Mitchell’s laws:
●The more budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes.
●Austerity is the government’s method for widening the gap between rich and poor, which leads to civil disorder.
●Until the 99% understand the need for federal deficits, the upper 1% will rule.
●To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments.
●Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
==========================================================================================================================================

Believers in Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) and Monetary Sovereignty often wonder why the clear and obvious bases for their hypothesis so actively are resisted by the public. We encounter not just reasonable doubt, but sarcasm and anger.

We wonder, “Why do people so passionately object to paying less tax and receiving more benefits?”

Recently a blogger, whose name is hidden to protect the ignorant – we’ll call him “F” — labeled Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), and by association, Monetary Sovereignty, “fringe theories.” An example of his commentary is:

I am continually baffled by people who give views far outside the mainstream, and insult people with conventional views — as if these non-consensus views were obvious and widely accepted by most experts.

That does not mean they are wrong. Sometimes — although rarely — very fringe theories become accepted (ie, some of today’s views were once on the fringe, but few fringe views become widely accepted).

After scores of fruitless debates with such people, I concluded that this attitude tends to characterize ideologues, people with an idée fixe. That does not mean that they’re bad, or wrong. It, in my experience, means that debate with such people is a waste of time (ie, a rule based on a generalization).

F is referring to MMT and MS, and his use of the words “fringe theory” is a gratuitous slap disguised by phony reasonableness. His comment has nothing to do with the merits of MMT and MS. It merely is his excuse for saying they are wrong, without having to justify why.

For the F’s of the world, science stands still. He does not acknowledge that every new scientific idea begins in the “fringe.”

This thread touches on one of my major shocks from the comments on [my] website: the degree to which my bland, mainstream views (with which most people will agree) are fiercely attacked as if they were extraordinary violations of common sense.

Ah, the innocence of those “bland, mainstream views,” and the implication that “most people” agreeing is proof of correctness. We attack F’s views, not just because they violate mathematics and common sense (which they do), but when demanding reductions in the federal deficit and debt, F joins those who put America at risk. “Bland,” indeed.

The mainstream takes umbrage at Monetary Sovereignty calling their ideas not only wrong, but obviously and dangerously wrong. But those ideas are motivated not by sincere applications of science, but by the greed of the upper 1% income group. .

In short, F, you and the populace have been had by the 1%.

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is the most popular (mainstream) measure of economic growth. It is calculated by adding federal spending, non-federal spending and net exports. More specifically:

GDP = Government Consumption & Investment (federal spending) + Personal Consumption Expenditures + Private Domestic Investment (non-federal spending) – Net Imports

Because U.S. Net Imports removes about $500 billion a year from GDP, the total of federal spending plus non-federal spending must exceed that $500 billion sent overseas, just for GDP to exist, let alone grow. Basic algebra.

But the mainstream economists wish to reduce, or even eliminate, the federal deficit, and the only ways to do that are to cut federal spending and/or to increase federal taxes – both of which reduce federal and non-federal spending. In short, F’s “bland, mainstream view” is to reduce the only elements responsible for economic growth.

And we shouldn’t attack that??

I have called the mainstream view, “Applying leeches to cure anemia.” (I’ll accept any better analogies.) Meanwhile, there is not one iota of evidence that federal deficits and debt are “unsustainable” or excessively inflationary or any of the other “sky-is-falling” deficit scenarios depicted by the mainstream, and further, not one iota of evidence that cutting the federal deficit and debt will stimulate the economy. All the evidence is on the other side.

So, shame on us “fringe” theorists for daring to attack these bland, mainstream unsupported, harmful views. Better that we should stand back and say nothing and join the safety of the majority, while the country descends into recession, depression and ultimately, into anarchy (when the income gap, between rich and poor, grows large enough)?

In the previous post, I described how President Obama’s “grand bargain” will widen that gap, and I speculated on his motivation, i.e. he is bought and paid for by the upper 1% income group. (Ask him about his real estate deal with convicted felon Tony Rezko.)

But while the 1% is motivated by the desire to increase the gap, and the Republicans and Democrats are motivated by the 1%’s bribes, none could accomplish their misdeeds without the acquiescence of the public. And standing at the public’s source of this river of misinformation, you’ll find mainstream economists.

What motivates mainstream economists to ignore science, mathematics and common sense, to hold fast to ideas that cannot be supported by data? Let me count the ways:

1. Some economists have won what misleadingly are called “Nobel Prizes,” for proving the world is flat, and by heaven, they are not about to admit the errors of their ways.

2. Those awarding the prize have staked their reputations on the mainstream idea of reducing the factors making up GDP in order to increase GDP. Economists know the prize will go to the mainstream, so they follow the mainstream.

3. Some economists receive money from the upper 1% income group, and one does not bite the hand that feeds you.

4. Professors need to publish, and mainstream publications are far more likely to publish articles parroting mainstream propaganda.

5. And what shall one do about those annually revised, profitable textbooks forced on the students every semester – textbooks espousing the mainstream view?

6. Finally, no one is granted economics department tenure for advocating a hypothesis embarrassing to the head of the economics department, and that guy already has published mainstream pap.

So you have the great Harvard University and the even greater (for economics awards) University of Chicago, pumping out mainstream nonsense, which the media, the politicians and bloggers like “F” accept without resistance, while professors at the University of Missouri, Kansas City (may their name be blessed) courageously tell the truth about our economy.

Would that their voices were louder.

As the bought-and-paid-for Obamas, Romneys and Bernankes, Senators and Representatives, newspaper and T.V. “journalists, Fox News and mainstream economists all do their utmost to indoctrinate the populace with lies, a handful of heroic economists – Randall Wray, Warren Mosler, Bill Black, Billy Mitchell, Stephanie Kelton, Mathew Forstater and others fight to save America.

And endure the F’s of the world sneering at “fringe” theories.

Of course, one day, as either the evidence continues to pile on their heads, or the angry mobs impale them with pitchforks, these mainstreamers will tell everyone, “You misunderstood me. I knew Monetary Sovereignty all the time. When I said the deficit should be reduced, I really meant it should be unreduced. That always has been my bland, mainstream view.”

Bottom line, there are many reasons why the public resists the facts of Monetary Sovereignty – and perhaps the most powerful reason is: The mainstream disputes it. We humans are predisposed to join the collective, especially when the F’s of the world say so.

As the Borg in Star Trek said, “Resistance is futile.”

Or maybe not.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

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

Nine Steps to Prosperity:
1. Eliminate FICA (Click here)
2. Medicare — parts A, B & D — for everyone
3. Send every American citizen an annual check for $5,000 or give every state $5,000 per capita (Click here)
4. Long-term nursing care for everyone
5. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone
6. Salary for attending school (Click here)
7. Eliminate corporate taxes
8. Increase the standard income tax deduction annually
9. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99%

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. Two key equations in economics:
Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings
Gross Domestic Product = Federal Spending + Private Investment and Consumption – Net Imports

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

.

Mitchell’s laws:
●The more budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes.
●Austerity is the government’s method for widening the gap between rich and poor, which leads to civil disorder.
●Until the 99% understand the need for federal deficits, the upper 1% will rule.
●To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments.
●Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
==========================================================================================================================================

Why does President Obama want his “grand bargain”: $2.50 of federal spending cuts for every dollar in new federal tax revenue?

Let’s begin with the certainty that Barack Obama is an intelligent man. He is surrounded by economists, who also are intelligent, and being intelligent, they are aware that Gross Domestic Product is the total of: Federal Spending, plus Non-federal Spending, less Net Imports.

This graph may look like it contains one line, but actually it contains two perfectly overlapped lines. The blue line is GDP growth. The red line (it’s congruent with the blue line) is the total of:
Government Consumption & Investment [GCE]
+ Personal Consumption Expenditures [PCECA]
+ Private Domestic Investment [GPDI]
– Net Imports [NETEXP]

Mathematically, any reduction in federal spending reduces GDP.

Additionally, federal spending boosts non-federal spending, the reduction of which also reduces GDP. So cuts in federal spending absolutely, positively reduce GDP growth. This neither is hypothesis, nor subject to argument. It is a mathematical fact, based on the calculation of GDP.

President Obama surely knows this.

(Some feel GDP really doesn’t reflect the state of our economy, and there are good arguments for that view. GDP doesn’t directly include happiness and well being, crime, pollution, global warming, civil rights, health, freedom, etc., etc. – nor does it include the income gap — but it does have the advantage of being a mathematically comparable measure and is the single most commonly used datum.)

Let’s continue with the probability at least some members of Congress are intelligent, and of those, at least a few have had the curiosity to investigate and understand Monetary Sovereignty. We have enough leaders who know federal spending cuts will reduce GDP growth. And they know tax increases, by reducing non-federal spending, also negatively impact GDP growth.

In previous posts, we have discussed the motivation for deficit reduction, which by necessity includes some combination of reduced federal spending and tax increases – as we’ve said, both reduce GDP growth. The motivation is not based on ignorance. Rather it is based on knowledge – the knowledge that spending cuts and tax increases each impacts the lower 99% income groups far more than the upper 1% income groups.

The motivation is to increase that gap between the 1% and the 99%, which brings us to the next question: Why?

I don’t think Obama and Romney inherently are mean guys. Obama probably is compassionate. While Romney may lack compassion for the 99% – his business model testifies to that – his motivation probably is split among personal greed, loyalty to his peers and obedience to the religious right wing, which despite being “religious,” have little if any compassion for those different from them.

When we examine the alternatives, and discard the impossible and the unlikely, we are left with one: Obama and Romney, Democrats and Republicans, print and air commenters, all are bought and paid for by the 1%, whose primary motivation is not just to increase their income, but most importantly, to increase that income gap.

Next, why Obama’s strange division between spending cuts and tax increases? Why does he want $2.50 of spending cuts for every $1.00 of tax increases – the Republicans want all spending cuts and no tax increases — when both parties know that both actions will increase the income gap?

I suspect the answer goes like this. Spending cuts will be more regressive than are the likely tax increases. True, most taxes are regressive. The most regressive are FICA, which really punishes the lower part of the 99%. Sales taxes, too, are highly regressive. Less regressive are the so-called “death” taxes, dividend taxes, capital gains taxes and luxury taxes. The least regressive are the top tier income taxes – that 35% tax rate that applies to income over $388K.

But, those top-tier taxes are the ones most likely to be increased. The “fiscal cliff” tax increases would look like this:

The 10% rate will be collapsed into the 15% rate
The 25% rate will become 28%
The 28% rate will become 31%
The 33% rate will become 36%
The 35% rate will become 39.6%.

The 1% would be affected by all these increases, especially the move from 35% to 39.6%, and they don’t like it, which is why they have sworn Grover Norquist’s “Taxpayer Protection Pledge” to oppose tax increases and tax credit reductions. Last I heard, this pledge does not apply to FICA. Surprised?

While tax increases might tweak the wallets of the 1%, spending decreases are much more acceptable to the big boys. Virtually all federal spending benefits the middle and lower classes – about 45% of federal government spending is for “social benefits” (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, poverty aid, etc.) For the lower and middle classes, such payments are a lifeline; the rich care little for these benefits.

The other big budget item is Defense, at almost 20% of the budget. This too, benefits the middle and lower classes – most defense spending is for salaries. But defense spending also benefits all those defense contractors, so true to form, the Republicans have demanded cuts in all federal spending except Defense, where they have demanded increases.

Which brings us to Obama’s $2.50 in spending cuts for every $1.00 in tax increases. Like the Republicans, Obama is bought and paid for by the rich. He is paid to increase the income gap. However, being a Democrat, he is obliged to throw a bone to the middle and lower classes.

So he proposes to keep all taxes at their currently “low” levels, with the “bone” to the poor being an increase in the upper income rate. He has positioned the argument, not as “Should we or should we not cut the deficit to increase the gap?” The argument isn’t even “How much should we cut the deficit to increase the income gap?” Rather, the argument is, “How should we cut the deficit?”

Obama’s “grand bargain” is a bargain all right — a bargain for the rich.

No matter what happens, the Democrats and the rich will win. The middle and lower classes will blame the Republicans for wanting tax breaks for the rich (though all tax breaks, even for the rich, are stimulative). The Democrats will seem to fight hard for the middle and lower classes, and if in the end, they must yield and agree to cut spending more, well . . . it’s not their fault.

Bottom line: Deficit reduction increases the gap between rich and poor. While spending cuts and tax increases both reduce the deficit, spending cuts hurt the poor more, thus more effectively increasing the gap – the goal of the rich. Both parties do the bidding of the rich, and the differences between them reflect only differences in how to increase the income gap, not whether this is good for America.

All our efforts to “educate” the politicians and media fall on deaf ears. Education is not needed or wanted; these people already understand Monetary Sovereignty. They listen to only one thing: votes. And votes are bought with money, now with guaranteed access, courtesy of the Supreme Court.

What’s the cure? Education, not of the politicians or the media, but of the public. The Occupy groups could have helped, but they themselves have chosen to remain ignorant of Monetary Sovereignty, so are in no position to educate anyone.

One day, an Occupy group, or something like them — a group that learns Monetary Sovereignty — will focus their demonstrations on teaching the public why deficits must increase, and that will be the beginning.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

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

Nine Steps to Prosperity:
1. Eliminate FICA (Click here)
2. Medicare — parts A, B & D — for everyone
3. Send every American citizen an annual check for $5,000 or give every state $5,000 per capita (Click here)
4. Long-term nursing care for everyone
5. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone
6. Salary for attending school (Click here)
7. Eliminate corporate taxes
8. Increase the standard income tax deduction annually
9. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99%

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. Two key equations in economics:
Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings
Gross Domestic Product = Federal Spending + Private Investment and Consumption – Net Imports

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Mitchell’s laws:
●The more budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes.
●Austerity is the government’s method for widening the gap between rich and poor, which leads to civil disorder.
●Until the 99% understand the need for federal deficits, the upper 1% will rule.
●To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments.
●Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
==========================================================================================================================================

People follow strong leaders – leaders who have a clearly defined goal, and who articulate that goal in forceful terms. No one follows a compromiser. You never know what a compromiser will do or how much he will give away, when he’s compromising.

Compromisers don’t inflame the emotions, don’t create a shining path to glory. Their creations are dull, dark and dreary, their successes minimal. They will do anything for approval from the other side. A compromiser has but one goal: To compromise. We didn’t realize it – we should have realized it – Barack Obama is a compromiser.

He should be winning this election in a walk. The Republican party has been taken over by mean-spirited crazies, jesters, nutballs and fools. Has there ever been a dopier group than Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain? Talk about a rogues gallery of misfits – and they all wanted to be President of our great United States? And some people actually voted for them. Yikes!

Add to that the Tea Party and the religious right wing extremists, and it’s no wonder a vacillating, take-both-sides-of-every-issue phony like Mitt Romney was selected as the least bad of a very bad group.

But Barack Obama, weakness personified, believes if he is nice to the other guy, the other guy will be nice to us. So while the Democrats in Congress worked to put through what ironically is called “Obamacare,” the President’s support was tepid at best, and counterproductive in reality. He came along for the ride, always looking for a compromise.

And while we’re talking real, Obama did not “get Osama bin Laden.” For a dozen years our defense agencies have been trying to get the guy, and Obama happened to be President when our boys finally accomplished the job. His primary role was to sit in a room and look worried at the T.V.

This professorial bent toward compromise is why Obama is not way ahead of a guy who hides his earlier tax returns, publishes phony tax returns in which mysteriously, he temporarily doesn’t take deductions for millions in charity (to be revised after the election), and just before the east coast is devastated by a hurricane, announces he would get rid of FEMA, and let the states carry the burden.

(Could anything be funnier than watching Chris Christie, Republican governor of New Jersey, waddling behind Obama, and praising the president for FEMA efforts?)

Although Obama compromised his way to failure with Syria, Iran, Egypt, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Lybia and the Palestinians, Romney was across the ocean making a fool of himself.

So, it’s no wonder Romney gets away with lying about his position on virtually every major issue facing this nation, and even is allowed to say he will get rid of Obamacare (aka Romneycare), and replace it with a cockamamie voucher system – a system so wonderful, Romney is forced to promise the 55-and-olders they won’t have to join it. (Hey, who cares about the young people, anyway?)

Romney gets away with it, because Obama is a compromiser, and no one follows or trusts a compromiser.

Now Obama vows to forge a “grand bargain” (aka abject surrender) with the Republicans in which he will end up giving them what they (the 1%) want – deficit reduction – in return for this tragedy:

“I am absolutely confident that we can get what is the equivalent of the grand bargain that essentially I’ve been offering to the Republicans for a very long time, which is $2.50 worth of cuts for every dollar in spending, and work to reduce the costs of our health care programs,” Obama said. (The White House quickly clarified that he meant $2.50 of spending cuts for every dollar in new tax revenue.) Yahoo News

Money is the lifeblood of an economy. To cure your anemic economy, Obama’s “grand bargain” will drain $1 worth of your blood for every $2.50 worth of blood not pumped into you. (Visualize you’re bleeding. Your doctor says, “To cure you, we’ll drain out some of your blood and we won’t give you a transfusion.”)

Why it’s better that most of your blood reduction be from lack of transfusion and “only” 30% be drained out of you, is unclear to me, but if the Tea/Republicans (aka the 1%) agree to it, Obama will declare a great victory for compromise – and you will die broke, sick and early.

The 1% must be dancing in the streets. Not only with they get their massive increase in the income gap, so ardently craved and paid for, but the blame will go on the Democrats. I can’t imagine why any 1%er would vote Republican, when the Democrats are willing to carry the 1%’s water.

And I can’t imagine why any Democrat would vote at all – at least not for a President – because when the choice is between a liar and a weakling. . . well, there isn’t really a choice, is there?

O.K, actually there is, and I can give you a reason in two words: Antonin Scalia. Wait, make that four words: Clarence Thomas. Today, these two justices from the dark ages, who believe in originalism-when-convenient, only are part of a bare majority, and Chief Justice Roberts showed that at least on rare occasion, it is possible to vote for human rights, human decency and the Bill of Rights – when one cares about one’s legacy.

But, in the next four years, there will be several vacancies, and God help America, if these vacancies are replaced with the likes of Scalia and Thomas. Minorities, immigrants, the poor, the sick and the uneducated all will fall to a 16th century bludgeon.

So yes, if you have nothing better to do, like file your toe nails or take a nap, vote Democratic for your salvation from a cruel, uncaring Supreme Court, but hold your nose while you do.

Then march in the streets to protest the “grand bargain” of evil.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

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

Nine Steps to Prosperity:
1. Eliminate FICA (Click here)
2. Medicare — parts A, B & D — for everyone
3. Send every American citizen an annual check for $5,000 or give every state $5,000 per capita (Click here)
4. Long-term nursing care for everyone
5. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone
6. Salary for attending school (Click here)
7. Eliminate corporate taxes
8. Increase the standard income tax deduction annually
9. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99%

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. Two key equations in economics:
Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings
Gross Domestic Product = Federal Spending + Private Investment and Consumption – Net Imports

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Mitchell’s laws:
●The more budgets are cut and taxes increased, the weaker an economy becomes.
●Austerity is the government’s method for widening the gap between rich and poor, which leads to civil disorder.
●Until the 99% understand the need for federal deficits, the upper 1% will rule.
●To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments.
●Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
==========================================================================================================================================

Perhaps it is too much to expect a magazine titled, “Scientific American” actually to understand the principles of science, like demanding at least a modicum of evidence before promulgating wrong hypotheses. After all, they just are writers, not scientists. So the following post may be a bit unfair.

Anyway, SA has published numerous articles correctly decrying the failure of the U.S. government to support various science projects and education. But all their articles are hampered by one significant, wrong assumption.

Here is only the most recent:

Future Jobs Depend on a Science-Based Economy
The next administration must prime the true growth engine

The 2012 presidential election will be won by the candidate who can convince voters that he has the vision to lift the nation out of the economic doldrums.

The economy is the right topic, but the discussion neglects the true driver of the country’s prosperity: scientific and technological enterprise. Half of the U.S. economic growth since World War II has come from advances in science and technology. To neglect that power—and the government’s role in priming the pump—would be foolish.

President Barack Obama makes much out of having rescued Detroit’s carmakers from bankruptcy. This achievement won’t hold up, however, unless the thousands of small auto-parts manufacturers down the supply chain stay globally competitive.

One way to help them would be to foster initiatives like the National Digital Engineering and Manufacturing Consortium, which is providing independent manufacturers potent information technology at Purdue University and the Ohio Supercomputer Center.

Is providing manufacturers with “potent information” important to America’s growth. Of course it is. So why is there even a hint of concern about this obvious need? Read on.

The German government encourages a close partnership between technical universities and industrial manufacturers; it supports centers where scientists and engineers pursue fundamental research in close proximity to industrial colleagues investigating more applied technologies.

German battery makers, for instance, work with technical universities on nanotechnology, while textile makers contribute to research in carbon fibers for composite fabrics. Could there be a grander vision for harnessing U.S. research talent in this way? On this, both candidates have been silent.

Not exactly silent, but rather more concerned about reducing the budget than about having an insufficient budget.

The U.S. Department of Energy funded and helped to develop the shale-cracking techniques that have released the country’s current surplus of natural gas. And no nuclear reactor has ever been built in this country without financial and scientific support from all levels of government.

While Obama touts the $90 billion in federal investments in clean energy research made on his watch, Romney repudiates this “green energy agenda.”

His thinking is shortsighted. The bankruptcy of solar panel maker Solyndra in 2011, which critics have used to argue against government support of energy research, instead shows why such investment is so important: experimental projects always carry a high risk of failure, which is why commercial firms are reluctant to undertake them. Yet without them, innovation will slow.

The DOE’s Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy funds ideas that may sound like science fiction to some—genetically modifying microbes to produce fuel, for example. History shows that such bold efforts will yield the beginnings of new industries.

In 1962, for example, a researcher envisioned a fanciful “Galactic Network” that would connect distant computers, inspiring the Pentagon project that eventually became the Internet.

O.K., already. We’re sold. Government funding for science benefits America in myriad ways we cannot anticipate. So what’s the problem?

A high-tech economy needs the best scientists and engineers, yet in science and math, U.S. students are middling. The Obama administration has had some success by tying grants for K–12 schools to Common Core math standards, but neither candidate has come out in support of the Next Generation Science Standards recommended by the National Research Council.

Right. Scientific research, development and education is underfunded, much to the disadvantage of America. Why?

With looming unemployment and debt, such concerns may not seem urgent. Yet unless we invest in an economy built on scientific and technological skills, we will only be papering over our economic troubles.

And there it is. Scientific American magazine agrees with the popular notion that (federal) debt is “looming.” What does use of that word, “looming,” say about SA?

To me, it says SA buys into the myth that federal debt is an actual problem, is “looming” over the economy, like some giant vulture, waiting to peck our livers, rather than the benign and boring total of T-security deposits in the Federal Reserve Bank.

As a long time subscriber to SA, never have I seen an article discussing the reality (or rather, the mythology) of this silly belief. SA may opt for science everywhere – except in economics.

So long as the upper 1% income group is able to maintain the Big Lie that the federal deficit and debt are too big, no amount of whining, begging and pleading will produce adequate federal support for scientific research, development and education. The game is lost before the opening whistle.

It’s like asking your rich daddy to give you money for a round-the-world trip, but prefacing your plea with the statement, “Daddy, I agree the world is flat, but . . . “

My hope is to live long enough to see a science magazine publish an informed article about Monetary Sovereignty. (As you can see, I’m wishing myself a long life.)

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

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

Nine Steps to Prosperity:
1. Eliminate FICA (Click here)
2. Medicare — parts A, B & D — for everyone
3. Send every American citizen an annual check for $5,000 or give every state $5,000 per capita (Click here)
4. Long-term nursing care for everyone
5. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone
6. Salary for attending school (Click here)
7. Eliminate corporate taxes
8. Increase the standard income tax deduction annually
9. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99%

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. Two key equations in economics:
Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings
Gross Domestic Product = Federal Spending + Private Investment and Consumption – Net Imports

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY