–Does R. Bruce Dold not understand the meaning of the prefix, “non”?

Mitchell’s laws: The more budgets are cut and taxes inceased, the weaker an economy becomes. To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments. Austerity = poverty and leads to civil disorder. Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
==========================================================================================================================================

R. Bruce Dold is the Editorial Page Editor of the Chicago Tribune, a gentleman with whom I have corresponded on many occasions. Being the Editorial Page Editor of one of the world’s major newspaper requires, at the very least, some understanding of language. But strangely, I believe Mr. Dold does not understand the meaning of the prefix “non.”

If a nonsmoking friend were having a birthday, Bruce might gift her an ashtray. If asked for a nonverbal comment, he might give a speech. Perhaps, he’ll eat something nondigestible, and spend his life looking for a nonexistent cure.

Why do I speculate so? Because he seems to have no idea about the differences between Monetarily Sovereign and monetarily non-sovereign.

Here are excerpts from an editorial in today’s (April 29, 2012) Chicago Tribune:

Enough posturing. Act.
We can soak in the same cold bath as Europe. Or we can make our debt stop growing right now.

Immediately, he puts us “in the same cold bath as Europe,” clearly not understanding how different we are, we being Monetarily Sovereign and the euro nations being monetarily non-sovereign.

Every minute of every day, federal taxpayers in this country borrow another $3 million. With Washington running its fourth trillion-dollar deficit in four years, those taxpayers soon will owe a total of $16 trillion — an amount larger than the U.S. gross domestic product: As of now, we owe more than everything we produce in a year.

That might be true of a monetarily non-sovereign nation, which having no sovereign currency, does not have the unlimited ability to create it. But it is not true of a Monetarily Sovereign nation, which neither needs nor uses tax money to pay its debts. Its taxpayers do not owe those debts, nor do they pay for any government spending.

Where will this fast and furious pace of spending (entitlements are our biggest category) and borrowing (the Chinese are our biggest creditors) deliver us?

The Europeans went decades without asking themselves that question. As they took on more debt, much of it for fabulously generous social programs, interest payments eclipsed the ability of governments to comfortably meet them. Now rescue schemes are forcing those governments to do what their weak self-discipline never could: cut spending. Because those governments are huge players in their domestic economies, cutbacks choke growth. In the turmoil:

• Britain has double-dipped back into recession. Recession also grips Italy, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Greece and the Czech Republic.

• With Monday’s resignation of its prime minister, the Netherlands, the eurozone’s fifth-biggest economy, is the sixth nation to see the crisis defrock its leader.

• In Spain, where unemployment approaches 25 percent, the potential need for a massive European Union bailout has grown so great that dark wits are calling the country “too big to save” — a play on banks once thought “too big to fail.”

• In France, Socialist challenger Francois Hollande is favored to take the presidency from Nicolas Sarkozy, who has supported German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s insistence on eurozone austerity to reduce nations’ debts; Hollande exploits anti-German resentments by saying the French Resistance inspires him.

• Portugal’s bonds now are rated as junk.

• And while some politicians call for a reversal of austerity policies, with more government borrowing and spending, German central bank chief Jens Weidmann nailed the tendency of pols to weasel out of budget restraints: “If policymakers think they can avoid this (debt reduction), they will try to,” he told The Wall Street Journal. “That’s why the pressure has to be kept up.”

All of the above, but Britain and the Czech Republic, are monetarily non-sovereign. Britain (like the United States, for that matter) acts as though it were monetarily non-sovereign, by limiting its deficit spending. The Czech Republic is caught between the desire to stimulate via deficit spending and the European Union finance ministers misguided criticism of “excessive” deficits.

Bruce, because your editorial wrongly indicates zero difference between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, I’ll help you by listing just a very few of those differences:

*A Monetarily Sovereign nation is sovereign (in complete control, absolute authority) over its nation’s sovereign currency. It can create its sovereign currency at will, destroy it at will and spend it at will. A monetarily non-sovereign (restricted, submissive) nation does not control its nation’s currency. It has no sovereign currency. It cannot create it at will, destroy it at will nor spend it at will.

*Because a Monetarily Sovereign nation has the unlimited ability to create its sovereign currency, it neither needs nor uses its sovereign currency obtained from others. That is, it neither needs nor uses taxes or borrowed currency. It creates all it needs. A monetarily non-sovereign government does need and use taxes and borrowed currency.

*For the above reason, a Monetarily Sovereign nation’s taxpayers do not pay for government spending or debts, while a monetarily non-sovereign government’s taxpayers do pay for government spending and debts.

*A Monetarily Sovereign nation pays creditors by creating its currency ad hoc. A monetarily non-sovereign government needs to pay creditors by transferring tax and borrowed currency from its own bank accounts to the creditors’ bank accounts.

*A Monetarily Sovereign government never can run short of its sovereign currency. It can pay any bill of any size, any time. A monetarily non-sovereign government can run short of the currency it uses, and can be unable to pay bills.

*A Monetarily Sovereign government can run unlimited and endless trade deficits and current account deficits, and never needs its sovereign currency to come in from outside its borders. To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government needs currency coming in from outside its borders. Germany, for instance, survives by exporting.

So Bruce, before next April 15th, please learn the difference between deductible and nondeductible, or taxable vs nontaxable. Before you go on a diet, learn the difference between caloric and noncaloric, or between toxic and nontoxic. Before you try to hop on a train, know the difference between moving and nonmoving.

And before you write another editorial, learn the difference between Monetarily Sovereign and monetarily non-sovereign.

Bruce, I assume you are wealthy and part of the 1%. You seem all too anxious to cut entitlements, which benefit the 99%. But, please Bruce, no more nonsense. If the 99% ever catch on to what you are doing, they’ll stop buying the Chicago Tribune, at which time you’ll be a nonworker with a non-job and completely nonplussed.

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


==========================================================================================================================================
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 exports

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

–I am a SETI buff and I don’t know why.

Mitchell’s laws: The more budgets are cut and taxes inceased, the weaker an economy becomes. To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments. Austerity = poverty and leads to civil disorder. Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
==========================================================================================================================================

O.K., I admit it. I hope we discover some form of life on Mars, or barring that, evidence that life once existed no Mars — or on one of Jupiter’s or Saturn’s moons, or on an asteroid, or somewhere.

O.K., I admit it. Years ago, I hooked up to SETI (Search for Extra Terrestrial Intellegence) and sat fascinated as the graph spun across my computer, irrationally hoping, like a lottery ticket holder, I (or really, my computer) would be the one to discover a signal.

And I admit to being disappointed that we have found nothing, nothing and more nothing. But I was encouraged by a recent article titled, “Odds of Finding Alien Life Boosted by Billions of Habitable Worlds.

Yes, I find this reassuring, and perhaps you do too. But I don’t know why, because finding intelligent life elsewhere would be the worst thing that ever could happen to planet earth. Finding lower life forms would be fun and exciting, but intelligent life would be a disaster.

Think of all the nations on earth. Have any of them not been involved in a war? Is there one that has not attacked or been attacked? I doubt there ever has been a time in human history, when there has been no war or something very similar to war.

Our sports involve winning and losing — quasi war. Our children play with electronic war games. Back when I was young, we played cowboys vs. Indians. Today, kids play me vs. aliens. And there were our wars with Britain and Mexico. Heck, we even invaded Guatemala and Panama, for heavens sake, not to mention (please don’t) Vietnam and Korea. And remember Desert Storm?

And just think; we’re the good guys!!

Not only do we kill humans in wars and drive-by shootings and assorted other crimes, but we kill the less intelligent animals. We do it just for the pleasure of killing. It’s called “hunting.” And we kill for research. And for food.

The “lower” animals kill each other for food and they butt heads for sex. Bacteria kill. Viruses, which are at the lowest end of the life scale kill. It is in the nature of life as we know it, to kill.

And now we wish to find not just life, but intelligent life (“intelligent” meaning almost as smart as, or smarter than, us). Are we nuts?

If alien, intelligent life in any way resembles terrestrial life, the first thing that will happen is, it will want to kill us. For sport. For research. For food. Or simply to take over our planet’s resources. There simply is no question about this. We did it to native Americans. The British did it everywhere. Genghis Khan, Hannibal, Alexander, Japan. We kill.

If we’re lucky or unlucky, depending on how you look at it, they won’t kill us; they’ll enslave us — then kill us and eat us. We’ve done the enslaving thing, too.

The universe has existed for a bit under 14 billion years. The earth has not existed for even half that time, at less than 5 billion years. Homo sapiens have walked the earth for only 200,000 years and evidence for what we call “civilization,” i.e. permanent settlements, is merely about 10,000 years old — less than one millionth of the age of the universe.

Then consider the massive advances in our war capabilities in less than the past 100 years. The America of today could destroy the World War II America in an hour. Keep that in mind as you consider the likelihood we would discover intelligent life only 100 years more advanced than us. They would rule us at the twitch of their little fingers (assuming they have little fingers). They’d enslave us, or eat us or experiment on us or use us for hunting or other amusements.

Or what if they were 100 years less advanced than us. We’d do the same to them. It’s in our nature; it’s in the nature of life as we know it, “red in tooth and claw” (Tennyson).

So while finding some form of life might be exciting, finding intelligent life could destroy us, and our only hope is that the universe is so large, they couldn’t get to us. Yet even knowing this, there is in the back of my mind, that nagging hope we find them, somewhere. And I don’t know why.

Do you feel the same?

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


==========================================================================================================================================
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 exports

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

A little note to all you who believe federal spending should be cut and taxes increased. Enjoy your slice of just deserts

Mitchell’s laws: The more budgets are cut and taxes inceased, the weaker an economy becomes. To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments. Austerity = poverty and leads to civil disorder. Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
==========================================================================================================================================

Huff Post
Nancy Pelosi Says She’d Back Simpson-Bowles Plan
04/27/2012

WASHINGTON — Two progressive organizations have found themselves in the unusual position of being on the opposite side of House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi. Over the course of the past two years, the former House Speaker has been the most significant obstacle to the ongoing effort to slash entitlements and cut social spending.

But a series of recent comments, and reports that Pelosi was willing to accept draconian cuts as part of a debt-ceiling deal, have liberals worried that their most powerful and passionate defender may be buckling on the issue.

I’m no longer surprised that Pelosi (as stalking horse for President Obama) would sacrifice Social Security and Medicare in favor of the ridiculous, completely unnecessary anachronism, known as the “debt ceiling.”

Obama is a liberal only by comparison with the Tea/Republicans. Today, we have no liberals. The liberals are conservatives and the conservatives are fascists.

During a recent press conference, and again during an interview with Charlie Rose, the California Congresswoman said that she would support what’s known as the Simpson-Bowles plan. The co-chairs — former Republican Sen. Alan Simpson of Wyoming and Morgan Stanley director Erskin Bowles, a Democrat — have worked recently to revive it, and the political class speaks of it as if it passed and is an official recommendation of the commission.

The “political class” speaks of it as though it actually made any sense, which of course, it doesn’t.

At the end of March, a version of the Simpson-Bowles plan was given a vote on the House floor. It was annihilated, 382-38, with Pelosi and most Democrats voting against it.

But Pelosi, the day after the vote, said that she could still support the plan if it stuck more closely to the original version put out by Simpson and Bowles. “I felt fully ready to vote for that myself, thought it was not even a controversial thing … When we had our briefing with our caucus members, people felt pretty ready to vote for it. Until we saw it in print,” she said. “It was more a caricature of Simpson Bowles, and that’s why it didn’t pass. If it were actually Simpson-Bowles, I would have voted for it.”

Heaven help the working poor. Or the non-working poor. Or the working or non-working middle class. Or all of America.

Yet when the Simpson-Bowles plan had been originally unveiled, Pelosi called it “simply unacceptable.”

The Simpson-Bowles plan is a mix of tax increases and spending cuts that trims four trillion dollars off the deficit in ten years. Its cuts to social spending and entitlement programs made it “simply unacceptable” to the Democrats’ liberal base almost as soon as it was announced. Pelosi’s rhetorical retreat from that hard-line position has progressives worried they’ll have nobody left to defend the social safety net, even Medicare and Social Security.

Wake up, America. Obama is not whom you thought he was. He’s far right wing on everything except, perhaps, Israel. The problem is, Romney is exactly whom you think he is: A clueless rich man, who will say anything, no matter how nuts, to tell you what he thinks you want to hear.

So the November choice will be: The Fraud vs. the Sleaze. You decide who is who.

The Washington Post reported:

[President Obama] warned Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) that he might return to the position under discussion the previous Sunday — that is, cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid in exchange for just $800 billion in tax increases.

Perfect: Cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and additionally increase taxes by $800 billion, thereby assuring a recession if we are lucky and a depression if we’re not.

The Democratic leaders “kind of gulped” when they heard the details, [White House chief of staff William] Daley recalled.

Gulped? How about them having the backbone to shout: “This if f*cking stupid. How can you grow the economy with spending cuts and tax increases?”

Remember, Gross Domestic Product = Federal Spending + Private Investment and Consumption + Net exports

But cuts to Social Security and Medicare will decrease Federal Spending, decrease Private Investment and decrease Consumption, while a tax increase also will decrease Private Investment and decrease Consumption. With all elements of GDP decreased, what would increase GDP?

I’m just coming around to thinking that Obama will be remembered as the worst President since Jimmy Carter — maybe worse, yet. And then, I start to think of Romney as President . . .

Yikes.

Please folks, contact your Senators and Representatives. Don’t bother trying to explain Monetary Sovereignty to them. They never will understand it. Just tell them: “If you cut entitlements and/or raise taxes, I won’t vote for you.” That, they’ll understand.

Five dunce caps to Pelosi, each to be shared with Obama. (Two people can share one hat if the heads are small enough.) Fortunately there is no Simpson-Bowles committee on dunce caps.

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


==========================================================================================================================================
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 exports

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

–Congress debates whether to cut off your arms, your legs or your head, to improve your life.

Mitchell’s laws: The more budgets are cut and taxes inceased, the weaker an economy becomes. To survive long term, a monetarily non-sovereign government must have a positive balance of payments. Austerity = poverty and leads to civil disorder. Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
==========================================================================================================================================

I first thought it was ignorance, then stupidity. Now, I’m convinced it is insanity: The notion that cuts in federal spending, along with increases in federal taxes, will is some magical way, grow the economy.

No rational human could believe applying leeches will cure anemia, but that is what Congress and the President tell the American people: Cut off the arms and legs and head and heart of the economy to create health, wealth and happiness. Yikes!

Here are a few excerpts from the latest folly:

White House threatens to veto student loan bill
By ALAN FRAM | Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House threatened a veto Friday of a Republican bill keeping the interest rates on federal student loans from doubling this summer, objecting that the measure would finance its $5.9 billion cost by abolishing a (preventive) health care program.

The veto warning came as GOP leaders hunted for votes for the measure, which they were trying to push through the House. They were running into opposition from outside conservative groups like the Club for Growth, which was pressuring Republicans to oppose the legislation because, they said, the government should not subsidize student loans.

Abolishing a preventive health care program will benefit the nation??? And the ironically named “Club for Growth” thinks the government should not subsidize education. Well, what should the government subsidize if not education?

Republicans noted that many Democrats had voted earlier this year to take money from the preventive health fund to help pay to keep doctors’ Medicare reimbursements from dropping. Obama’s own budget in February proposed cutting $4 billion from the same fund to pay for some of his priorities.

Hmmm . . . Pay doctors, but reduce illness prevention. Wonder who thought of that gem?? This is what happens when you begin with the false premise that deficits must be You confront economic realities.

The House bill would keep interest rates for subsidized Stafford loans at 3.4 percent . . . Senate Democrats (would extend) the lower interest rate and pay for by boosting payroll taxes paid by high-earning owners of some private firms. Republicans oppose it.

Sadly, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans understand or will admit that federal taxes do not pay for federal spending. If federal taxes rose to $100 trillion, gazillion or fell to $0, neither event would affect by even one penny, the federal government’s ability to spend.

So they run wildly in circles, trying to figure out how to pour two gallons of milk from a one-gallon bottle, when all they need do is buy an additional bottle. Those who do not understand Monetary Sovereignty do not understand economics.

Friday’s vote comes with congressional Republicans and Democrats, as well as Obama and his near-certain GOP opponent this fall, Mitt Romney, competing at every turn over who has the best prescription to wring jobs out of the still-struggling economy. The student loan battle fits nicely into that theme, with 7.4 million low- and middle-income students and their parents reliant on Stafford loans and a college education symbolizing the ticket to economic success.

Will someone please tell the “Club for Growth”?

On Thursday, Boehner tried putting the focus on Obama’s travel this week to three college campuses. He said Obama should repay taxpayers for the use of Air Force One for the trip.

Never mind that taxpayers do not pay for federal spending.. Boehner’s legacy will be as the fool who said the Monetarily Sovereign U.S. is “broke.”

For House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., the emphasis was the GOP’s cuts in the preventive health program, whose initiatives she said include breast cancer screening and children’s immunizations. She contrasted that with a Democratic bill extending the low student rates by cutting subsidies to oil and natural gas companies, which is opposed by the GOP.

Pelosi characterized the Republican view as, “‘We prefer tax subsidies for big oil rather than the health of America’s women.'”

These arbitrary trade-offs are amazing. Who decided on health vs. oil? How about Congressional salaries vs. oil? How about military cost overruns vs. Secret Service hookers? Who decides on these weird tit-for-tats?

Heritage Action for America, a conservative group, was lobbying Republicans to oppose the GOP bill and let interest rates rise, saying to do otherwise would burden taxpayers.

Another legacy established. How will the HAA explain their position when people begin to understand Monetary Sovereignty?

Several conservative GOP lawmakers said Thursday they hadn’t decided how to vote. Some Democrats were eager to vote to keep student loan rates low, though it meant accepting GOP health care cuts.

Rep. Gerald Connolly, D-Va., said some Democrats “may feel upon reflection that they’ve got to swallow hard but swallow” those health care reductions. He said he hadn’t decided how to vote.

I award Congress, the President and all those who subscribe to the “cut-deficit” philosophy, five dunce caps, which I will have to pay for by taxing Congress, the President et al, five of the dunce caps previously awarded:

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


==========================================================================================================================================
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 exports

#MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY