–Debt “unsustainable” no longer.

An alternative to popular faith

        Just when I thought the Chicago Tribune was starting to get it, they ruined everything. For years, the Tribune has told its readers the federal deficits and debt are unsustainable, that China and the other nations would refuse to lend to us, that the government would be unable to service its debts and that federal taxes needed to be increased or spending reduced.
        And because the federal debt is unsustainable, the government is not able to support Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid and universal health care without significant tax increases or benefit cuts.
        Then I saw this in the March 30, 2010 editorial titled, “Debt Dangers”:“But the U.S. is not about to run out of money, even if it keeps overspending. Why not? First it can appropriate more of its citizens earnings through the tax system. Second and most important, it can print money to pay its bills.”
        Wow, is the staid, old Tribune finally starting to understand? Do they realize the government can support Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid and universal health care, even if taxes are reduced? Do they understand we don’t need China and the other nations to lend to us, because we can create money without borrowing?
         Sadly we were not to be so fortunate, for a few sentences later, the editorial said, “The danger is that (the government) would create money to make those debts payable, a course that would lead to much higher inflation.”
        Never mind that today, following the most massive deficits in our history, the government’s chief worry is deflation, not inflation. Never mind that for the past forty years, there has been zero relationship between deficits and inflation, and in fact, the largest deficits have corresponded with inflation reductions. (See the graph, below).

        And never mind that deficits repeatedly have proved stimulative, while reduced deficits are depressive. Intuition and popular faith trump facts every time.
        Then the Tribune editors compounded the crime by stating, “The economy would also suffer as businesses and households scrambled to cope with the disruptive effects of soaring prices. It would suffer again if and when the government decided to curb inflation by driving up interest rates — a step that virtually guarantees a sharp downturn.”
        Never mind that high interest rates have not slowed GDP, nor have low rates stimulated, which is why the Fed’s twenty rate cuts failed to prevent or cure the recession. (See the next graph. If high interest rates slowed GDP, the peaks of the blue line would have to correspond with the troughs of the red line.)

But at least, the Tribune has taken the first step, and perhaps we never again shall see that ridiculous sentence, “The federal debt is unsustainable.”

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

–Sabotaging health care

An alternative to popular faith

It has been a disgrace that the world’s leading, industrial nation, the proudest, most powerful nation in world history, has not provided health care for all its citizens.

Yes, I have voted more often for Republicans than for Democrats, because I felt they were better economists. But today I must give the Democrats credit for doing what is morally right, while taking the big political risk to start the ball rolling.

My Republicans, left to their own devices, would have done nothing. They never have been leaders for social improvements, whether Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare or human rights. While Republicans traditionally have been strong for business, they always have had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into anything that smacks of human benefits for the less fortunate.

That said, the health care plan is far from ideal. Way too many questions to be answered. Consider it only a start, a prototype; you can expect hundreds of changes. My only hope is that the nay-sayers will not try to gut the bill for political advantage.

The question is, and always has been, who will pay for it? I believe the federal government should, and there exists massive evidence on this blog and elsewhere, to prove the government can afford huge deficit increases that will stimulate the economy, and without inflation.

But what if, despite all the evidence, taxes are increased? Economically, a bad idea, no matter what taxes they are. But, which Americans are willing to say, “I’ve got mine and I’m not willing to help those less fortunate than me?” If that’s your attitude, you’re not really an American, although ironically, it seems those who boast loudest about their patriotism often are least likely to extend a hand.

Now we need to see how the program can be improved for the benefit of all. We’ve taken two hundred years to get this far, because that first step always is the hardest. My Republicans, by trying to do everything to sabotage the plan, are on the wrong side of history.

I say now is the time to work with the plan, not against it. Our best minds, cooperating toward on goal, can make the improvements that will protect Americans for decades.

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 to eliminate federal debt and save the economy

An alternative to popular faith

Here is the solution to the federal debt problem — a solution that involves neither increased taxes nor reduced spending.

The federal debt is caused by deficit spending. Taxpayers do not pay for deficit spending, which by definition is spending above tax receipts. Yet taxpayers find the debt worrisome for two reasons: They incorrectly believe someday, they or their grandchildren will have to pay it, and they incorrectly believe large federal deficits cause inflation.

Those concerns affect efforts to improve our health care system, crumbling infrastructure, bad schools, excessive taxes, bankrupt states, Social Security funding, poverty, joblessness and homelessness, Internet service, NASA funding, military funding, disease research and repeated recessions. The solutions require deficit spending, which debt fear prevents.

Currently the government obtains money for deficit spending by borrowing. It borrows by creating T-securities (T-bills, notes and bonds), then selling them. These T-securities are created in unlimited quantities out of thin air. This method, though still used, actually became obsolete in 1971, when President Nixon took us off the last vestiges of the gold standard. Before then, T-securities were collateralized in part by gold, which limited their issuance. Today, they are collateralized solely by the “full faith and credit” of the federal government, a resource the government has in unlimited supply.

Just as the government now creates T-securities out of thin air, it as easily and prudently could create money directly – also out of thin air and also backed only by full faith and credit.

Ending the creation and sale of T-securities would end the creation of debt. No longer would we suffer over deficits, fears that nations might refuse to lend to us and fears our path is “unsustainable.” Rather than “deficit spending” the process would be called “money-creation,” and what now is called “debt,” would more properly be called “Net Money Created.”

By eliminating debt, we would eliminate taxpayers’ concerns they or their grandchildren would pay it. Further, because the federal government now controls not only the supply, but the demand for U.S. money (via interest rates), large federal deficits have not caused inflation. See chart, below:

Since we went off the gold standard, there has been no relationship between deficits and inflation.

The elimination of T-securities would allow us to create the money to solve our many economic problems and to prevent the negative economic consequences of tax increases or spending decreases.

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

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: