What is the purpose of government? What is the purpose of business? What are their goals and methods?

We are not born with governments and businesses. We create them. But why?

Why do people voluntarily allow themselves to be ruled by others? You might believe it is not necessarily voluntary, particularly in the case of dictatorial governments.

But there always are vastly more ruled than rulers, and if government was not what the ruled wanted — if government was a burden — they have the numerical power to rid themselves of this device.

Sometimes this happens. Sometimes the governed rise up and free themselves of dictators. And when they do, what happens?

They form another government.

So what is the purpose of this institution that virtually all humans and even some animals have adopted.?

It has persisted for millennia, so it clearly has an evolutionary advantage.

While one can list several specific purposes, there is one general, overall purpose of government:

The purpose of government is to improve the lives of the people.

Government is a form of mandated cooperation. Having a government says two things:

Cooperation is more efficient than working individually, and
Cooperation works better when there is leadership

So we give up our individual freedoms and rights to reap the benefits of cooperation and leadership. In that sense, businesses are very much like governments.

We form businesses because specialization is more efficient than the “jack-of-all-trades” who most often is “master-of-none.”

To accomplish this efficiency, businesses are formed as legal mini-governments, complete with rulers and the ruled.

Governments tell people what to do and what not to do, and the people allow this because it improves their lives.

Business owners and managers tell their people what to do and what not to do, and the people allow this, because it improves their lives.

The purpose of business is to improve the lives of the people.

That said, it is crucial not to confuse purpose with goal. While improving the lives of the people is the purpose of government and business, it is not the goal of government and business.

The goal of government and business is to improve the lives of the leaders.

The leaders accomplish this goal via several methods.

In analyzing government and business, we not only must consider purpose and goal but also, method. Governments essentially balance two methods: Providing benefits and applying force.

The benefits — food, clothing, shelter, medical care, entertainment — lead to acquiescence among the populace.

Government force — laws, police, military — does the same. Either way discourages action against the leaders.

Businesses also balance two methods: Providing benefits and force. The benefits are promotion, salary, and perks, while the force is demotion and firing.

Again, business and government use similar methods — the carrot and the stick — to reach their goals.

Keep the purpose, the goals, and the methods of business and government in mind as we discuss the following articles.

Pay a Living Wage or ‘Flip Your Own Damn Burgers’: Progressives Blast Right-Wing Narrative on Jobs Posted on May 8, 2021 by Yves Smith

Yves here. Glad to see someone is calling out the Republican “You need to keep them hungry so they’ll turn up” approach to labor management.

Corporate profit share of GDP has been record highs for years, which means nearly two times the level Warren Buffett deemed to be unsustainably high in the early 2000s.

Time for corporate owners to pay a decent wage.

By Kenny Stancil, staff writer at Common Dreams. Originally published at Common Dreams

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

The U.S. Chamber of Congress blamed last month’s weak employment growth on the existence of a $300 weekly supplemental jobless benefit and began urging lawmakers to eliminate the federally enhanced unemployment payments that were extended through early September when congressional Democrats passed President Joe Biden’s American Rescue Plan.

“No. We don’t need to end [the additional] $300 a week in emergency unemployment benefits that workers desperately need,” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said in response to the grumbles of the nation’s largest business lobbying group.

“We need to end starvation wages in America.”

“If $300 a week is preventing employers from hiring low-wage workers there’s a simple solution,” Sanders added. “Raise your wages. Pay decent benefits.”

According to the Chamber’s analysis, the extra $300 unemployment insurance (UI) benefit results in roughly one in four recipients taking home more pay than they earned working.

In response to that claim, Sanders’ staff director Warren Gunnels said: “If one in four recipients are making more off unemployment than they did working, that’s not an indictment of $300 a week in UI benefits. It’s an indictment of corporations paying starvation wages.”

The problem: Government believes that the more benefits government gives to workers, the more likely the government’s goal — improving the lives of the political leaders by acquiring votes — will be reached.

Business believes that keeping salaries low will improve business’s goal of improving the lives of business leaders by increasing profits.

Today, Government benefits to the people are high enough that going to work provides little marginal benefit for many people.

The Republican proposed method is for the government to stop paying benefits, so that workers will be starved back to work, and business profits will keep increasing.

The Democratic proposed method is for businesses to pay more — enough to tempt workers to forego government benefits, but this may reduce profits.

While both goals are different, and the methods may seem incompatible, the solution is mind-numbingly simple: Do both.

Rather than the current either/or of government benefits coming instead of business benefits, as unemployment compensation does, pay government benefits in addition to business benefits.

This would come under the heading:

Medicare for All, Social Security for All, Free College for All, etc.

A wage of $300 per week is at poverty levels. It is a starvation wage. It is an “abandon all hope” wage.

How a multi-billionaire, a person whose wealth measures up to $170 billion could countenance such a wage, is beyond cruel.

Do these people lack all sense of sympathy and empathy? Are they made of compassionless stone?

Well, yes. Compassion comes from Latin, and means “co-suffering,” as in “I feel your pain.” But how many of us really do feel someone else’s pain?

Keep in mind, the goal of business is to improve the lives of the leaders, and the leaders are certain that keeping costs down, which leads to keeping salaries down, will improve profits and thereby improve their lives.

“Raise your wages and benefits or flip your own damn burgers and sweep your own damn floors,” Gunnels added.

Other progressives like former labor secretary Robert Reich and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) also chimed in. “We do not have a shortage of willing workers in this country,” Morris Pearl of the Patriotic Millionaires said in a Friday afternoon statement responding to the Chamber. “We have a shortage of employers who are willing to pay workers enough to live.”

“Claiming that today’s disappointing jobs report is a result of expanded unemployment insurance is nothing more than a cruel tactic to pressure the administration into helping companies that they represent to continue to underpay and exploit their workforce,” Pearl continued.

“Our leaders are supposed to be helping to increase wages for low paid workers, not helping employers to keep wages down.”

“Instead of blaming struggling workers,” Pearl continued, “large corporations that do not pay their employees a liveable wage… should take this moment to self-reflect.

Maybe—just maybe—paying their workers more than starvation wages would incentivize workers to reenter the workforce.”

Yes, this is all true, but it ignores the true goal of business: Profits that enrich the leaders.

One might argue that paying workers more will make the workers bigger consumers who in buying more will enrich companies, but that too ignores reality.

If Company “A” pays its workers more, those workers may spend more, but not necessarily with Company “A.”

If Ford raises wages, nothing says those newly enriched workers will, out of the goodness of their hearts, buy Fords.

The public has as little compassion as do the business executives. The people who formerly were myriad small-business customers, but now are Amazon customers, have proved that.

Loyalty is something honored more in the breach.

Writing for Jacobin earlier this week, Sandy Barnard noted that another overlooked factor is the increased morbidity rates among food and agricultural workers, which increased more than any other occupation during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Is big agriculture supposed to have such guilt that workers immediately are given raises? Dream on.

“Living, breathing people… have decided they do not want to risk their lives for $7.25 per hour and no health benefits,” Barnard wrote.

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) responded to the Chamber’s call for an end to enhanced unemployment benefits by arguing that “the interests of big business are at war with the interests of the working class.”

And that is the fundamental problem. It is a war, with one side winning and the other sides losing.

The solution is for all sides — government, business, and the populace — to win.

Government can win — win votes, that is — by providing benefits.

Business can win by paying enough to attract workers — while remaining profitable. The populace can win by receiving benefits from both sides, from government and from business.

There absolutely will be no long-term solutions that involve either business, government, or the people losing.

The only intelligent solution is for all sides to get what they want, or at least to get enough of what they want. See the Ten Steps to Prosperity, below.

…………………………………………………………………………

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

THE SOLE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT IS TO IMPROVE AND PROTECT THE LIVES OF THE PEOPLE. The most important problems in economics involve:

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

Wide Gaps negatively affect poverty, health and longevity, education, housing, law and crime, war, leadership, ownership, bigotry, supply and demand, taxation, GDP, international relations, scientific advancement, the environment, human motivation and well-being, and virtually every other issue in economics. Implementation of Monetary Sovereignty and The Ten Steps To Prosperity can grow the economy and narrow the Gaps: Ten Steps To Prosperity:

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

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Well, there goes another excuse for not giving poor people money.

The sole purpose of government is to improve and protect the lives of the people.

Most people would like to have more money. This includes many of the rich, who already have more money than they can spend, but seem motivated to have even more.

How Florida Is Pushing Back Against Government Overreach — **The sole purpose of government is to improve and protect the lives of the people.**

Gap Psychology describes the human desire to distance oneself from those below, on any social scale, and to approach those above.

Thus, growing “richer” requires widening the Gap. This involves not only gaining more for oneself but also depressing others.

Either approach widens the Gap.

That is why the rich, and the Republican Party of the rich, seem so adamant that giving people money will disincentivize people to work.

Strangely, or perhaps not so strangely, the rich do not feel the “disincentive” applies to them, for they generally claim to work just a hard as always, no matter how much more money they own.

Their story is that the poor and middle-classes are congenitally lazy, who only will labor if whipped by hunger, homelessness, or other deprivations.

The fact that millions of people work at demanding, or even dangerous jobs, for low or moderately low pay, does not seem to occur to those who claim that if people are given money, they will refuse to work.

It is a lie, or if not a lie, then at least an ivory tower misunderstanding by academics.

Ask a police officer or a fire-fighter or a public school teacher why they work. It is in the nature of human beings that most of us like to work, and we feel such emotions as worthlessness and boredom when we are not working.

In fact, lack of “something to do” is a major problem for retirees.

All of the above is the hypothesis. Here is some fact:

When a California city gave people a guaranteed income, they worked more — not less
Stockton’s experiment shows what $500 per month in “free money” can do for employment, mental health, and more.
By Sigal Samuel Mar 6, 2021

The city of Stockton, California, embarked on a bold experiment two years ago: It decided to distribute $500 a month to 125 people for 24 months — with no strings attached and no work requirements.

The people were randomly chosen from neighborhoods at or below the city’s median household income, and they were free to spend the money any way they liked. Meanwhile, researchers studied what impact the cash had on their lives.

The results from the first year of the experiment, which spanned from February 2019 to February 2020, are now in. And they’re extremely encouraging for its participants, and for advocates who see unconditional cash transfers as an effective way to help people escape poverty.

The most eye-popping finding is that the people who received the cash managed to secure full-time jobs at more than twice the rate of people in a control group, who did not receive cash.

Within a year, the proportion of cash recipients who had full-time jobs jumped from 28 percent to 40 percent. The control group saw only a 5 percent jump over the same period.

When confronted with a non-intuitive result, you surely must wonder, “How can that be? How would giving people money increase their desire to work for money?”

The researchers wrote in their report that the money gave recipients the stability they needed to set goals, take risks, and find new jobs.

In other words, when you’re drowning, all you can think about is staying afloat in the moment. That focus on the now, occupies all your energy and resources.

But if you are given a boat, you now can begin to think about getting food, shelter from the elements, finding land, signaling potential rescuers, etc.

One man in his 30s had been eligible for a real estate license for over a year but hadn’t gotten it because he just couldn’t afford to take time off work. Thanks to the freedom offered by the extra $500 per month, he said, his life was “converted 360 degrees … because I have more time and net worth to study … to achieve my goals.”

That’s a short-term example, but it also works in the longer term. Many intelligent youngsters do not stay in school, because their families need money now. So they are forced to find whatever low-paying jobs they can.

Eventually, these low-level jobs are the first to disappear. During any period or hard times, the under-educated are the first to need unemployment compensation.

Given money, they can continue in school, and find even better jobs, and/or create their own companies. They will be less likely to need unemployment compensation, later.

In the research done to date, unconditional cash does not tend to disincentivize work. In several programs — from Alaska and North Carolina in the US, to Finland and Spain in Europe — it has had no effect on employment either way.

In some cases, it seems to embolden people with an entrepreneurial bent; for instance, in Japan, initial survey results have shown that recipients are 3.9 times more interested in launching a new business.

Employment aside, there are clear benefits to unconditional cash programs. The Stockton experiment shows that getting unconditional cash tends to boost happiness, health, school attendance, and trust in social institutions, while reducing crime.

At its basic level, giving people money reduces their poverty, and crime, especially street crime, is an outgrowth of poverty.

(In the Stockton experiment, money) recipients spent most on necessities like food (37 percent), home goods and clothes (22 percent), utilities (11 percent), and car costs (10 percent). They spent less than 1 percent on alcohol or cigarettes.

These numbers offer a counter to harmful stereotypes and faulty assumptions: that people who become poor get that way because they’re bad at rational decision-making and self-control, and that they’ll blow free money on frivolous things or addictive substances. The evidence does not support these beliefs.

As part of its obligation “to improve and protect the lives of the people” government should give people money. This notion has been criticized on moral grounds. It’s as though not helping a drowning person will force a sink-or-swim mentality, which somehow is morally better.

But, allowing someone to drown is the ultimate immorality.

Here are excerpts from an article describing results around the world.

Everywhere basic income has been tried
Which countries have experimented with basic income — and what were the results?
By Sigal Samuel Updated Oct 20, 2020.

The general idea — that the government should give every citizen a regular infusion of free money with no strings attached — has been around since the 16th century. But it’s recently experienced a remarkable resurgence: Advocates ranging from tech billionaire Mark Zuckerberg to libertarian economist Milton Friedman to former Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang have endorsed it.

Many people, who otherwise might favor such a plan, are reluctant to “give money to people who don’t need it.” This belief is founded on two concerns:

The false belief that federal taxes fund federal spending, while in fact no one — not you, not me, not our grandchildren — ever pay for federal spending. The concern, “Why should my money go to rich people?” does not apply to Monetarily Sovereign federal spending. The government creates, from thin air, all the dollars it spends.
The legitimate belief that federal spending should help narrow the Gap between the rich and the rest. I suggest that the simplicity of “Give the same amount to everyone” is far more actionable, and just a fair, as an income-based (or wealth-based?). The rich always find a way to game the system, and they would game this system, too.

Alaska: Since 1982, the state has given each citizen an annual check just for being alive, effectively wiping out extreme poverty. The money — which can range from around $2,000 per person when oil prices are high to $1,000 in cheaper gas years — comes from the Alaska Permanent Fund, a state-owned investment fund financed by oil revenues.

Economists investigated whether the payment was leading people to work less and found that “the dividend had no effect on employment” overall.

North Carolina: Since 1997, revenue from a casino on tribal land has been given to every tribal member, no strings attached. Each person gets on average somewhere between $4,000 and $6,000 per year. Economists found that it doesn’t make them work less. It does lead to improved education and mental health, and decreased addiction and crime.

Manitoba, Canada: Choosing one farming town, Dauphin, as a “saturation site” where every family was eligible to participate in a basic income experiment. The basic income seemed to benefit residents’ physical and mental health — there was a decline in doctor visits and an 8.5 percent reduction in the rate of hospitalization — and high school graduation rates improved, too.

Finland: The government chose 2,000 unemployed citizens at random and gave them a check of 560 euros ($635) every month for two years. Participants were assured they’d keep receiving the money if they got a job. The income didn’t help them get jobs, but it did make them feel happier and less stressed. The recipients also reported that they felt more trust toward other people and social institutions — from political parties to the police to the courts — than they did before getting a basic income.

Spain’s “B-MINCOME” experiment started offering a minimum guaranteed income to 1,000 households randomly selected from some of Barcelona’s poorest districts. Under the two-year randomized controlled trial, households could receive up to 1,675 euros ($1,968) per month. There was also a control group of 383 households. Preliminary results showed that the basic income boosted life satisfaction and mental health while making participants neither more likely nor less likely to find employment.

Iran rolled out a nationwide unconditional cash transfer program to compensate for the phase-out of subsidies on bread, water, electricity, heating, and fuel. The government gave out sizable monthly payments to each family: 29 percent of the median household income on average. Economists found that “the program did not affect labor supply in any appreciable way.” The program is still running, and it’s the only such program in the world to run nationwide.

Namibia: All residents below the age of 60 living in the Otjivero-Omitara region of Namibia received a basic income: 100 Namibian dollars ($6.75) per person per month, no strings attached, regardless of their socioeconomic status. As a result, child malnutrition dropped and school enrollment rates went up, while poverty-related crime (like theft) fell.

India: Between 2011 and 2012, a pilot project in the state of Madhya Pradesh gave a basic income to some 6,000 Indians. Every man, woman, and child in eight villages received a monthly payment: 200 rupees ($2.80) for adults and 100 rupees for each child. The results: Receiving a basic income led to improved sanitation, nutrition, and school attendance.

Japanese billionaire Yusaku Maezawa announced that he would give away 1 billion Japanese yen — about $9 million — to 1,000 random Twitter followers. Recipients of the cash benefit are now 3.9 times more interested in launching a new business. Recipients saw a decrease in divorce rates, from 1.5 percent to 0.6 percent. And more than 70 percent of recipients said they experienced a significant increase in happiness.

SUMMARY

Poverty is the lack of money, and the cure for poverty is to supply money to the impoverished.

We use the term “poverty” to describe merely being short of money. It does not need to be the abject, begging-in-the-street form of poverty, to have a negative effect on a family.

Just being unable to afford college or unable to live in a good home, are serious monetary and psychological negatives, not only for one family, but for that family’s economic surroundings.

Poverty does not indicate a moral lack. It is the result of bad fortune, whether at birth or at any time thereafter. Punishment does not cure poverty, because poverty itself is punishment.

Blaming the needy for their situation provides no benefit, moral or monetary, either for the impoverished or for the rest of humanity.

Withholding money from the impoverished is like withholding medicine from the sick.

The U.S. federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, has the unlimited ability to create dollars. It is infinitely rich. The dollars it would give in the form of a basic income are not tax dollars. No one ever will pay for those dollars. They are created ad hoc, from thin air.

People receiving money are not less likely to work; the reverse is true. And they are more likely to be more productive members of society and less likely to commit crimes.

Giving “no strings” money to people has time and again proved to benefit the people themselves and the rest of the private sector. Everyone benefits.

See Step #3, Social Security for All (below).

There are no downsides.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

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

THE SOLE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT IS TO IMPROVE AND PROTECT THE LIVES OF THE PEOPLE.

The most important problems in economics involve:

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

Ten Steps To Prosperity:

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

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

The President’s speech you so desperately long to hear

This is the President’s speech you so desperately wish to hear:

Ladies and gentlemen of Congress and the Supreme Court, why did you come here? Most of us could have done better financially in the private sector, but you chose to come here. Why?

Do you remember when you first decided to enter public service? How idealistic you were. You felt you could, in some way, improve the lives of the people.

You could have been lawyers or doctors, or business leaders, and most of you could have risen to the tops of your professions. Instead, you willingly sacrificed riches to become senators, representatives, and judges. You entered the uncertain world of politics.

Did you do it for the glory? Did you do it for power? Did you do it to get a better table in a restaurant?

No, you — we — did it for the morals. We understood that the fundamental purpose of government is to improve the lives of the people.

People do not form governments for our aggrandizement. The people did not send us here and pay our salaries so we can stand on a dais and bask in the warmth of their cheering. The people did not send us here to defeat the other party in never-ending, useless wars.

The people sent you here — and you came here — to make their lives better. The people sent you here to answer just three questions.

What can I do for the people?

What can I do for America?

What can I do for the world?

Do you remember those optimistic days? How exciting they were. How good it felt to believe that in some small — or perhaps not so small — way, you could make a positive difference. Your life could have a special meaning beyond just your coming and your leaving — beyond merely dust to dust.

Your legacy could be not that you defeated the other side, but that you made America and the world a better place for those less powerful than you. You believed in the words on the Statue of Liberty:

“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

Yes, we were the golden door. The shining city on a hill. America.

And then you came to Washington. And the jaded ones told you to throw away your idealism. Throw away your compassion. Throw away your morals. They told you — they told all of us — our life was to be a tiny, obedient cog in a vast machine. They told us to answer just three questions:

What is best for the President? What is best for my party? What is best for me?

And so, like those tiny, obedient cogs in the vast machine, we now march in lockstep.

Is that why you came here — to be just a reliable, obedient vote?

Today, the nation has been divided by lies and hatred. Every day some new corruption, some new outrage, some new anger. Even our precious election is riven by lies and threats and anger.

Look back now at what we have lost. Our beautiful dream, our American dream.

Does it bother you, as it bothers me, that almost every question put before Congress is answered in exactly the same way, with a hundred percent — or near a hundred percent — of the right answering one, and a hundred percent of the left answering the other way, because it is best for me to vote with the party.

Why are we all so predictable? Can it even be possible that all — ALL — your beliefs and morals are identical to those of the other two hundred people of your party — identical on all questions — and opposing the beliefs of those in the other party?

Is it even possible, that on every question coming before Congress, you are exactly the same as the man or woman sitting next to you, on your side of the aisle?

Is that why you came here? To be nothing more than a rubber stamp for or against? Is that why you gave up an alternative future?

Think back now: When was the turning point in your life? When did what’s best for the people fall out of consideration? When did you stop caring about people and care only about politics?

And if you’re a judge, I ask you this question: When did the law become more important than the people?

When did you lose your compassion for those less fortunate than you? Have you become so cold and heartless that you care more about legal minutia than about the actual fact of human suffering? When did the turn of abstruce phrase become more important than the reality of the human condition? When did clever rejoinder become more important than a child’s life?

And really, ladies and gentlemen, why are you so predictably right-wing or left-wing? How about “people-wing”?

I have been here for many years. I have been as guilty as any of you in losing my way in the endless labyrinth of uncaring big government. I regret those wasted years, when I focused on giving the wrong answers to the wrong questions, simply to go along.

I could have been so much better. I could have done so much more for the people. And though I can’t go back, I can change direction, and try to remember the idealism that first brought me here.

We, few, sitting in this room, control the levers of power. America is the most powerful — financially and militarily — the most powerful nation in history. We truly have the power to make the earth a better place for all humanity, and we certainly, easily have the power to make America a better place for all Americans.

Shall we squander what little time we are given in this world? Shall we squander our power on internecine wars? Is that why you have given so much of your lives, day after day, to win one battle, then to lose the next? Will defeating your neighbor yield a better result than cooperating with, or helping, your neighbor?

Is morality naive?

At one time, the world looked to America for moral leadership. That can be true again. In your heart and your mind, you know right from wrong. You know truth from lies. You know good from bad. You know generosity from selfishness. You know compassion from cruelty. You know love from hatred.

You know these things and the world looks to you and the world knows you know. And the world will follow your lead.

Sometimes, in the short run, evil wins. But evil has no staying power in the hearts of humanity. Evil skulks fearfully in darkness and denial. Righteousness opens its arms to the sunshine of joy and self-respect.

How will we few people in this room be remembered? Will we lie and make excuses. Will we rationalize? Or, will you look back in satisfaction at knowing you have done the right thing for humanity? Will you be proud of the good you have accomplished? What will be the meaning of your life? Helping Hand — Mysteries of Hawai'i

Today we begin our destiny. We can step back from cold, blind politics.

We can do this. Hand in hand, working together we can do this.

We can answer the questions we have been given the power to answer:

What can I do for the people? What can I do for America? What can I do for the world?

We are not just Republicans or Democrats. We are Americans. We are not just Americans, we are human beings.

We can make the world a better place, for ourselves, for our children, and for all the children yet to be born.

Let us begin.

Together.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

THE SOLE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT IS TO IMPROVE AND PROTECT THE LIVES OF THE PEOPLE.

The most important problems in economics involve:

Ten Steps To Prosperity:

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

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Why do we even have a national government, anyway?

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

Have you ever asked yourself, “Why do we need a national government?”

Probably not, because except for the relatively few extreme Libertarians, most of us understand that anarchy is a bad solution for human society.

But why? What is the purpose of government? I suggest the purpose of government can be summarized in one word: “Protection.”

Government is designed to protect the weak from the strong, the good from the evil, the domestic from the foreign. Government protects us from bad people, bad water, bad food or no food at all.

If a government doesn’t provide protection, why have a government?

Image result for magic lamp — **Freedom, choice, and liberty**

Imagine you find a magic lamp. You rub it and out pops a genie who says, “I am the American Genie. I can do anything for America.

“I can feed, house and clothe the poor, educate the children, care for the sick and the elderly, support the arts, fight crime, and protect the nation from its enemies. No limits.

“And it will cost you absolutely nothing. You just have to tell me what to do.”

What will you tell the genie to do? Anything? Nothing?

Would you have the genie help the unfortunate, or would you withhold help and instead, demand self-sufficiency by the poor? Would you help feed the poor, or would you say that helping them makes them dependent?

Would you let some children suffer and die as a lesson to others? Would you feel that helping them takes away their freedoms?

Would you have the genie fight crime or would you feel that the genie already was too powerful and should be made smaller?

The U.S. government is the “genie.” Being Monetarily Sovereign, its wealth is unlimited. It can afford anything. Its spending costs you nothing. Even if all federal tax collections fell to $0, the federal government could continue spending forever.

Financially, the U.S. federal government has the ability to provide food, housing, clothing and health care for everyone — but should it?

These are the questions that face all governments, even those that are not Monetarily Sovereign. These are the questions that define the fundamental differences between liberals and conservatives.

Here are excerpts from a New York Times article that deals with these questions:

A Republican Principle Is Shed in the Fight on Health Care
By Jeremy W. Peters, http://www.nytimes.comView OriginalMay 8th, 2017

WASHINGTON — As they take their victory lap for passing a bill that would repeal and replace much of the Affordable Care Act, President Trump and congressional Republicans have been largely silent about one of the most remarkable aspects of what their legislation would do: take a step toward dismantling a vast government entitlement program, something that has never been accomplished in the modern era.

All government programs are “entitlement,” in that each program is supported by those who believe Americans are entitled to the service.

Is the military an “entitlement” program? As an American, are you “entitled” to military protection?

Are food, water, and drug inspection “entitlement” programs? Are you “entitled” to clean, food and water, and safe drugs?

Are you “entitled” to protection from dishonest bankers and contractors, protection from tornados, hurricanes, and floods, protection from burglars and robbers?

Are our children entitled to good schools, warm clothing, and a safe, healthy environment, even if we are poor?

Are you, as an American, entitled to medical care and other protections you cannot afford to buy for yourself. Are these the sort of protections you would want your government “genie” to provide?

Which exactly are the “entitlement” programs you feel the government should not provide, if any?

Fighting the expansion of the so-called welfare state is a fundamental premise of the American conservative movement.

“Welfare state” is a term that, like “entitlement program,” is what the government does for poorer people. The term does not seem to include benefits to the rich, like tax benefits and other “first-in-line” benefits, which are “just rewards.”

So conservatives have now cast aside their high-minded arguments of political principle . . . the free market, personal responsibility and smaller government.

If you are a conservative, what exactly is a “free market”? How does it work? Is it similar to a lawless market?

And what is “personal responsibility.” For what should a person be responsible vs. for what should a government be responsible?

And how do you define a “smaller” government? How many people should the federal government employ? How much money should it spend?

What is the purpose of a “smaller” government?

Conservatives had pushed Congress to pass a clean repeal bill in the first days of Mr. Trump’s presidency. They feared that the longer they waited, the more time Democrats would have to argue that Republicans wanted to callously rip benefits away from hard-working Americans.

But if Republicans don’t want to “callously rip benefits away from hard-working Americans,” what exactly do they want regarding benefits to hard-working Americans?

With new government benefits, he said, comes incredible political power.

Is it “political power,” not “entitlements,” that the discussion really is all about?

William Voegeli, a senior editor at the Claremont Review of Books, a conservative journal, pointed to a long list of government programs that Republicans have promised to defund or eliminate — the National Endowment for the Arts, public broadcasting, the Department of Education and, of course, the Affordable Care Act — amid the expansion of the liberal “administrative state,” to use a term popular inside the Trump administration.

You are a citizen of the United States. The government is aMonetarily Sovereign “genie,” so the National Endowment for the Arts, public broadcasting, the Department of Education and Affordable Care Act cost you nothing.

How would your life be better without these programs that cost you nothing?

“You run on election cycle after election cycle with Republicans complaining but never taking the obvious next step,” Voegeli said. “And eventually you’re going to get a lot of restless conservatives out there.”

Who are the “restless conservatives out there”? Are they the rich or are they the rest of us? Is it we “not-rich,” who don’t want the American government “genie” to provide free benefits to the people?

Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer said Republicans had “accepted the fact that the electorate sees health care as not just any commodity, like purchasing a steak or a car. It’s something now people have a sense the government ought to guarantee.”

Are you among those conservatives who believe the government “genie” should not provide free health care? If so, why?

Then Mr. Trump, who had campaigned on preserving programs, like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, that his party had aimed at in the past, said on Twitter less than two weeks before Inauguration Day that a replacement must accompany a repeal — much to the surprise of Mr. Ryan and the party leadership on Capitol Hill.

The complexity of unraveling the Affordable Care Act became evident to Republicans even before Mr. Trump was sworn in, as they started planning their legislative agenda for his first 100 days. Led by Speaker Paul D. Ryan, the party assumed that a repeal would be one of the first items — if not the first — on its calendar.

Why would you say that the Republicans had “aimed at” Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid?” How would you have benefitted if these programs had been cut?

What would have happened if ACA simply had been repealed? Why did Ryan want to repeal it, without a replacement?

The health and human services secretary, Tom Price, told NBC News that the goal was something that Republicans usually dismissed as utopian fantasy: universal coverage.

“What we’re trying to do is to make certain that every single person has health coverage,” he said.

How would the Republicans make certain that “every single person has health coverage,” without federal funding? Why have Republicans dismissed universal health care coverage as a “utopian fantasy”? Do they really believe that the U.S. government is not Monetarily Sovereign?

Republicans in the past often framed the debate in terms of personal freedom, choice and liberty — as opposed to the soft tyranny that can come through well-meaning laws.

“The debate over power and authority here is really a slugfest over who makes key decisions,” said Robert E. Moffit, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, “and whether the key decisions in health care ultimately should end up in the hands of a government office or in the hands of individuals who are exercising free choice.”

How does single payer health care insurance impinge on “personal freedom, choice, and liberty? What is the “choice” gained by people who financially are forced to do without insurance?

Here are six false beliefs that bedevil the discussion of universal health care funded by the federal government:

1. The false belief that the federal government is not Monetarily Sovereign, that federal taxes fund spending, and that with a federal single-payer system, healthy people pay for sick people.
The reality is that the federal government is Monetarily Sovereign, neither needs nor uses tax dollars, and with federal single-payer, no one — neither the sick nor the healthy — needs to be made to pay for health care insurance.

2. The false believe that a smaller federal government would be less intrusive or oppressive than a larger federal government or a state or local government.
The reality is that life itself can be oppressive, especially for the poor, and providing benefits that otherwise would be unaffordable for the poor does not make a government oppressive. Federal benefits make life less oppressive.
Further, transferring obligations to the states, merely makes the states an extension of the “too big” federal government, and does not diminish the supposed “oppressiveness” of government. Such a transfer actually enlarges government.

3. The false belief that federal financial obligations are more affordable if transferred to state and local governments.
The reality is that state and local governments are monetarily non-sovereign, so their expenses are funded by taxpayers. Unlike federal health care support, when the states fund health care, the healthy do pay for the sick.

4. The false belief that state government provides more freedom of choice than does the local government.
The reality is that each person has their own needs and desires, and a state is even less likely to provide for these needs and desires than is the federal government, because of the financial constraints the states face.
Many states already have proved they care nothing about the well-being of their poorer residents by refusing to expand Medicaid, even when the federal government offered to pay for the expansion.

5. The false belief that the poor and middle-classes are lazy “takers,” who only want “free stuff,” and who need to be taught self-sufficiency.
The reality is that the poor and middle-classes on average, work harder than do the rich. They are not rich for lack of trying, but rather for lack of luck.

6. The false belief that federal benefit spending will cause hyperinflations like those experienced by Weimar Germany and Zimbabwe.
The reality is that the U.S. never has had a hyperinflation — not through wars, recessions, depressions or natural disasters.
Further, the Fed successfully controls inflations via interest rate control.

In Summary: There are no moral or logical reasons for denying federally-funded, comprehensive Medicare to every man, woman, and child in America. The federal government can afford it. It won’t cost anyone anything. And rather than being oppressive, free health care is liberating.

The rich don’t want it. They want to widen the Gap between the rich and the rest, so any benefits to the not-rich are an anathema.

The rich spend billions to brainwash the populace into advocating benefit restrictions on the not-rich. The use terms like “freedom,” “choice,” and “liberty,” when they really mean: The freedom to suffer, the choice of misery, and the liberty to be slaves to the rich.

In a great nation, there is no excuse for anyone being denied the finest health care, just because of finances. Donald Trump was right. We can “make America great again.” But cutting benefits is not the way to do it.

Parents should never have to decide if they can afford to save their child.

We are fortunate that we have an American “genie,” that can afford benefits to the populace. By what rationale do we reject that free service?

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

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

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

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

Ten Steps To Prosperity:
1. ELIMINATE FICA (Ten Reasons to Eliminate FICA )
Although the article lists 10 reasons to eliminate FICA, there are two fundamental reasons:
*FICA is the most regressive tax in American history, widening the Gap by punishing the low and middle-income groups, while leaving the rich untouched, and
*The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, neither needs nor uses FICA to support Social Security and Medicare.
2. FEDERALLY FUNDED MEDICARE — PARTS A, B & D, PLUS LONG TERM CARE — FOR EVERYONE (H.R. 676, Medicare for All )
This article addresses the questions:
*Does the economy benefit when the rich can afford better health care than can the rest of Americans?
*Aside from improved health care, what are the other economic effects of “Medicare for everyone?”
*How much would it cost taxpayers?
*Who opposes it?”
3. PROVIDE A MONTHLY ECONOMIC BONUS TO EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA (similar to Social Security for All) (The JG (Jobs Guarantee) vs the GI (Guaranteed Income) vs the EB (Economic Bonus)) Or institute a reverse income tax.
This article is the fifth in a series about direct financial assistance to Americans:

Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Employer of Last Resort is a bad idea. Sunday, Jan 1 2012
MMT’s Job Guarantee (JG) — “Another crazy, rightwing, Austrian nutjob?” Thursday, Jan 12 2012
Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Jobs Guarantee is like the EU’s euro: A beloved solution to the wrong problem. Tuesday, May 29 2012
“You can’t fire me. I’m on JG” Saturday, Jun 2 2012

Economic growth should include the “bottom” 99.9%, not just the .1%, the only question being, how best to accomplish that. Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) favors giving everyone a job. Monetary Sovereignty (MS) favors giving everyone money. The five articles describe the pros and cons of each approach.
4. FREE EDUCATION (INCLUDING POST-GRAD) FOR EVERYONE Five reasons why we should eliminate school loans
Monetarily non-sovereign State and local governments, despite their limited finances, support grades K-12. That level of education may have been sufficient for a largely agrarian economy, but not for our currently more technical economy that demands greater numbers of highly educated workers.
Because state and local funding is so limited, grades K-12 receive short shrift, especially those schools whose populations come from the lowest economic groups. And college is too costly for most families.
An educated populace benefits a nation, and benefitting the nation is the purpose of the federal government, which has the unlimited ability to pay for K-16 and beyond.
5. SALARY FOR ATTENDING SCHOOL
Even were schooling to be completely free, many young people cannot attend, because they and their families cannot afford to support non-workers. In a foundering boat, everyone needs to bail, and no one can take time off for study.
If a young person’s “job” is to learn and be productive, he/she should be paid to do that job, especially since that job is one of America’s most important.
6. ELIMINATE FEDERAL TAXES ON BUSINESS
Businesses are dollar-transferring machines. They transfer dollars from customers to employees, suppliers, shareholders and the federal government (the later having no use for those dollars). Any tax on businesses reduces the amount going to employees, suppliers and shareholders, which diminishes the economy. Ultimately, all business taxes reduce your personal income.
7. INCREASE THE STANDARD INCOME TAX DEDUCTION, ANNUALLY. (Refer to this.) Federal taxes punish taxpayers and harm the economy. The federal government has no need for those punishing and harmful tax dollars. There are several ways to reduce taxes, and we should evaluate and choose the most progressive approaches.
Cutting FICA and business taxes would be a good early step, as both dramatically affect the 99%. Annual increases in the standard income tax deduction, and a reverse income tax also would provide benefits from the bottom up. Both would narrow the Gap.
8. TAX THE VERY RICH (THE “.1%) MORE, WITH HIGHER PROGRESSIVE TAX RATES ON ALL FORMS OF INCOME. (TROPHIC CASCADE)
There was a time when I argued against increasing anyone’s federal taxes. After all, the federal government has no need for tax dollars, and all taxes reduce Gross Domestic Product, thereby negatively affecting the entire economy, including the 99.9%.
But I have come to realize that narrowing the Gap requires trimming the top. It simply would not be possible to provide the 99.9% with enough benefits to narrow the Gap in any meaningful way. Bill Gates reportedly owns $70 billion. To get to that level, he must have been earning $10 billion a year. Pick any acceptable Gap (1000 to 1?), and the lowest paid American would have to receive $10 million a year. Unreasonable.
9. FEDERAL OWNERSHIP OF ALL BANKS (Click The end of private banking and How should America decide “who-gets-money”?)
Banks have created all the dollars that exist. Even dollars created at the direction of the federal government, actually come into being when banks increase the numbers in checking accounts. This gives the banks enormous financial power, and as we all know, power corrupts — especially when multiplied by a profit motive.
Although the federal government also is powerful and corrupted, it does not suffer from a profit motive, the world’s most corrupting influence.
10. INCREASE FEDERAL SPENDING ON THE MYRIAD INITIATIVES THAT BENEFIT AMERICA’S 99.9% (Federal agencies)Browse the agencies. See how many agencies benefit the lower- and middle-income/wealth/ power groups, by adding dollars to the economy and/or by actions more beneficial to the 99.9% than to the .1%.
Save this reference as your primer to current economics. Sadly, much of the material is not being taught in American schools, which is all the more reason for you to use it.

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

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: