role. But nothing trumps easy access to a gun.”

These reforms passed, creating the National Firearms Agreement. Aside from banning certain semiautomatic and self-loading rifles and shotguns, the legislation required all firearm-license applicants to show “genuine reason” for owning a gun, which couldn’t include self-defense.

Aside from the NFA, Australia still had to remove the guns then on its streets and instituted a mandatory, federally financed gun-buyback program. Australia’s government purchased nearly 700,000 guns. Percentage-wise, that’s the equivalent of 40 million in the US.

Actually, America would have to buy back more than 40 million guns. Australia currently has 22 guns per 100 people. The U.S. has an astounding 113 guns per 100 people, a difference of 91 guns for every 100 people.

To get down to Australia’s level, the U.S government would have to buy back about 300 million guns. That is how swamped with guns America is.

Researchers from two different Australian universities found that, in the decade after the NFA was introduced, the firearm homicide rate fell by 59% and the firearm suicide rate fell by 65% — without increases in other types of deaths.

”Our gun buyback took about a fifth of our guns out of circulation but it approximately halved the number of gun-owning households,” said Andrew Leigh, the author of an academic study on Australia’s gun reform. “If the US could dramatically decrease the number of households with guns, it would have many fewer deaths.”

Among the reasons stands the shining fact that Australia hasn’t experienced a massacre similar to Port Arthur since. Many studies do show a drop outside expected trends in gun deaths as well. And of those that have found the opposite, many have been discredited.

Research shows a strong correlation between the amount of guns and the amount of gun homicides — on a national, state, and personal level.

While one logically may expect that reducing the number of guns reduces the number of gun killings, logic sorely has been missing in the U.S. gun debate. For too many Americans, the love of guns and the fear of others who have guns, is like a religious experience that transcends all logic.

Howard acknowledge Australia’s difference from the US: A more urban society, nothing similar to the US Second Amendment, and no organization like the National Rifle Association.

The National Rifle Association is well paid by the gun manufacturers to “take the heat” for gun deaths. The arms industry can hide behind the NRA, and not be sued or even criticized for the killings. (Have you recently heard any criticism of Colt, Glock, Beretta, Smith & Wesson et al? They are among the biggest manufacturers of guns. The NRA is given tons of money to absorb all the criticism.)

In the US, President Obama is well aware of Australia’s massive effort — and the subsequent decline in violence. “When Australia had a mass killing … it was just so shocking the entire country said, ‘Well, we’re going to completely change our gun laws,’ and they did. And it hasn’t happened since.”

Donald Trump and the rest of the Republican Party has misdirected our fears toward terrorism, while saying nothing — absolutely nothing — about the dangers of guns. It like the misdirection of a magician, who makes you focus on one thing, while fooling you about the real thing.

In fact, the odds of being killed by a terrorist are much, much lower than the odds of your winning Spain’s Sorteo Extraordinario de Navidad (Spanish Christmas Lottery), the world’s largest lottery — whether you enter or not.

Here are the figures for 2004 through 2014: U.S. terrorism deaths: 295. U.S. gun deaths: 127,562.

Bottom line:

1. Australia has proved that fewer guns results in fewer gun killings. Guns in the general population do not make us safer.
2. A policy based on “good guys having guns protects us” is a myth, promulgated by the arms industry to sell guns and increase profits.
3. There is no logical reason why the U.S. doesn’t follow Australia’s lead in reducing gun deaths.

Rather than spending your money to buy a gun, while allowing everyone else to own a gun, you should spend the same money to buy a ticket in the Sorteo Extraordinario de Navidad. Your odds of living a long, happy, healthy life would be better.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

===================================================================================
Ten Steps to Prosperity:
1. Eliminate FICA (Click here)
2. Federally funded Medicare — parts A, B & D plus long term nursing care — for everyone (Click here)
3. Provide an Economic Bonus to every man, woman and child in America, and/or every state a per capita Economic Bonus. (Click here) Or institute a reverse income tax.
4. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone. Click here
5. Salary for attending school (Click here)
6. Eliminate corporate taxes (Click here)
7. Increase the standard income tax deduction annually Click here
8. Tax the very rich (.1%) more, with higher, progressive tax rates on all forms of income. (Click here)
9. Federal ownership of all banks (Click here and here)
10. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99% (Click here)

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

10 Steps to Economic Misery: (Click here:)
1. Maintain or increase the FICA tax..
2. Spread the myth Social Security, Medicare and the U.S. government are insolvent.
3. Cut federal employment in the military, post office, other federal agencies.
4. Broaden the income tax base so more lower income people will pay.
5. Cut financial assistance to the states.
6. Spread the myth federal taxes pay for federal spending.
7. Allow banks to trade for their own accounts; save them when their investments go sour.
8. Never prosecute any banker for criminal activity.
9. Nominate arch conservatives to the Supreme Court.
10. Reduce the federal deficit and debt

No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth. Monetary Sovereignty: Cutting federal deficits to grow the economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia.
1. A growing economy requires a growing supply of dollars (GDP=Federal Spending + Non-federal Spending + Net Exports)
2. All deficit spending grows the supply of dollars
3. The limit to federal deficit spending is an inflation that cannot be cured with interest rate control.
4. The limit to non-federal deficit spending is the ability to borrow.

THE RECESSION CLOCK

Recessions come only after the blue line drops below zero.

Monetary Sovereignty

Vertical gray bars mark recessions.

As the federal deficit growth lines drop, we approach recession, which will be cured only when the growth lines rise. Increasing federal deficit growth (aka “stimulus”) is necessary for long-term economic growth.

#MONETARYSOVEREIGNTY

The middle class “self-squeeze”

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

Mitchell’s laws:
•Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
•Any monetarily NON-sovereign government — be it city, county, state or nation — that runs an ongoing trade deficit, eventually will run out of money.
•The more federal budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes..

•Liberals think the purpose of government is to protect the poor and powerless from the rich and powerful. Conservatives think the purpose of government is to protect the rich and powerful from the poor and powerless.

•The single most important problem in economics is the Gap between rich and the rest..
•Austerity is the government’s method for widening the Gap between rich and poor.
•Until the 99% understand the need for federal deficits, the upper 1% will rule.
•Everything in economics devolves to motive, and the motive is the Gap between the rich and the rest..
============================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================

Do you consider yourself a member of the “middle class”?
Do you feel the survival and prosperity of the middle class are in your own best interests?
Is that the way you vote?

Middle-class families, pillar of American Dream, are no longer in majority: study
By: Don Lee, Contact Reporter, Los Angeles Times

The nation’s middle class, long a pillar of the American economy, has shrunk to the point where it no longer constitutes the majority of the adult population, according to a new major study.

Rapid growth of upper-income households, coupled with an increase in less-educated, low earners, has driven the decline of the middle-income population to a hair below 50% of the total this year, the Pew Research Center reported Wednesday.

In 1971, the middle class accounted for 61% of the population, and it has been declining steadily since.

In short, the Gap between the rich and the rest has been growing. The middle and the poor have become realively poorer.

Which group benefits? In which group are you?

The tipping point appears to have occurred in the past couple of years of the recovery from the Great Recession as the economy has continued to reward the highly educated, well-to-do investors and those with technical skills.

Middle-income households have been the bedrock of consumer spending, and many liberals, in particular, view the declining middle as part of a troubling trend of skewed income gains among the nation’s richest families.

It is the liberals who are concerned about this phenomenon. The conservatives are delighted, as reflected in their initiatives to cut social spending, while offering regressive tax “reforms” (“flat tax,” “sales tax,” etc.) which would tax the middle and poor more.

Pew defined middle class as households earning between two-thirds and twice the overall median income, after adjusting for household size. A family of three, for example, would be considered middle income if its total annual income ranged from about $42,000 to $126,000.

It’s questionable whether a family of three earning $42,000 per year should be considered “middle class,” the same as a family earning $126,000.

Most Americans have traditionally identified themselves as middle class, even those at the top and bottom, reflecting a kind of cultural heritage tied to the American dream of self-reliance.

A Gallup survey this spring showed that just 51% of U.S. adults considered themselves middle or upper middle class, with 48% saying they are part of the lower or working class.

That leaves 1% to identify as upper class.

At the same time, many median-income voters, particularly non-college-educated men, are at the core of billionaire Donald Trump’s support in the Republican campaign, and the sense that their once-secure middle-class standing is in danger appears to be fueling their anger at the government and at immigrant groups.

Even being middle class, they support Trump’s anti-middle class bent. The reason: They care more to increase the Gap between themselves and the poor, than to close the Gap between themselves and the rich.

In short, they are willing to hurt themselves, if they can hurt those below them.

From 1971 to 2014, the median income of all <b?upper-income households increased 47% to $174,625. The edian income for the middle tier rose 34%</b. to $73,392, and for the lower income group, it was up 28% to $24,074.

Pew’s findings add to strong evidence that the middle class has been thinned partly by a decline in manufacturing due to competition from imports as well as a broader polarization of jobs that has favored the most educated and technically skilled workers.

Elizbeth Espinoza and her husband, Carlos Arceo, both 38, fall squarely in the middle class. Espinoza said that she and her husband were hopeful about their future incomes rising, but she doubts that they can move up to the upper-income tier. “I feel like upward mobility keeps getting harder and harder,” she said.

Research on income mobility across generations has found the U.S. as a whole lags other Western countries.

The government uses the false excuse about federal debt being “unsustainable,” or that social benefits discourage the middle and lower income groups from working. Both narratives have no basis in fact.

The media, the politicians and the economists, being bribed by the rich, like to characterize the lower income groups as lazy indolents, who would rather receive free “goodies” from the government, than work. <b<Factually, it isn't true, but the myth satisfies the higher groups' need to feel superior.

This site has published examples of politicians referring to the federal debt as a “ticking time bomb” as early as 1940 (Sept 26, 1940, New York Times).

In 1940, Gross Federal Debt was $50 billion. By 2014, it had risen to $18 trillion.

Despite this gargantuan increase, the “time bomb” still is ticking.

If you were a member of a sect, whose leader repeatedly took you to a mountain to await the end of the world, and the world never ended, at what point would you decide the leader either was lying or ignorant of reality. After the first time? After the tenth time? Twentieth?

The statement that the federal debt is “unsustainable” or will cause hyper-inflation, has been made every year for the past 75 years! At long last, are you ready to disbelieve the lie?

Or will you continue to vote Republican (they are the main authors of bills to reduce social spending and increase lower-income taxes — at the detriment to you)?

I’ve received many angry notes from conservatives, but you folks shouldn’t be angry at me. Blame the people who destroy your life-style and your childrens’ futures.

If you are in the middle-or-lower income group, and you suffer because you pay too much FICA, and don’t receive enough unemployment compensation, Medicare, Medicaid, funding for college, Social Security, food stamps and other social benefits, the fault is yours if you voted conservative.

The right wing has set you against your own best interests. You voted for your tormentors, just to torment those below you.

Interestingly, much of the lower income group has it figured out. As soon as the middle smartens up, conservatism will lose its appeal.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

===================================================================================
Ten Steps to Prosperity:
1. Eliminate FICA (Click here)
2. Federally funded Medicare — parts A, B & D plus long term nursing care — for everyone (Click here)
3. Provide an Economic Bonus to every man, woman and child in America, and/or every state a per capita Economic Bonus. (Click here) Or institute a reverse income tax.
4. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone. Click here
5. Salary for attending school (Click here)
6. Eliminate corporate taxes (Click here)
7. Increase the standard income tax deduction annually Click here
8. Tax the very rich (.1%) more, with higher, progressive tax rates on all forms of income. (Click here)
9. Federal ownership of all banks (Click here and here)
10. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99% (Click here)

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

10 Steps to Economic Misery: (Click here:)
1. Maintain or increase the FICA tax..
2. Spread the myth Social Security, Medicare and the U.S. government are insolvent.
3. Cut federal employment in the military, post office, other federal agencies.
4. Broaden the income tax base so more lower income people will pay.
5. Cut financial assistance to the states.
6. Spread the myth federal taxes pay for federal spending.
7. Allow banks to trade for their own accounts; save them when their investments go sour.
8. Never prosecute any banker for criminal activity.
9. Nominate arch conservatives to the Supreme Court.
10. Reduce the federal deficit and debt

No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth. Monetary Sovereignty: Cutting federal deficits to grow the economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia.
1. A growing economy requires a growing supply of dollars (GDP=Federal Spending + Non-federal Spending + Net Exports)
2. All deficit spending grows the supply of dollars
3. The limit to federal deficit spending is an inflation that cannot be cured with interest rate control.
4. The limit to non-federal deficit spending is the ability to borrow.

THE RECESSION CLOCK

Recessions come only after the blue line drops below zero.

Monetary Sovereignty

Vertical gray bars mark recessions.

As the federal deficit growth lines drop, we approach recession, which will be cured only when the growth lines rise. Increasing federal deficit growth (aka “stimulus”) is necessary for long-term economic growth.

#MONETARYSOVEREIGNTY

The “inversion” and the absence of logic

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

Mitchell’s laws:
•Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
•Any monetarily NON-sovereign government — be it city, county, state or nation — that runs an ongoing trade deficit, eventually will run out of money.
•The more federal budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes..

•Liberals think the purpose of government is to protect the poor and powerless from the rich and powerful. Conservatives think the purpose of government is to protect the rich and powerful from the poor and powerless.

•The single most important problem in economics is the Gap between rich and the rest..
•Austerity is the government’s method for widening the Gap between rich and poor.
•Until the 99% understand the need for federal deficits, the upper 1% will rule.
•Everything in economics devolves to motive, and the motive is the Gap between the rich and the rest..
============================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================

Let’s begin with a few facts upon which most people agree:

1. Being Monetarily Sovereign (sovereign over its own currency), the federal government can “print” unlimited dollars.
(It doesn’t really “print” the dollars, but the important point is the U.S. government cannot run short of its own sovereign currency — the currency it originally created from thin air 200+ years ago.)

2. It benefits the nation for American business to be strong.
(Strong business hire more people, pay more salaries and provide more goods and services than does weak business.)

3. Reducing cost is a good way to improve profits and to strengthen a business.
(Profits are the difference between sales and costs.)

4. Federal taxes represent a large cost to most businesses.

5. To reduce this cost, a few companies have instituted an “inversion.”

Clinton’s Plan to Complicate Corporate Taxes
BloombergView, December 10, 2015, By Paula Dwyer

To Hillary Clinton, corporations are being unpatriotic when they combine with a smaller foreign company and then move their legal addresses overseas, where taxes are lower. (Known as an “inversion.”

This week she released a plan to stop such tax-avoidance trickery, which has been on the rise in recent years.

(Inversion) isn’t good for America.

As Clinton says, mergers should be carried out for business reasons, not to take advantage of tax loopholes.

Inversions also erode the tax base needed to maintain roads, rails and ports, support basic research, enforce trade treaties and perform the million other tasks that allow U.S. companies to conduct business across 50 states with little friction.

See anything wrong with this?

Since the federal government has the unlimited ability to create its own dollars, why does it need to take dollars from business? And why is taking dollars from business, which weakens American business, considered “patriotic”?

And why does the Monetarily Sovereign U.S. need to get dollars from business in order to “maintain roads, rails and ports, support basic research, enforce trade treaties and perform the million other tasks . . . “?

Clinton, though, has a propensity to address problems with complicated five-point plans involving a mix of legislative and executive actions, when a simple solution — lowering U.S. corporate taxes to match what the rest of the developed world charges — would suffice.

And if lowering taxes to match what the rest of the developed world charges is a good idea, wouldn’t lowering taxes below what the rest of the world charges be an even better idea?

Think of the competitive​ advantage it would give American business. Think of the additional jobs, the additional salaries.

She would require U.S. shareholders to own half or less of the combined company as a condition for avoiding corporate taxes.

(She) would even try to undo numerous completed inversions by making the 50 percent hurdle retroactive to May 2014.

She would also require companies to pay an “exit tax” before inverting.

She would also ask Congress — or the U.S. Treasury Department if Congress fails to act — to crack down on the practice of “earnings stripping.” This happens post-inversion, when a U.S. unit borrows heavily from its new foreign parent. The loan is then repaid from operations in the U.S., where interest on debt is tax deductible.

All this is a complicated, convoluted effort that will cut corporate profits by making business pay more taxes. So what are we talking about, here?

Deferral from taxation of overseas earnings is the very feature of U.S. tax law that’s driving inversions in the first place.

Multinational companies refuse to repatriate more than b><$1 trillion in earnings unless Congress lets them bring the money home at a much lower rate than the existing 35 percent levy. As a result, companies are inverting to get their hands on that cash.

Few corporations actually pay 35%, but shouldn’t business planning rather than tax maneuvering be the prime concern of corporations?

When American companies spend time, effort and money to buy small overseas companies, for the sole purpose of cutting taxes, that is not the best business use of their time, effort an money.

It’s downright inefficient​.

Finally, Clinton would apply the $80 billion or so in new revenue over 10 years, which she claims she’d raise by closing inversion loopholes, to provide tax relief for research, community development and manufacturing.

Hmmm . . . “Tax relief for research and manufacturing.” She would tax business more so she could tax business less. Soundsl like a perfect political plan.

Clinton is acting because Donald Trump has politicized corporate inversions, or any attempt by a U.S. company to close plants and send jobs overseas.

Companies “send jobs overseas” to cut costs. One cost is taxes. So cutting taxes would help discourage companies from “sending jobs overseas.”

Clinton’s proposal wouldn’t fix the biggest underlying defect: The U.S.’s corporate tax is higher than what the 34 advanced countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development charge.

The OECD average is 24 percent. What’s more, the U.S. taxes companies on their global income, unlike most other countries, which tax only profits earned within their borders.

Get it? U.S. companies send jobs overseas to cut costs. Taxes are a cost. U.S. companies pay higher taxes than do foreign companies.

So the Clinton solution? Increase taxes on U.S. companies by eliminating inversions.

It makes no sense, and Clinton knows it. But . . .

As a Democrat fighting for primary votes against the more-liberal Sanders, Clinton can’t afford to favor corporate tax cuts.

You see, the politicians, media and economists have been so effective in convincing voters that federal financing is like state and local government financing (otherwise known as “the Big Lie”), and so federal taxes “must” be necessary, that now Clinton doesn’t dare reveal the truth: Federal taxes do not fund federal spending.

Yes, those tax dollars that businesses send to the U.S. Treasury are unnecessary.

If all business taxes were reduced to $0, the federal government be unaffected (It could continue spending as always), U.S. businesses would prosper, the American public would prosper, and the economy would grow massively.

But liars become enmeshed in their own lies. (“Oh, what a tangled web we weave . . .”) Trapped by “the Big Lie”, the politicans don’t dare do the right things, even if they wanted to.

So they come up with nonsense solutions (raise U.S. business taxes to encourage U.S. business to stay home), in the hope the public will not notice the illogic.

In short, they are betting on the public’s ignorance.

A pretty good bet.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

===================================================================================
Ten Steps to Prosperity:
1. Eliminate FICA (Click here)
2. Federally funded Medicare — parts A, B & D plus long term nursing care — for everyone (Click here)
3. Provide an Economic Bonus to every man, woman and child in America, and/or every state a per capita Economic Bonus. (Click here) Or institute a reverse income tax.
4. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone. Click here
5. Salary for attending school (Click here)
6. Eliminate corporate taxes (Click here)
7. Increase the standard income tax deduction annually Click here
8. Tax the very rich (.1%) more, with higher, progressive tax rates on all forms of income. (Click here)
9. Federal ownership of all banks (Click here and here)
10. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99% (Click here)

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

10 Steps to Economic Misery: (Click here:)
1. Maintain or increase the FICA tax..
2. Spread the myth Social Security, Medicare and the U.S. government are insolvent.
3. Cut federal employment in the military, post office, other federal agencies.
4. Broaden the income tax base so more lower income people will pay.
5. Cut financial assistance to the states.
6. Spread the myth federal taxes pay for federal spending.
7. Allow banks to trade for their own accounts; save them when their investments go sour.
8. Never prosecute any banker for criminal activity.
9. Nominate arch conservatives to the Supreme Court.
10. Reduce the federal deficit and debt

No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth. Monetary Sovereignty: Cutting federal deficits to grow the economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia.
1. A growing economy requires a growing supply of dollars (GDP=Federal Spending + Non-federal Spending + Net Exports)
2. All deficit spending grows the supply of dollars
3. The limit to federal deficit spending is an inflation that cannot be cured with interest rate control.
4. The limit to non-federal deficit spending is the ability to borrow.

THE RECESSION CLOCK

Recessions come only after the blue line drops below zero.

Monetary Sovereignty

Vertical gray bars mark recessions.

As the federal deficit growth lines drop, we approach recession, which will be cured only when the growth lines rise. Increasing federal deficit growth (aka “stimulus”) is necessary for long-term economic growth.

#MONETARYSOVEREIGNTY

Pandering to the ignorant

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

Mitchell’s laws:
•Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
•Any monetarily NON-sovereign government — be it city, county, state or nation — that runs an ongoing trade deficit, eventually will run out of money.
•The more federal budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes..

•Liberals think the purpose of government is to protect the poor and powerless from the rich and powerful. Conservatives think the purpose of government is to protect the rich and powerful from the poor and powerless.

•The single most important problem in economics is the Gap between rich and the rest..
•Austerity is the government’s method for widening the Gap between rich and poor.
•Until the 99% understand the need for federal deficits, the upper 1% will rule.
•Everything in economics devolves to motive, and the motive is the Gap between the rich and the rest..
============================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================

Pandering to the ignorant — all the politicians do it, mainly because we all are ignorant about most issues.

We learn about issues from our leaders, from the media and from our equally ignorant friends.

So, when our leaders and the media wish to mislead us, and our friends don’t know any more than we do, where does that leave us?

Ignorant.

But ignorance does not prevent us from forming opinions, and it is a sad truth of human nature, that the opinions of the ignorant often are firmly held.

Religion and politics are examples. No one really knows anything about God — not what He wants, not how much control over our lives He has, and not whether He is a He or a She or an It, nor whether He/She/It really exists.

But, lacking solid information, most of us have very strong beliefs about the answers to these questions.

Politicians take advantage of that strange relationship between ignorance and strong belief, by making ridiculous claims.

When Republican politicians repeatedly vote to defund ACA, there is an implied claim that those votes are meaningful. But they have as much meaning as voting to make the sun stop rising in the east.

Apparently some voters enjoy seeing their politicians engaged in such futility, apparently hoping that somehow, despite all logic, the vote will make the sun rise in the west.

Donald Trump’s claim that he will deport 11 million people and bring back “the good ones” falls into the same category:  “Stupid things we do and say to make a point.”

One might think it would be better to say intelligent or factual things to make the same point, but politicians have learned facts are not necessary, and actually may be an impediment to belief.

We are more ready to believe something outrageously wrong than something subtly correct.

Which brings us to the following article:


Senator Cruz Introduces Bill To Let States Reject Refugees

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Senator Ted Cruz, who is seeking the Republican nomination for president in 2016, said on Tuesday that he introduced legislation to give governors the ability to opt out of refugee resettlement programs.

Cruz said that if President Barack Obama wanted to send refugees to any state, his legislation would let its governor refuse to participate, “to conclude that the federal government has not done a sufficient job ensuring that the safety and security of the citizens of the state will be protected.”

I’m certain that Senator Cruz’s followers believe this is a wonderful idea, and I’m equally certain that at least a majority of his base knows it’s impossible.

The Constitution of the United States requires that anyone in America can travel to any state in America. So governors can “opt out” all they want, and it means absolutely nothing.

Your governor may hate blacks, browns, gays, Muslims or short people, but once they are anywhere in America, he can’t prevent them from entering your state.

And Cruz knows this.

So why does he waste not only his own time and effort, but the time and effort of the entire Senate?

Why does he wish to demonstrate stupidity, especially when he is running for President?

Because he wishes to show he is “tough on immigration.”

By the strange phenomenon of human nature, his outrageously stupid act provides better proof to his followers that he is brilliant and tough, than had he set out his calm, logical reasons for not allowing refugees to come into America.

His followers don’t want a calm and logical leader. To them, calm and logical is weakness.  They want a “hair-on-fire,” screaming, bigoted, “mad-man-with-a-chainsaw” leader.  To them, ignorance + cruelty = strength.

It never occurs to them that while such qualities may play well in an auditorium, they are not appropriate for the President of the United States. We may find the wild, crazy rebel romantically attractive, but when we wish to settle down, it’s with someone who is kind, thoughtful and logical.

Those who vote for mean-spirited bigots of outrageous action rather than leaders of intelligence and compassion, get exactly what they asked for.

They get the Joe McCarthys and the George Wallaces, the Hitlers and the Stalins, the Trumps and the Cruzes.

And then they suffer and wonder why.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

===================================================================================
Ten Steps to Prosperity:
1. Eliminate FICA (Click here)
2. Federally funded Medicare — parts A, B & D plus long term nursing care — for everyone (Click here)
3. Provide an Economic Bonus to every man, woman and child in America, and/or every state a per capita Economic Bonus. (Click here) Or institute a reverse income tax.
4. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone. Click here
5. Salary for attending school (Click here)
6. Eliminate corporate taxes (Click here)
7. Increase the standard income tax deduction annually Click here
8. Tax the very rich (.1%) more, with higher, progressive tax rates on all forms of income. (Click here)
9. Federal ownership of all banks (Click here and here)
10. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99% (Click here)

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

10 Steps to Economic Misery: (Click here:)
1. Maintain or increase the FICA tax..
2. Spread the myth Social Security, Medicare and the U.S. government are insolvent.
3. Cut federal employment in the military, post office, other federal agencies.
4. Broaden the income tax base so more lower income people will pay.
5. Cut financial assistance to the states.
6. Spread the myth federal taxes pay for federal spending.
7. Allow banks to trade for their own accounts; save them when their investments go sour.
8. Never prosecute any banker for criminal activity.
9. Nominate arch conservatives to the Supreme Court.
10. Reduce the federal deficit and debt

No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth. Monetary Sovereignty: Cutting federal deficits to grow the economy is like applying leeches to cure anemia.
1. A growing economy requires a growing supply of dollars (GDP=Federal Spending + Non-federal Spending + Net Exports)
2. All deficit spending grows the supply of dollars
3. The limit to federal deficit spending is an inflation that cannot be cured with interest rate control.
4. The limit to non-federal deficit spending is the ability to borrow.

THE RECESSION CLOCK

Recessions come only after the blue line drops below zero.

Monetary Sovereignty

Vertical gray bars mark recessions.

As the federal deficit growth lines drop, we approach recession, which will be cured only when the growth lines rise. Increasing federal deficit growth (aka “stimulus”) is necessary for long-term economic growth.

#MONETARYSOVEREIGNTY