Tag: popular faith

–Robin Hood Obama takes from rich and poor

An alternative to popular faith

        You have been led to believe recessions are an unavoidable part of the natural business cycle. Like bad weather, there is nothing we can do to prevent them, and when they come, we simply must deal with them.
        Wrong. Recessions neither are unavoidable nor natural. They always occur because of mistakes, both innocent and deliberate, by our political leadership.
        Today we experience a classic example. For the past two years, the economy has experienced a money shortage, also known as a recession. In belated response, the government properly has pumped stimulus money into the economy via deficit spending. This addition of money to a money-starved economy is beginning to help (though the stimulus has been too little and too late — but that’s another story.)
        Where did the government obtain the stimulus money? Not from taxpayers. The definition of “deficit spending” is money spent without taxes. The government created the money simply by crediting bank accounts and debiting its own balance sheets. Despite what the media say, tax payers and tax money, which never pay for federal spending, were not involved.
        Read this article — wording in green:

“1/15/10: WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama told banks Thursday they should pay a new tax to recoup the cost of bailing out foundering firms at the height of the financial crisis.”
        If stimulus spending helps the economy grow, what will new taxes do? Right. Help the economy shrink.

“‘We want our money back,’ he said.”
        He neglected to indicate who “our” is. Surely not the American public, who have paid, and will pay, nothing for the bank bailout funds. And why does the government want the money? It has no use for it. In fact, money sent to the government immediately is destroyed when federal balance sheets are credited. The government has the unlimited ability to pay bills by crediting bank accounts. Unlike you, me and every other U.S. entity, the government does not use income to pay its bills.

         “In a brief appearance with advisers at the White House, Obama branded the latest round of bank bonuses as ‘obscene.’ But he said his goal was to prevent such excesses in the future, not to punish banks for past behavior.”
        Typical populist rhetoric, fomenting class warfare. He’s a benevolent Robin Hood, taking from the rich and, oh yes, also taking from the poor by removing money from the economy. Taxing banks does punish them, but President Obama doesn’t want to punish banks. Sure. Believe that and I have some costume jewelry I want to sell you.

        “The tax, which would require congressional approval, would last at least 10 years and generate about $90 billion over the decade, according to administration estimates. ‘If these companies are in good enough shape to afford massive bonuses, they are surely in good enough shape to afford paying back every penny to taxpayers,’ Obama said.”
         That’s $90 billion to be ripped out of the economy and destroyed. Does anyone really believe they will see one penny of that $90 billion? Does anyone believe that will put even one nickle in their pockets? If so, contact me about that jewelry.

         “Advisers believe the administration can make an argument that banks should tap their bonus pools for the fee instead of passing the cost on to consumers.”
         Instead of paying bonuses and salaries to living people, who then will pass the money on by spending and saving, the government wants the money extracted from the economy, then sent to the government, where it will be destroyed. (If you don’t believe the government destroys all money sent to it, tell me where the government stores the tax money it receives.)
        By the way, did I mention that President Obama has other populist taxes in store for you? Think about the tax on what he calls “Cadillac” health plans.
         And this is why future recessions are certain. They neither are normal nor unavoidable. They are caused by politicians who either through ignorance or populist electioneering, actively cause recessions.
        If banks don’t want to pay this extra tax, and unions don’t want the “Cadillac health plan” tax, they will have to bribe Democratic legislators to vote “properly.” This is the old political trick of proposing something onerous, so the prospectively injured party pays up. Cynical, but effective, and no one ever said President Obama is not an effective politician.

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

–The cost of ignorance

An alternative to popular faith
        Ignorance is expensive. Government ignorance is especially costly.
        Here is just one of many, many projects prevented because of Congressional ignorance about money and federal finances. It may not be as immediately harmful as the lack of universal health care, a fully funded Social Security and the elimination of an expensive, byzantine tax system; it’s a terrible shame, nevertheless:

Cost-cutting NASA eyes three cheap space missions

WASHINGTON (AFP) – NASA has named low-cost missions to Venus, the moon and an asteroid on a shortlist to become its latest space adventure, as the US agency faces astronomical political pressure to cut costs.
        The proposed probes — to the surface of Venus, the moon and to bring back a piece of a primitive asteroid — must all come with a price tag of less than 650 million dollars, a fraction of the cost of manned space flight.
        The agency, in a statement Tuesday, said the winner of the competition will be announced in mid-2011, with the project to launch by the end of 2018.
        NASA has faced growing pressure to cut its budget as the US government’s debt soars and as the United States buckles under the deepest economic crisis since the Great Depression of the 1930s.
        The agency has also seen dwindling political support, with its White House and congressional paymasters reluctant to fund the type of expensive manned space exploration that saw the agency put 12 men on the moon.
        A plan to return humans to the moon by 2020 came under withering criticism from a panel tasked by US President Barack Obama to look into the future of space exploration, as the project’s initial budget of 28 billion dollars exploded past 44 billion.
        Against this backdrop, the agency is asking scientists to come up with low-cost ideas to further space exploration.
        One project led by the University of Colorado’s Larry Esposito would send a explorer to Earth’s sister planet, Venus.
        The explorer would descend through the carbon dioxide-rich Venusian atmosphere, landing on the planet’s surface in the hope of gathering evidence that could explain why it is so different from Earth, despite being close in size and space.
        A second project would place a lander on the moon’s southern pole, collecting rocks that are thought to come from the lunar core, offering an insight into how the moon and Earth developed.
        Another project would travel to an asteroid to snatch around two ounces (56 grams) of material before returning the payload to Earth for extensive tests.
        The winner will be the third in NASA’s cost-saving New Frontiers program, which was launched in 2006.
        The first mission will fly by Pluto and its moon Charon in 2015 and then a target in the Kuiper belt, at the outer reaches of the Solar System.
        “These three proposals provide the best science value among eight submitted to NASA this year,” said NASA’s Ed Weiler.
        “These are projects that inspire and excite young scientists, engineers and the public.”

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

–How the federal budget really works

An alternative to popular faith

A parable about the Fed budget:

We shall call him “Mr. Fed.” He has an unruly daughter named “Taxpay,” whom he wishes to encourage toward goodness, while teaching her basic budgeting. So Mr. Fed tapes two sheets of paper to the refrigerator.

One sheet is titled “Taxpay Savings.” The other sheet is titled “Deficit Scoresheet.” Each day when Taxpay is good, Mr. Fed will draw a checkmark on her Savings sheet, and because he is teaching her double-entry accounting, he also will draw a checkmark on his Deficit Scoresheet.

Taxpay wants these checkmarks, because Mr. Fed will allow her to use them to buy things like staying up late or having friends for a sleepover. She trusts Mr. Fed to exchange these goods and services for checkmarks (In some quarters this trust is known as “full faith and credit.”) Also, if she is bad, Mr. Fed will tax her, so she needs checkmarks to pay any “bad girl” taxes she might incur.

All of the first week, little Taxpay is good, so by the end of the week she has accumulated 7 checkmarks on her Savings sheet. Similarly, Mr. Fed has drawn 7 checkmarks on his Deficit Scoresheet.

The system works so well, Mr. Fed tells Taxpay that from now on, he will give her 2 checkmarks for every day she is good, which of course requires that he also draw 2 checkmarks on his Deficit Scoresheet.

This is no problem for Mr. Fed who has plenty of pencils to draw checkmarks. But it outrages a visiting busybody named “Debthawk,” who asks Taxpay the nonsensical question, “Who is going to give Mr. Fed checkmarks to reduce the number of checkmarks on his Scoresheet?”

Puzzled, little Taxpay asks, “Huh? Why does Mr. Fed’s Deficit Scoresheet need to be reduced? It’s just a scoresheet for accounting purposes. The checkmarks don’t cost Mr. Fed anything. They are free, backed by nothing. They merely are arbitrary symbols that Mr. Fed can draw in unlimited quantities. They are exactly like the dollars the federal government produces, now that we are off the gold standard – arbitrary symbols, free and backed by nothing other than full faith and credit.”

Taxpay is pretty smart for a little girl, obviously smarter than Debthawk, who keeps insisting that one day Taxpay’s children and grandchildren will have to give Mr. Fed checkmarks to offset those on the Deficit sheet. Debthawk calls this “inter-generational transfer.”

In short, Debthawk wants a “balanced budget,” aka “deficit neutral” which means every time Mr. Fed gives Taxpay a checkmark, she should give it back. Think about the sense of that.

The first day of the next week, Taxpay is bad, so Mr. Fed taxes her. He erases a checkmark on her Savings sheet, and also erases a checkmark on his Deficit Scoresheet, reducing the Deficit Score to 6 checkmarks. Debthawk is thrilled, failing to notice the reduction on Taxpay’s Savings sheet.

Taxpay then decides to spend all her remaining checkmarks for permission to have a dozen friends at a sleepover. Mr. Fed erases all her Savings checkmarks and simultaneously erases all the checks on his Deficit Scoresheet. At first elated to see the Deficit Scoresheet having no checkmarks, Debthawk belatedly realizes that Taxpay now has no checkmarks left to pay for future goods and services. This puts everyone into a Great Depression, at which time Debthawk says, “I always knew that in emergencies like this one, Mr. Fed would have to add to his Deficit Scoresheet so Taxpay would have checkmarks.” (Of course he did.)

But, the minute Mr. Fed started to give Taxpay more checkmarks, Debthawk again complained about there being too many checkmarks in the Deficit Scoresheet. Poor little Taxpay. Debthawk wants to take away her precious checkmarks, and because his mind is closed, she can’t seem to convince him that is unnecessary.

And that is the way the federal budget really works.

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

Faith is belief without evidence. Science is belief from evidence.

–The federal deficit debate

An alternative to popular faith

THE WELL-KNOWN, ANTI-DEFICIT POSITION
A federal surplus is more prudent than a federal deficit

THE LITTLE-KNOWN, PRO-DEFICIT POSITION
That is the popular faith.* But, a large economy has more money than does a small economy. Therefore, a growing economy requires a growing supply of money. Federal deficit spending is the prime source of that money. All six recessions, since the end of the gold standard (1971), have been introduced with a surplus or a reduction in deficit growth. All six were cured with an increase in deficit growth. When we have insufficient money growth we have recessions or depressions. The Great Depression immediately followed years of surpluses, and ultimately was cured with deficits.
–//–
THE WELL-KNOWN, ANTI-DEFICIT POSITION
Large deficits are unsustainable. The interest payments alone will grow to a point where they occupy the entire federal budget.

THE LITTLE-KNOWN, PRO-DEFICIT POSITION
Unlike you, me, cities, states and corporations, the federal government uniquely has the power to create unlimited amounts of money, a power it gave itself in 1971. To service a deficit of any size, including interest payments, the government merely creates money ad hoc, by crediting the bank accounts of creditors.
–//–
THE WELL-KNOWN, ANTI-DEFICIT POSITION
We cannot keep borrowing forever. Foreign nations will refuse to keep lending us money to support our profligate ways.

THE LITTLE-KNOWN, PRO-DEFICIT POSITION
The government does not need foreign nations to lend us money. The federal government borrows by creating unlimited amounts of T-securities from thin air, backed only by full faith and credit, then selling them for the money it previously created. The government just as easily and safely could create money from thin air, also backed by full faith and credit. This would eliminate the borrowing step as well as all concerns about debt. Federal borrowing is a relic of the gold standard days.
–//–
THE WELL-KNOWN, ANTI-DEFICIT POSITION
The fact that the government borrows is prima facie evidence that the government needs to borrow.

THE LITTLE-KNOWN, PRO-DEFICIT POSITION
Federal borrowing is a relic of the gold standard years, when the government did not have the unlimited ability to create money. Today, borrowing has zero advantages over direct money creation, and many disadvantages, not the least of which is the mistaken belief
federal debts are a problem.
–//–
THE WELL-KNOWN, ANTI-DEFICIT POSITION
Federal deficits increase the money supply, which reduces the value of money and causes inflation.

THE LITTLE-KNOWN, PRO-DEFICIT POSITION
The value of money is based on both supply and demand. Increasing the demand for money prevents/cures inflation. Demand is determined by risk and reward. The reward for owning money is its utility as an exchange vehicle and interest rates. To fight inflation, the government increases the reward by raising interest rates. Since 1971, there has been no relationship between inflation and federal deficits.
–//–
THE WELL-KNOWN, ANTI-DEFICIT POSITION
Raising interest rates to fight inflation will hurt business and the economy.

THE LITTLE-KNOWN, PRO-DEFICIT POSITION
Since 1971, there has been no relationship between interest rates and economic growth. Low rates have not stimulated (as Greenspan and Bernanke have learned); high rates have not inhibited. The reason: For every borrower there is a lender. What helps one, hurts the other. It’s zero sum. For example, high rates help holders of CDs, bonds, T-securities. Also, changes in interest rates represent minuscule changes in business costs. Additionally, high rates have had a slightly stimulative effect, because they’ve forced the federal government to pump more interest money into the economy.
–//–
THE WELL-KNOWN, ANTI-DEFICIT POSITION
Our children and grandchildren will pay for today’s deficits through higher taxes in the future.

THE LITTLE-KNOWN, PRO-DEFICIT POSITION
The government pays its debts by marking a credit in the bank accounts of its creditors, and marking a debit in its own balance sheets. No physical money changes hands. The government can do this endlessly. It does not use tax money to pay its bills. When taxes are received, the government debits the payers’ bank accounts and credits its own balance sheets. Effectively, the tax money is destroyed. The government has no vault or fund of money. It merely makes electronic notations. That is why today’s taxpayers do not pay for the massive Reagan deficits. There is no historical relationship between tax rates and federal deficits.
–//–
THE WELL-KNOWN, ANTI-DEFICIT POSITION
There is no such thing as a free lunch. One day, someone will have to pay for today’s federal spending.

THE LITTLE-KNOWN, PRO-DEFICIT POSITION
Federal money is, in fact, a free lunch to the federal government. It pays its bills by crediting vendors’ bank accounts. This costs the government nothing other than a few electrons sent to the banks’ records. Nothing collateralizes our money other than full faith and credit.
–//–
THE WELL-KNOWN, ANTI-DEFICIT POSITION
When the debt exceeds the value of all government assets, the government will be bankrupt.

THE LITTLE-KNOWN, PRO-DEFICIT POSITION
Federal assets, such as the Grand Canyon and Washington Monument do not collateralize our money. As a holder of U.S. bonds, China is a creditor to the government, but China cannot lay claim to such federal assets as Lake Michigan or the Supreme Court building. China’s collateral is the U.S. government’s full faith and credit, nothing more.
–//–
THE WELL-KNOWN, ANTI-DEFICIT POSITION
I have to pay my bills and be careful with my borrowing. Otherwise I will go bankrupt. The government is you and me. It must do the same as we do.

THE LITTLE-KNOWN, PRO-DEFICIT POSITION
The government is not you and me. It collects taxes; we pay taxes. It can create money at will; we cannot. As a sovereign nation, with the unlimited ability to create money, America cannot go bankrupt. The belief that the government is the same as its citizens gives rise to the myths about deficits.
–//–
THE WELL-KNOWN, ANTI-DEFICIT POSITION
As our population ages, and more people collect Social Security, the program will go bankrupt unless taxes are increased or benefits decreased.

THE LITTLE-KNOWN, PRO-DEFICIT POSITION
Social security is a federal agency, much like the Department of Defense, Congress, the Supreme Court and 100+ other federal agencies. No federal agency ever has or ever will go bankrupt, simply because the federal government itself, having the unlimited power to create money, cannot go bankrupt.
–//–
THE WELL-KNOWN, ANTI-DEFICIT POSITION
Technically, the government already is bankrupt, since it doesn’t have the money to pay all its debts, and must rely on future tax collections.

THE LITTLE-KNOWN, PRO-DEFICIT POSITION
The government has no money, yet doesn’t rely on tax collections. It pays its debts merely by changing the numbers in its creditors bank accounts. The government acts like a football scoreboard. When a team scores a touchdown, the scoreboard “owes” it six points. No one asks, “Where is the scoreboard going to get six points?” This is explained in detail at http://www.moslereconomics.com/2009/12/10/7-deadly-innocent-frauds/
–//–
THE WELL-KNOWN, ANTI-DEFICIT POSITION
Many countries – Germany, Italy, Brazil et al – have suffered from hyper-inflation caused by excessive money printing.

THE LITTLE-KNOWN, PRO-DEFICIT POSITION
Each instance of hyper-inflation has been caused by unique circumstances, but generally, hyper-inflations have been caused by governments not addressing the root causes of their inflations. They mistakenly printed more money in response to inflation. This exacerbated modest inflations into hyper-inflations.
–//–
THE WELL-KNOWN, ANTI-DEFICIT POSITION
Most prominent economists believe the deficit and debt are too large.

THE LITTLE-KNOWN, PRO-DEFICIT POSITION
That is exactly the way scientific progress is made. The vast majority of prominent scientists have a belief. Then a minority (sometimes just one person) proposes a new hypothesis, which at first is denounced. Eventually the vast majority begins to change its mind, and the new hypothesis becomes the majority. Then the process repeats.

*Faith is belief without evidence. Science is belief from evidence.