Do numbers make seat-of-pants guesses better? Thursday, Jan 14 2021 

The science of economics is loaded with numbers. Charts, graphs, and formulae abound.

Young Boy Writes Math Equations On Chalkboard High-Res Stock Photo - Getty Images

Yet, despite this pretense at exactitude, economics is unable to tell you what will happen tomorrow let alone a year or a decade from now.

Which brings us to the “fiscal multiplier.”

This bit of mathematical chicanery supposedly indicates how individual types of federal spending will affect the economy.

You can go to the following web page to see a good description of the process. Here are some excerpts.

Fiscal Multiplier
A measure of the short-term impact of a fiscal stimulus on the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of an economy

The fiscal multiplier is extremely difficult to estimate. It is because the economy is complex, with multiple forces affecting its output.

In such a situation, it becomes too hard to pinpoint the change in output that is directly attributable to fiscal policy.

Hmmm . . . “extremely difficult to estimate” and “too hard to pinpoint change.” But does that scare us economists? No. Bravely we dive into the cesspool, hoping to catch a nice fresh fish.

There are two main approaches to estimating the fiscal multiplier. First is the econometric or statistical approach, and the second in the simulation or model-based approach.

1. Econometric Estimation
The econometric estimation of the fiscal multiplier is performed using a statistical model called a Structural Vector Autoregressive model or an SVAR model. The model is a multivariate time series model that measures the relationship between multiple variables through time. The SVAR approach requires a lot of data, which is not always available. Hence, even though the method is based on data, the results may not be stable.

2. Model-Based Estimation
The model-based estimation approach creates a model of the economy and then uses simulation to estimate the required variable. The models that are often used to model the economy are known as Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium (DSGE) models.

They model different sectors of the economy and the interaction among them. The simulations from the models are aggregated to measure the required variable, in our case, the fiscal multiplier. Such an approach does not require a lot of data, but it suffers from model risk.

3. Bucket Approach
The bucket approach is a very simple method that estimates the fiscal multiplier depending on how an economy ranks on various factors. It is more of a back of the envelope calculation, which can provide a ballpark figure for the multiplier based on the experience of other economies with similar features.

I suspect the more correct name for all of the above would be Dynamic Stochastic General Hocus Pocus (DSGHP).

Then, the economists stroke their chins and take these “extremely difficult to estimate” and “too hard to pinpoint the change” numbers and use them when . . .

Comparing Fiscal Multipliers

The output gap – the difference between expected economic output under current law and possible economic output if the economy were operating at full potential – is projected to total $1.85 trillion over the next two years according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

Fiscal policy can reduce this output gap over time. How effective a policy will be depends on its “multiplier” – the output produced for each dollar spent. While COVID relief should be designed to achieve a number of different goals – and there is no “right” share or length of the output gap that must necessarily be closed – policymakers should focus on high-multiplier spending and tax cuts where possible.

 

Here we see how the false certitude of WAG (Wild Ass Guesses) is displayed in a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) official table, which proves, for instance, that a “Paycheck Protection Program” (whatever it eventually may be) is less than half as effective as a “Coronavirus Relief Fund for States” (whatever it eventually may turn out to be).

About the best one can say about the CBO estimates is that they are (usually, somewhat) less politically motivated than Congress is.

The real problem not only is that people believe the WAG estimates, but that the estimates are based on a fundament lie:

‘Importantly, these policies may boost economic activity in the short-term, but they will ultimately add to the debt and thus slow long-term economic growth.

‘Policymakers can balance these risks by focusing on the policies that produce the greatest amount of economic activity for a given cost and can mitigate or reverse them by coupling short-term fiscal support with long-term deficit reduction.

There is zero, no, make that ZERO evidence that reducing federal “debt” slows economic growth. Here’s why:

    1. Federal debt is not really “debt” in the usual sense. It is the total of deposits into Treasury Security accounts.
    2. The federal government does not use those deposits to pay its bills. It creates new dollars for that purpose.
    3. The federal government pays off the “debt” simply by returning those deposits.
    4. The way the government keeps its books, reducing the debt requires running surpluses, which always leads to depressions — or if we’re lucky, just to recessions.

1804-1812: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 48%. Depression began 1807.
1817-1821: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 29%. Depression began 1819.
1823-1836: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 99%. Depression began 1837.
1852-1857: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 59%. Depression began 1857.
1867-1873: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 27%. Depression began 1873.
1880-1893: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 57%. Depression began 1893.
1920-1930: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 36%. Depression began 1929.
1997-2001: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 15%. Recession began 2001.

Today, we are running a serious recession. How are we trying to get out of it? By deficit spending, aka “throwing money at it.” That, in fact, is the only way we ever can cure recessions. Increased deficit spending prevents and cures recessions.

As for “coupling short-term fiscal support with long-term deficit reduction,” this makes no mathematical sense at all unless we are prepared to create massive surpluses (probably via tax increases) in the future. This is known as, “Kicking the can down Depression Road.”

In summary, we are being fed bad data compounded by bad economics.

What’s the solution? Begin with the fact that the federal government has unlimited money. Then consider each economics problem separately, and then throw money at it. Given infinite resources, why try to husband those resources via phony mathematics?

The economy is the private sector. When we enrich the private sector, we grow the economy. 

And finally, no “inflation” protestations, puleeeze!. Inflation is not caused by federal deficit spending. Inflation is caused by shortages — usually shortages of food or energy — and actually is cured by federal deficit spending.

Want economic growth? Implement the “Ten Steps to Prosperity” and forget about Fiscal Multipliers.

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:

  1. Monetary Sovereignty describes money creation and destruction.
  2. 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:

  1. Eliminate FICA
  2. Federally funded Medicare — parts A, B & D, plus long-term care — for everyone
  3. Social Security for all or a reverse income tax
  4. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone
  5. Salary for attending school
  6. Eliminate federal taxes on business
  7. Increase the standard income tax deduction, annually. 
  8. Tax the very rich (the “.1%”) more, with higher progressive tax rates on all forms of income.
  9. Federal ownership of all banks
  10. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99.9% 

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

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

How I agree and disagree with the same article. Thursday, Jan 14 2021 

Perhaps the greatest Economics problem in the US and indeed, in the world, is the wide and growing income/wealth/power Gaps between the rich and the rest.

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 indeed, virtually every other issue in economics.University of Essex hikes salaries for female professors to eliminate pay  gap | THE News

Ironically, the following article appeared on the Committee For A Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) web site.

I say “ironically,” because the CRFB continually calls for reductions in federal spending along with increases in federal taxes, all to reduce the dreaded “debt” and deficit.

Such reductions generally are regressive, slashing such social programs as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other poverty aids, while increasing FICA.

And yet the thrust of the article expresses concern that certain proposed efforts would be regressive, rather than progressive as is popularly assumed.

The concern is legitimate, and I agree with it, while disagreeing with the article in the overall, because of the second greatest economics problem (or is it first?). That problem is the universal misunderstanding of Monetary Sovereignty.

A Monetarily Sovereign government, like that of the United States, has the unlimited ability to create its own sovereign currency. It creates dollars at the touch of a computer key.

You and I, and businesses, and even state and local governments, are monetarily non-sovereign. We all are the “private sector.” financially different from the federal government, which is the true “public sector.”

You can read more about Monetary Sovereignty, here and here.

Alan Greenspan: “A government cannot become insolvent with respect to obligations in its own currency.”

Ben Bernanke: “The U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost.”

Here are excerpts from the CRFB article:

CYMI: Debt Cancellation and SALT Cap Repeal Would Benefit Higher Earners
January 11, 2021

In her recent Washington Post column, Catherine Rampell argues progressives should “be more progressive in an old-fashioned sense: by helping the poor more than the rich.”

I agree with the concept, though in actual excution, this is not always possible.

Being progressive is not exclusively devoted to helping the poor. It also means aiding the various middle classes. And therein lies the problem.

Rampell argues against three policies that are “handouts to the wealthy” — the repeal of the limit of the federal deductibility of state and local taxes (the SALT cap), canceling up to $50,000 per borrower of federal student debt, and the proposed $2,000 stimulus checks.

Rampell’s description of the $50,000 in student debt cancellation and SALT cap repeal is apt — the vast majority of the benefits of these policies would go to the highest earning families (we’ve written separately on the distribution of the $2,000 checks here).

Nearly two-thirds of the benefit of canceling $50,000 in student debt per person would go to the top 40 percent of households and over three-tenths would go to the top quintile, according to a recent paper by Sylvain Catherine and Constantine Yannelis. Less than 5 percent would go to the bottom quintile.

They estimate an average net lifetime benefit of $5,775 for someone in the top quintile and only $731 for someone in the bottom.

Assuming the math is correct, then in fact, the rich would benefit directly more than would the poor. But there are several points not considered.

1. Because of the above-mentioned three programs, fewer dollars would leave the private sector and go to the federal government, to be destroyed. This alone would stimulate the overall economy, which would benefit the middle- and lower-income groups.

2. More middle- and lower-income students would begin their working lives with the financial ability to create businesses and jobs, which also would benefit middle- and lower-income groups.

3. More middle- and lower income young people would be encouraged to attend college, which would benefit all of America, as more doctors, scientists and other professional talent entered the economy.

4. More middle- and lower-income people would be able to pay their rent and feed their families.

SALT cap repeal is even more regressive. The Tax Policy Center estimates that 96 percent of the benefit of repealing the $10,000 cap on the state and local tax deduction would go to the top quintile.

57 percent would go to the richest one percent of taxpayers. Those at the top would enjoy an average tax cut of $31,000 — while the average taxpayer would see no tax cut at all (the average cut in the middle quintile would be $10).

Even efforts to better target these policies don’t appear to fundamentally change their regressive nature. Catherine and Yannelis find that capping debt cancellation at $10,000 per household would still distribute 28 percent of the benefits to the top quintile and only 5 percent to the bottom.

Similarly, doubling the SALT cap to $20,000 rather than repealing it still delivers over 95 percent of the benefit to the top quintile and almost none to the bottom half of earners, based on estimates using Tax Brain.

This type of targeting can reduce the benefit of these policies for the very wealthiest Americans, but still offers little benefit to the vast majority of lower-earning and middle-class borrowers and taxpayers.

5. Again, I agree with the premise, while disagreeing with the implied solutions, i.e the status quo.

Those implied solutions would maintain or even increase the number of dollars taken from the private sector and delivered to the federal government for destruction. 

In her piece, Rampell argues that “in the new year, under a new president, Democrats should remember their obligation to aim their fiscal firepower at those who need it most.”

There are many effective ways to boost the economy and support struggling households during the current crisis.

Repealing the SALT cap or offering blanket debt cancellation are expensive, regressive polices, offer little bang for the buck, and most certainly do not qualify.

I disagree that encouraging and enabling college attendance offers “little bang for the buck.”

I especially disagree, because the federal government creates “the buck” from thin air, at no cost to anyone. So any “bang” that reduces the number of dollars taken from the private sector has overall benefit.

Still, there lingers the legitimate concern about benefitting the rich more than the middle and the poor, and I suggest that this concern can be mitigated in several ways:

A. The federal government can and should give significant per-capita stimulus dollars to each state, enough to reduce each state’s need for taxes. State taxes generally are regressive.

B. The federal government can and should provide significant financial support for grades pre-K-12, which currently receive massive amounts of regressive state tax dollars.

C. The federal government can and should begin to fund other state financial initiatives such as local roads, sewage, garbage, police, fire, parks, etc. The goal would be to substitute free Monetarily Sovereign, federal dollars for expensive monetarily non-sovereign, state and local tax dollars.

D. The federal government can and should offer financial aid to renters, not only to home owners.

E. The federal government can and should implement Step #8 of the Ten Steps to Prosperity: Tax the very rich (the “.1%”) more, with higher progressive tax rates on all forms of income.

Of course, all of the above-mentioned programs could be scaled according to income, which instantly would eliminate Rampell’s objections. A problem with so much scaling is that it, like our income tax, effectively becomes rescaled by the rich and the devious.

Ultimately, the CRFB cannot resist inserting the Big Lie into its article:

“Importantly, these policies may boost economic activity in the short-term, but they will ultimately add to the debt and thus slow long-term economic growth.” 

How is it possible that policies can boost growth in the short term, but slow growth in the long term? Actually, it isn’t possible — not mathematically, not economically, not no way, and not no how — at least it isn’t possible unless the federal government forces it to be possible by unnecessarily raising taxes or cutting benefits.

Since 1940, the fear-mongers have been claiming that the federal debt is a “ticking time bomb.” Meanwhile, the economy has grown from $40 billion to over $20 trillion, and the fake “time bomb” still awaits its detonation.

In Summary:

Some programs for aiding the poor also aid the middle- and upper middle-classes, thus actually widening some of the Gaps between the various income/wealth/power groups. There are several ways to mitigate this effect, including the use of income as a determinant for receipt of benefits.

Better, would be the implementation of the Ten Steps to Prosperity (below) which would stimulate the economy while narrowing the Gaps

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:

  1. Monetary Sovereignty describes money creation and destruction.
  2. 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:

  1. Eliminate FICA
  2. Federally funded Medicare — parts A, B & D, plus long-term care — for everyone
  3. Social Security for all or a reverse income tax
  4. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone
  5. Salary for attending school
  6. Eliminate federal taxes on business
  7. Increase the standard income tax deduction, annually. 
  8. Tax the very rich (the “.1%”) more, with higher progressive tax rates on all forms of income.
  9. Federal ownership of all banks
  10. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99.9% 

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

Chicago Tribune Editorial, A Monument To Ignorance, Misinformation, and Disinformation Sunday, Jan 3 2021 

The Chicago Tribune is the epitome of the big city newspaper. Big, bold, and with a great deal of investigative reporting.

For many years it had been right-wing from top to bottom, but of late, its columnists (with one exception) have ranged from moderate to progressive.Destroyer of Newspapers' Vulture Fund Buys Majority Stake at Tribune Publishing | Common Dreams News

The editorials however, have hewed to the conservative line: Small government, reduced federal deficits and debt, pro-business, and anti-poor.

By way of example, here are some excerpts from a January 3, 2021, Chicago Tribune editorial:

The Biden Presidency
How Joe Biden can save Medicare and Social Security

There are some who speculate Biden, now 78, will declare early on that he won’t seek reelection.

We’re not in the prediction business. But we are in the advice business, and Biden — like the presidents who preceded him — has a shot at building a historic legacy as the one who rallied people of all political stripes to confront issues other pols duck.

Among those issues: saving the social safety net for older Americans.

The Washington establishment has known for decades that Medicare and Social Security are imperiled.

That was true even after 1983 when President Ronald Reagan, a Republican, and House Speaker Tip O’Neill, a Democrat, famously cut a compromise to extend the solvency of Social Security by a couple of generations.

To get the deal, Reagan surrendered his demand that Americans be allowed to opt out of the program. And O’Neill disproved the adage that Democrats are frightened to speak aloud about entitlement reforms they know are inevitable.

In 2021, though, the entitlement future grows bleaker. Older people are living longer; younger people are having fewer babies.

A U.S. economy that in 1950 had 16 workers for each Social Security recipient now has only 2.8 — and by the time today’s new workers retire around 2060, that ratio will plummet to 2-to-1.

The math is inexorable, the entitlements unsustainable. Federal trustees now calculate that Medicare’s main fund, covering hospital costs, will be exhausted in 2026.

Yes, in five years. Social Security’s main fund runs dry eight years later, in 2034, after which incoming taxes from workers will pay only 76% of scheduled benefits.

And there you have The Big Lie of Economics, in all its glory.

The so-called “math,” is a myth..

The “16 workers for each Social Security recipient now has only 2.8” is meaningless. Contrary to popular ignorance, workers and their FICA contributions do not fund Social Security. 

The federal government creates new dollars, ad hoc, every time it pays for something. Those FICA dollars disappear from the economy and are destroyed upon receipt by the Treasury.

Social Security’s “main fund” is not the nonexistant trust fund. Rather, Social Security’s main fund is the U.S. government itself, which cannot ever run short of dollars.

Presidents of both major parties have given lip service to reform but — sometimes for lack of trying, sometimes because of blind resistance from the opposing party — none since Reagan has delivered fixes.

A President Biden can cite the urgency Barack Obama voiced on Jan. 15, 2009, when he told the Washington Post Editorial Board that he would rescue Social Security and Medicare:

“What we have done is kicked this can down the road. We are now at the end of the road and are not in a position to kick it any further. We have to signal seriousness in this by making sure some of the hard decisions are made under my watch, not someone else’s. … You have to have a president who is willing to spend some political capital on this. And I intend to spend some.”

Lovely words, except that was all Obama ever had: Words. He was a weak conservative in a liberal’s clothing.

He was the “Deporter-in-Chief,” the “Debt-Hawk-In-Chief,” the “Big-Business-Appeaser-in-Chief, and the “Coddle-The-Big-Banks-in-Chief.

Obama was George Bush only more intelligent and glib.

Except Obama didn’t spend capital on rescuing entitlements. We wrote six years later, in 2015, that all of us should “forgive young American workers who darkly assume that, because their elders behaved like selfish pigs, nothing but a heap of debt paper will be left for them.”

“Selfish pigs” implies that because Americans didn’t want to increase FICA taxes or cut benefits, Social Security would fail. Again, nonsense.

Selfishness has nothing to do with it. Ignorance has everything to do with it.

Social Security can fail only if the federal government intentionally allows it to fail.

In 2020, the federal government decided to add an extra $3 Trillion to the economy in order to prevent a depression. This year, the federal government will send out $600 checks — billions more dollars — to continue supporting the economy.

Where will those additional trillions of dollars come from?

Those additional trillions will not come from additional taxes. There are no additional taxes. The additional dollars will come from the same place all federal spending dollars come from: The federal government simply will create dollars by pressing computer keys.

And no, the dollars will not be borrowed. The federal government does not borrow. Being Monetarily Sovereign, and having the unlimited ability to create its own sovereign currency, the federal government creates T-securities from thin air and sells them to investors.

The investors’ dollars are stored in T-security accounts — not used by the federal government — and when the T-securities mature, the government sends the dollars back to the investors.

The federal government can create dollars endlessly. Even if the government didn’t collect a single FICA dollar — even a single tax dollar of any kind — the government could fund Social Security, Medicare and every other project, forever.

President-elect Biden knows. Yet as a candidate, he vacillated between pandering to voters and acknowledging that something has to change.

He proposes higher Social Security benefits for low earners. And he would extend the payroll tax — now 6.2% for workers and the same for their employers.

For 2021, that taxation applies until a worker has earned $142,800. But Biden’s plan also would apply the tax to wages above $400,000. So if you earn, say, $500,000 a year, you’d pay the Social Security tax on your first $142,800 and on your last $100,000, but not on the $257,200 between those thresholds.

Candidate Biden dismissed “Medicare for All” proposals as unaffordable.

Yet he has proposed lowering the eligibility age from 65 to 60, while retaining the private health insurance system that now covers 180 million Americans.

Biden knows. Bernie Sanders knows, too. He had to know because for a year he was advised by Stephanie Kelton, who recently published a book telling why the government can’t run short of dollars.

Sadly, Biden and Sanders, being old-line politicians, have been afraid to tell the American public the truth.

Hospital groups oppose the eligibility age drop; shifting more people to Medicare would deprive providers of the higher reimbursements that private insurers now pay for care.

But without the political will to tell voters that the entitlement programs are on a failing trajectory, the details of how any president and Congress would tweak them are immaterial.

The likely eventuality is some combination of changes to eligibility ages, payroll taxation and future benefits. Beneath that umbrella phrase sit countless possible recipes for rescue.

It’s not just hospital groups that oppose the truth. It’s the rich, who run America — they are the primary opposition.

The rich fear that if the voters understood the facts of Monetary Sovereignty, they would demand more benefits, and receiving those benefits would narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and the rest.

It is the Gap that makes the rich, rich. Without the Gap, no one would be rich; we all would be the same. And the wider the Gap, the richer they are.

So the rich bribe the politicians, the media, and the economists to tell you that benefits are “unaffordable” and “unsuitable,” and if benefits run out, it’s your fault for being “selfish.”

And now, here comes the suicide recommendation:

You’ll find plenty of smart ideas at the website of the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB).

The towering issue now is whether Biden will, like presidents before him, let the nation drift closer to an insolvency crisis or, instead, will be the leader who saves these programs.

As a senior citizen and a grandfather, Biden has the street cred to level with older Americans about the punishing math — and to give young Americans some hope that Medicare and Social Security will be there for them.

On entitlements and other crucial issues, this is how Joe Biden can take his place in history — not merely as the guy who beat the last guy, but as the American president who solved problems his predecessors wouldn’t touch.

The above four sentences are filled with lies from the rich.

1. The CRFB is a “rich-guys” organization devoted to promulgating the Big Lie that somehow the U.S. federal government can run short of the U.S. dollar, which it originally created from thin air and continues to create from thin air, at will. We discuss this harmful and dangerous group here.

2. The U.S. government cannot become insolvent — not now, not tomorrow, not ever. The federal government is like the Bank in the game of Monopoly. It too cannot become insolvent, because by rule, the players can add more dollars to the Bank at will.

3. The “punishing math” is a punishing myth, which is easy to see, if you ask yourself one simple question: Where did the trillions of dollars come from? The so-called federal “debt” is above $20 trillion; where did those dollars come from?

If federal spending were funded by taxes and borrowing, taxpayers and lenders would first need to have dollars. There would have to be an original source for all those trillions of dollars floating around. And there is. The original source of U.S. dollars is the federal government.

Dollars are created by bank lending, but even banks need to have an original source of dollars. Without the federal government’s unlimited ability to create its own sovereign currency, there would be no dollars.

4. The “problems his predecessors wouldn’t touch” have nothing to do with the federal government’s infinite solvency. They have to do with the misinformation and disinformation being fed to the American public.

If Georgia voters elect two Democratic Senators, Biden will have the political power to reduce everyone’s taxes while providing everyone with Social Security, healthcare, and all the other benefits alluded to in the Ten Steps to Prosperity (below).

The only question then: Will he have the moral courage?

…………………………………………………………………………
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:

  1. Monetary Sovereignty describes money creation and destruction.
  2. 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:

  1. Eliminate FICA
  2. Federally funded Medicare — parts A, B & D, plus long-term care — for everyone
  3. Social Security for all or a reverse income tax
  4. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone
  5. Salary for attending school
  6. Eliminate federal taxes on business
  7. Increase the standard income tax deduction, annually. 
  8. Tax the very rich (the “.1%”) more, with higher progressive tax rates on all forms of income.
  9. Federal ownership of all banks
  10. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99.9% 

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

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Traitors Saturday, Jan 2 2021 

The foundation of American democracy is the free election of our political representatives. That is what separates America from all the dictatorships around the world.

It is what separates us from China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, Syria, and the various banana republics that repress their citizens.

It is the reason why American heroes fought the revolutionary war. It is the reason why American heroes helped the world defend against Hitler, Mussolini, and Hirohito.

Anyone who attempts to subvert America’s elections is, by definition, a traitor, and should be punished appropriately.

Here are the eleven Republican Senators who wish to cancel the votes of 81 Million Americans, and 306 electoral college voters.

ELEVEN TRAITORS– Will they “find” enough votes to overturn the election

These Senators are doing everything in their power to nullify the results of the Presidential election.

They are not doing it for any of the Senators who were elected in November. They are not doing it for any of the Representatives who were elected in November. They are doing it solely to satisfy the ego and desires of one man, Donald J. Trump.

Their claim is that the election was fraudulent, specifically fraudulent in the few “swing states” that voted for Joe Biden (though not fraudulent in all the other states that voted for Trump and not fraudulent regarding Senate and House votes.)

This claim has been rebuffed in 50 court cases and by the Supreme Court of The United States, many judges of which were appointed by Republicans.

In all cases, the Republicans have been given ample opportunity to present their facts, and all those so-called “facts” were found to be lacking.

Despite all the trials and examinations, these traitorous Republicans wish to continue endlessly, until somehow some judge can be found to agree with their laughable “facts.”

Presumably then, that judge would be believed, while the decisions of all the other judges would be nullified.

Their stated justification is that, because a psychotic, lying President has continued to promulgate his faux facts, “millions of people feel the election was fraudulent.”

The traitors will fail, because American democracy is strong, but they have succeeded in one dubious accomplishment: They have set an American precedent, whereby the losing party baselessly will claim the election was stolen, refuse to certify the votes, and will attempt to cancel the votes for the winner.

In short, the traitors want someone to make American elections meaningless and unnecessary, i.e to create a dictatorship.

Their public excuse is that they merely want to investigate to “make sure” that only “legal” votes are counted. The fact that this already has been accomplished again and again, does not satisfy the traitors, because the results are not to their liking.

Given all the court cases and all the testimony America has endured, the likelihood that somehow new evidence exists to satisfy yet another court, is more than remote, and the traitors know it.

So why do the traitors continue their efforts to destroy American democracy? To appease dictator-wannabe Donald Trump.

They believe that if they help him now, in future elections, he will help them get elected. They believe there are enough members of Trump’s cult, who will ignore this real danger to America, and do as he says two years and four years hence.

In short, they believe Americans are stupid enough to vote against America at the behest of Donald Trump.

In every sense of the word, these Senators, along with Representative of the same ilk, are the most dangerous traitors American ever has faced. They are the most dangerous because they have power. They are inside the highest levels of government. 

They have votes that can pilot our nation onto dangerous shoals. Like Trump himself, they can force upon America harmful alliances with foreign adversaries, all to benefit Trump, personally, just as they now are doing.

Because of their governmental influence, they are of more immediate danger to America than even such acknowledged enemies as Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, etc.

The traitors have the power to destroy America without fighting a shooting war.

Our mighty military would be useless against their insidious attack. Thus, America is at war within, against the traitors who would enslave America to a dictator.

The traitors should be treated appropriately. They should be tried in a court of law, and made to pay as enemies, the way America has treated traitors throughout our history.

Remember their names, which will live in infamy: Cruz, Johnson, Lankford, Daines, Kennedy, Blackburn, Braun, Lummis, Marshall, Hagerty, and Tuberville.

Traitors all.

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:

  1. Monetary Sovereignty describes money creation and destruction.
  2. 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:

  1. Eliminate FICA
  2. Federally funded Medicare — parts A, B & D, plus long-term care — for everyone
  3. Social Security for all or a reverse income tax
  4. Free education (including post-grad) for everyone
  5. Salary for attending school
  6. Eliminate federal taxes on business
  7. Increase the standard income tax deduction, annually. 
  8. Tax the very rich (the “.1%”) more, with higher progressive tax rates on all forms of income.
  9. Federal ownership of all banks
  10. Increase federal spending on the myriad initiatives that benefit America’s 99.9% 

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

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Next Page »

%d bloggers like this: