Is poverty harmful, harmless, or a benefit?

Liberals think the purpose of government is to protect the poor and powerless from the rich and powerful. Conservatives think the purpose of government is to protect the rich and powerful from the poor and powerless.
================================================================================================================================================

Evolution requires that for any physical feature to last a long time it either must be harmless or a benefit. Over the eons, harmful features tend to disappear.

Consider toenails. Once we came down from the trees, toenails were of no imaginable use, but they require so little energy to grow, they have not been an evolutionary inhibition. So we still have them.

Poverty too, has been with our species for thousands of years. But one is reluctant to say it is harmless. So that leaves the possibility that poverty is a benefit.

Or, because it is a social feature, rather than a physical feature, rather than a physical benefit, might it only be a perceived benefit?

Regarding perception, the Democrats are about to pass what can be one of the most meaningful bills in many years — meaningful because that one bill can change common economics perceptions.

Child tax credit expansion sets up showdown with GOP
By ALEXANDRA JAFFE and JOSH BOAK
March 8, 2021

WASHINGTON (AP) — The massive ($1.9 trillion) coronavirus relief plan making its way to President Joe Biden’s desk includes a plan to temporarily raise the child tax credit that could end up permanently changing the way the country deals with child poverty.

The American Rescue Plan, expected to receive final approval this week, temporarily raises the child tax credit, now at a maximum of $2,000, to as much as $3,600 per child annually.

The plan also expands the credit so it’s fully available to the poorest families, instead of restricting it based on the parents’ tax liability. And it will be paid out in monthly installments, to offer families struggling during the pandemic a more consistent lifeline.

If the Democrats are smart (big “if”), they will resist the calls to raise taxes to “pay for” the bill. The Democrats simply should allow the federal debt to rise significantly. Let debt fear-mongers wring their hands, and offer up dire predictions, none of which will occur.

The legislation gives families up to $3,600 annually for each child under age 6 and as much as $3,000 for those up to 17.

The benefit is aimed at providing support to millions of families affected by the coronavirus pandemic. Democrats have embraced an analysis that found the proposal would cut child poverty 45%.

Republicans charge the move amounts to an expansion of the welfare state that will disincentivize parents from seeking work.

But Democrats hold out the proposal as a fundamental rethinking of the way the country approaches child poverty and an opportunity to address the income inequality that’s been exacerbated by the pandemic.

The old “disincentivize” myth simply means: “Give poor people some money, and they won’t work.”

Thus poverty is wrongly portrayed as a benefit to the economy in that it supposedly stimulates labor. That false belief provides a ready excuse to widen the Gap between the rich and the rest.

It’s utter nonsense of course, as demonstrated by all the middle, upper-middle, and even rich people who have plenty of money yet still work. It’s the common “laziness” slur on the poor, most of whom actually labor much harder than do most of the rich.,

Connecticut Rep. Rosa DeLauro, a Democrat who has been advocating for an expansion of the credit since 2003, said in a statement that “this legislation forever changes the way that our nation supports both middle-class families and children in poverty.”

DeLauro and other Democrats on Capitol Hill see the current legislation as laying the groundwork for a permanent expansion of the credit.

Indeed, Biden himself told House Democrats during a private call last week that he supports legislation that would permanently increase the child tax credit to $3,000 per child.

While Republicans broadly support the idea of expanding benefits for children, some have opposed the Biden plan for its price tag, and others have criticized it for divorcing the benefit from any work requirement.

“Price tag” is an argument that takes several forms, among which are the false notions that:

1. Federal taxes fund federal spending. FALSE

The Federal government uniquely is Monetarily Sovereign. It never can run short of its own sovereign currency. Even if it collected $0 taxes, it could continue spending, forever.

Rather than using tax dollars, the federal government creates new dollars, ad hoc, each time it pays a creditor.

While state and local governments (which are monetarily non-sovereign) do use state and local taxes to fund spending, the federal government actually destroys federal taxes upon receipt.

That is why no one can answer the question, “How much money does the federal government have?” The best answer is, “Infinite.”

Tax dollars never become part of any money measure (i.e. M1, M2, M3, et al). They simply are destroyed

2. Federal deficit spending causes inflation. FALSE

All inflations are caused by scarcity, usually a shortage of food and/or energy.

Federal deficit spending actually can cure inflation, if the spending is directed toward reducing the scarcity (for instance, by buying overseas and distributing the scarce goods, or by supporting the manufacture of the scarce goods).

3. Federal deficit spending slows the economy. FALSE

The most common measure of the economy is Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the formula for which is:

GDP = Federal Spending + Non-federal Spending + Net Exports

Increases in federal deficit spending increase all three terms in the GDP formula.

4. Federal borrowing competes with private borrowing. FALSE

Though state and local governments do borrow, the U.S. federal government does not borrow. Federal financing is nothing like state and local government financing.

Banks and credit card companies, which do the vast majority of lending in America, do not lend to the federal government.

5. Future taxpayers will have to pay for the federal debt. FALSE

Because the federal government has the unlimited ability to create dollars, it does not borrow. Instead, it allows for deposits into T-security (T-bill, T-note, T-bond) accounts.

When you buy a T-security, you are not lending money to the federal government. You are making a deposit into your own T-security account, held at the Federal Reserve Bank. There your dollars remain, collecting interest until maturity, at which time the government returns your dollars.

The federal government does not use those dollars to pay its creditors or for any other purpose.

No borrowing or taxpayer money ever is involved in T-security transactions. All taxpayer dollars are destroyed upon receipt.

6. Federal interest payments crowd out other federal spending. FALSE

The federal government has the unlimited power to create dollars. It can pay an infinite amount of interest.

Scott Winship, director of poverty studies at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said his concern is that a permanent child allowance might make parents less likely to work and reduce the number of two-parent households, since there would be a stream of income from the government.

He wants to reduce child poverty but is concerned that doing so this way might worsen factors such as unemployment and single-parenthood that contribute to policy.

“The feeling is we win the battle against child poverty but we lose the war in the long run because we’ve created incentives that make it tougher to reduce poverty,” Winship said.

The conservatives want you to believe that giving the impoverished money increases poverty. Remember that bit of nonsense, every time to make a contribution to charity. According to the conservatives, when you drop a dollar into the bell-ringer-Santa’s pail, you are worsening poverty!

“If pulling families out of poverty were as simple as handing moms and dads a check, we would have solved poverty a long time ago,” Sen. Marco Rubio wrote.

Pulling families out of poverty is as simple as handing moms and dads checks, but ignorant and/or dishonest politicians won’t admit it.

But the expanded benefits included in the coronavirus relief plan set up a precedent that could put Republicans on defense on the issue. Because the benefit currently expires after a year, the Biden plan essentially creates a potential fiscal cliff for child poverty.

This could set up a political showdown during an election year on whether voters believe it’s acceptable for millions of children to lose the added aid and become impoverished once again.

“When it’s up for renewal, Republicans will be in the awkward position of opposing payments to families delivered through a credit that they pioneered, and championed as recently as 2017,” said Samuel Hammond, director of poverty and welfare policy at the Niskanen Center.

“No Republican wants to run on taking money away from families of any income,” Hammond said.

The Republicans never have expressed sympathy for the less-than-rich families. They tend to blame the impoverished for their own poverty, rather than to admit that good or bad fortune are the primary determinants of wealth.

Looking toward the midterm elections, the attack ads aimed at Republicans would simply highlight the party’s votes for tax cuts during the Trump administration in contrast with their votes against the Biden plan.

“It’s as simple as, when it was a vote on tax cuts for billionaires, Republicans voted yes, and when it was a check for you, they voted no,” he said.

If the Democrats avoid the pressure from the economics-ignorant, unnecessarily to raise taxes, the results might at long last demonstrate the facts of Monetary Sovereignty, and maybe, just maybe, we wouldn’t be subjected to the following Big Lies from such as the Committee For A Responsible Federal Budget (CFRB):

How High Are Federal Interest Payments?
Mar 10, 2021

This year, the federal government will spend $300 billion on interest payments on the national debt. This is the equivalent of nearly 9 percent of all federal revenue collection and over $2,400 per household.

Households don’t pay for federal interest payments.

The federal government spends more on interest than on transportation, education, and research and development combined.

The above statement is irrelevant. It only demonstrates that the government could spend more on transportation, education, and research and development.

The household share of federal interest is larger than average household spending on many typical expenditures, including gas, clothing, education, or personal care.

Again, irrelevant. Households do not pay for federal interest.

Growing debt levels add to the cost and risk associated with them.

The federal government has the unlimited ability to fund interest payments, which actually stimulate economic growth. There is no risk associated with federal spending.

Even with exceptionally low interest rates, the federal government is projected to spend just over $300 billion on net interest payments in fiscal year 2021. This amount is more than it will spend on food stamps and Social Security Disability Insurance combined.

It is nearly twice what the federal government will spend on transportation infrastructure, over four times as much as it will spend on K-12 education, almost four times what it will spend on housing, and over eight times what it will spend on research and development.

All the above demonstrates is the that government could, and should, spend more on food stamps, Social Security, infrastructure, education, housing, and research and development.

Interest payments effectively consume more than half of the worker-side payroll tax paid by households and are almost twice as large as total payments received through federal excise taxes and customs duties.

Interest payments do not “consume” any taxes. Federal taxes do not fund federal spending.

If interest rates were one percent higher than projected for all of 2021, interest costs would total $530 billion — more than the cost of Medicaid.

If rates were two percent higher, interest costs would total $750 billion, which is more than the federal governments spends on defense or Medicare. And at three percent higher, interest costs would total $975 billion — almost as much as is spent on Social Security benefits.

On a per-household basis, a one percent increase in the interest rate would increase costs by $1,805, to $4,210.

The CRFB keeps repeating the same lie, that federal taxes fund federal spending. They learned from Hitler that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will begin to believe it.

Trump used the same strategy with his repeat of the lie that the election was stolen. Millions of people believe that lie, too.

The higher the federal debt, the more exposed the federal government is to interest rate risk.

There is no risk to the federal government or to taxpayers. The government has the unlimited ability to pay its bills. There also is no risk of inflation, which is not caused by government deficit spending, but rather by shortages, usually of food and/or energy.

And now, here is the CRFB’s Big Lie in all its glory:

Once the U.S. recovers from the COVID-19 pandemic, policymakers should work to adopt a combination of entitlement reforms, smart spending reductions, and revenue increases that will ultimately put debt and deficits on a more sustainable path.

“Entitlement reforms” and “spending reductions” mean “cut Social Security, cut Medicare, cut all social benefits for the poor and middle-income.”

“Revenue increases” means “increase FICA and other taxes on the poor and middle-income.”

“Sustainable” is the CRFB’s favorite word, that actually has no meaning at all, but it sounds oh, so prudent, doesn’t it?

SUMMARY

The Big Lie in economics is: The Monetarily Sovereign U.S. government uses tax dollars to pay its bills. This lie prevents the government from supplying benefits to those who are not rich.

A corollary to the Big Lie is the notion that spending for social benefits discourages people from working.

The Big Lie and its corollary are disseminated by the media, the politicians, and the economists who are bribed by the rich so as to widen the Gap between the rich and the rest.

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

King Joe Manchin spreads the BS

Fate handed Sen.Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), America’s ultimate swing voter, a big crown, and boy is he lovin’ it.

Suddenly, he has the entire Democratic Party sitting at his feet and fawning over his every word. Never mind that he often doesn’t know what he’s talking about. It’s pretty much the way the Republicans treat Donald Trump’s pronouncements, minus the grade-school insults.

Joe Manchin pledges to block Biden’s infrastructure bill if Republicans aren’t included

He’ll insist Republicans have more of a voice on President Biden’s next big package than they did on the COVID stimulus.

One wonders what “more of a voice” he means. The Republicans” version of a stimulus involved much less going to the poor and middle-classes, and lots more going to the rich.

As it is, the Dems caved by reducing the payout to the people who need it most. Should that payout have been cut even more?

But, it gets even worse:

Manchin said he’ll push for tax hikes to pay for Biden’s upcoming infrastructure and climate proposal, and will use his Energy Committee chairmanship to force the GOP to confront climate reality.

My conversation yielded the most extensive preview yet of how Manchin — a Democrat from a Trump state, in a 50-50 Senate, who relishes standing up to a Democratic White House — will use his singular power.

Federal taxes do not pay for federal spending. The government pays for its spending by creating brand new dollars, ad hoc. That is why it has been able to budget an additional $4 trillion in stimulus spending, with no tax increases.

Manchin said that with just a few concessions, it would have been possible to get some Republicans on the COVID relief package that passed the Senate this weekend on a party-line vote.

A few concessions?? The Dems gave them huge concessions — the much wanted $15 minimum wage is gone, and there is a 25% reduction in unemployment benefits — yet not a single Republican changed his/her vote. How do you explain that, Joe? Republicans need “more of a voice”? Really?

And he said he’ll block Biden’s next big package — $2 trillion to $4 trillion for climate and infrastructure — if Republicans aren’t included.

“I’m not going to do it through reconciliation,” which requires only a simple majority, like the COVID stimulus, Manchin said. “I am not going to get on a bill that cuts them out completely before we start trying.”

Manchin said Biden expects, and understands, the pushback: “He’s the first president we’ve had to really, really understand the workings of the Senate since LBJ.”

Asked if he believes it’s possible to get 10 Republicans on the infrastructure package, which could yield the 60 votes needed under normal Senate rules, Manchin said: “I sure do.”

It would be nice if Manchin understood the workings of the Senate. If he did, he would acknowledge that the Republicans do not want any Biden proposal to succeed.

The Republicans have one goal. They want to be able to crow about how Biden failed to get anything passed. To hell with America and its people. Votes and pleasing Trump are all they care about.

Manchin said the infrastructure bill can be big — as much as $4 trillion — as long as it’s paid for with tax increases. He said he’ll start his bargaining by requiring the package be 100% paid for.

Oh, good: A wholly unnecessary, $4 trillion tax increase. That ought to help the economy grow.

I have an idea, Joe: How about every member of Congress paying for his/her own health care insurance. Would that be a good start?

Manchin said that with all the debt we’re piling up, he’s worried about “a tremendous deep recession that could lead into a depression if we’re not careful. … We’re just setting ourselves up.”

Nice idea, except for one small fact, Joe: Recessions follow reductions in deficit growth and are cured by increases in deficit growth (aka, “stimulus”).

Reductions in federal debt growth lead to inflation — **History repeatedly shows: Reductions in debt growth introduce recessions (vertical gray bars), and recessions are cured by increases in federal debt growth**.

And as for depressions: Those are caused by debt reductions, and are cured by debt increases.

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.

But hey, Joe, don’t let facts get in the way of myth.

He talked up an array of tax increases, including raising the corporate tax rate from the current 21% to 25% “at least,” and repealing “a lot of” the Trump tax cuts for the wealthy.

Manchin, sitting down with HBO in the Energy Committee hearing room where he now holds the gavel, said he’ll use his new position “to try and inject some reality” — starting with a hearing “on climate facts.”

Increasing the corporate tax rate, i.e. taking dollars from the private sector, will help grow the economy how?? Which economics books have you read, Joe?

Asked about Republican senators who won’t say that humans have affected climate, Manchin said: “Well, I think they know it.”

Of course, they know it. Every sentient human being on this planet knows it. So Joe, how exactly are you going to “inject some reality” when talking to people who already know the facts, but don’t give a damn?

Scientists have been injecting reality for decades. Now, you, the great and powerful Joe Manchin, are going to do the job?

Manchin warned fellow Democrats about ramming through legislation by simple majority:

Excuse me, Joe, but in what world does majority rule constitute “ramming through legislation.” The filibuster is simple minority rule. Is that what you prefer?

“I would say this to my friends. You’ve got power … Don’t abuse it. And that’s exactly what you’ll be doing if you throw the filibuster out.”

I would say this to Joe Manchin. You’ve got power. Don’t abuse it. That is exactly what you would be doing if you are the one person overruling the Democratic President and the entire Democratic Party.

Joe, the Democratic voters of West Virginia put you in; they can put you out, and they will if someone “injects some reality” into the next election.

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

Should we build a moral computer?

The human brain can do far more, using less energy and with less mass, than any known computer.

No computer, from your little Apple Watch to Japan’s huge Fugaku (the world’s fastest computer, which can perform more than 415 trillion computations a second), can compare to what the human brain can accomplish. Man vs. machine: Is there a place for traditional media strategists amid programmatic tech? - Features - MM&M - Medical Marketing and Media

So far as we currently know, and excepting certain past and present political leaders, your brain is the most complex and sophisticated object in the universe.

Yes, the mechanical monsters can do math really fast, and they almost never forget where their keys are, but still, they don’t have the power to operate every function of the human body, as well as the brain-body interface, does.

Consider just your 20 square feet of skin that your human brain oversees. Your skin, which is just one of the many organs in the human body, contains about 300 million cells, of which 30,000 die and are replaced every minute.

While all this creation, destruction, and replacement are happening, every inch of your skin senses the exact location of heat, cold, several kinds of touch, and pain, all of which are interpreted, every second, by your brain. Try to visualize a machine able to accomplish this.

Visualize driving your car at top speed, while thousands of parts are being replaced every minute.

And that’s just your approximately 8 lbs. of skin. Consider the rest of you. Various types of sight, sound, touch, heat, pain, and taste receptors are springled throughout your body, all monitored by your brain, and all with multiple functions. (Yes, there are taste receptors all over, even in your lungs.)

And though no computer in existence could handle even your body’s sensing and response needs, that is child’s play compared to your more sophisticated psychological tasks your brain handles.

What computer can feel fear, hatred, loneliness, joy, empathy, compassion, love, greed, disgust, etc., etc. How many different kinds of love can your brain feel?

And even that is child’s play compared to your more sophisticated brain tasks: Self-consciousness, pride, sangfroid, the creation of quantum mechanics, general relativity, evolution, math, and other sciences.

With all that computing power tucked in your skull, still you use computers for specialized tasks. Your brain was designed specifically to help you survive here, in this tiny environment you know as “earth,” in the year 2021.

But your brain includes desires, so you wish to do more than just survive in the here and now.

You wish to survive the new diseases that may come your way, and the meteors, and the comets, and the storms and the solar storms, and the global warming and cooling.

As a species, we wish to survive long term on our moon and on other moons and on other planets. And of course, we wish to survive our own foibles — the wars and prejudices our brains instigate.

And to accomplish that long-term survival, we will have to become smarter, and not just smarter, but better.

By “better,” I mean moral.

The purpose of morality is group survival, but morality is a mixed survival mechanism.

Short term, the least moral among us may have advantages. A crook acquires; a murderer eliminates competition. Even long-term, immorality can benefit the individual, though morality can support the survival of our species.

To accomplish all of our short- and long-term needs, we have two alternatives: Improve our brains or augment/replace our brains.

Nature has not improved our brains for millennia, so we currently focus on augmentation/replacement, which involves the use of computers.

===================================

Discover Magazine: The Singularity Might Redefine What It Means to Be Human and Machine
Ever since computers took shape — first filling rooms, then office desks, then pockets — they have been designed by human minds. Over the years, plenty of people have asked: What would happen if computers designed themselves?

Someday soon, an intelligent computer might create a machine far more powerful than itself. That new computer would likely make another, even more powerful, and so on. Machine intelligence would ride an exponential upward curve, attaining heights of cognition inconceivable to humans.

This, broadly speaking, is the singularity.

The singularity is a formidable proposition. Superintelligent computers might leap forward from nanotechnology to immersive virtual reality to superluminal space travel.

Instead of being left behind with our cell-based brains, humans might merge themselves with AI, augmenting our brains with circuits, or even digitally uploading our minds to outlive our bodies.

The result would be a supercharged humanity, capable of thinking at the speed of light and free of biological concerns.

Philosopher Nick Bostrom thinks this halcyon world could bring a new age entirely. “It might be that, in this world, we would all be more like children in a giant Disneyland — maintained not by humans, but by these machines that we have created,” says Bostrom, the director of Oxford University’s Future of Humanity Institute and the author of Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies.

There’s the classic sci-fi nightmare of a robot revolution, of course, where machines decide they’d rather be in control of the Earth.

But perhaps more likely is the possibility that the moral code of a superintelligent AI — whatever that may be — simply doesn’t line up with our own.

An AI responsible for fleets of self-driving cars or the distribution of medical supplies could cause havoc if it fails to value human life the same way we do.

There are ways we might teach human morality to a nascent superintelligence. Machine learning algorithms could be taught to recognize human value systems, much like they are trained on databases of images and texts today.

Or, different AIs could debate each other, overseen by a human moderator, to build better models of human preferences.

But morality cuts both ways.

There may soon be a day, Bostrom says, when we’ll need to consider not just how an AI feels about us, but simply how it feels. “If we have machine intelligences that become artificial, digital minds,” he continues, “then it also becomes an ethical matter [of] how we affect them.”

In this age of conscious machines, humans may just have a newfound moral obligation to treat digital beings with respect.

Call it the 21st-century Golden Rule.

One problem: Teaching morality to a machine becomes a question of “whose morality.”

For instance, consider this man’s moral beliefs:

Indian police have arrested a man and accused him of decapitating his own teenage daughterin a rage over her relationship with another man he didn’t like

In what appears to be the latest gruesome case of so-called “honor killing” in the Asian nation. Police in the northern state of Uttar Pradesh said Sarvesh Kumar was arrested as he walked toward the local police station carrying his daughter’s head.

Honor crimes are a major problem in India, neighboring Pakistan, and other countries where family members — most often women and girls — are attacked and even killed by their relatives for bringing perceived shame onto the family.

Such crimes are more common in rural communities where centuries-old traditions and deep-rooted cultural norms still dictate the rules of everyday life.

While that murder may seem immoral to you, and definitely seems immoral to me, what would you call turning off a computer that is so advanced it is sentient? How different is that from murder?

We humans face an infinite number of moral dilemmas some of which are addressed by laws and some of which are addressed ad hoc. The fact that there are dilemmas indicates the absence of “right-or-wrong” answers.

Machines, by their very nature, can be physically much stronger and have more physical survivability than we humans have. If we also make them smarter and more imaginative who will rule whom?

Won’t it be vital to give them a moral imperative, while we still can?

But again, whose moral imperative? If there becomes a choice between killing a human vs. turning off a computer, which choice will a sentient computer make. And by the way, when exactly does a computer become sentient?

Fortunately, the human brain operates on a completely different system from the electronic artificial brain. So even with quantum computers being developed, I suspect computers will, for at least several human generations, continue lag well behind us in their overall capabilities.

That suspicion could change suddenly, however. Science does not work in a straight line.

Previously, the fastest vaccine ever created was the mumps vaccine, which required four years of development. Yet, months, perhaps years of developing the COVID-19 vaccine were eliminated via the evolutionary shortcut of CRISPR-Cas 9.

Tomorrow, a new way to create a superior artificial brain could be announced, and we immediately would be faced with the possibility of sentient computers, and all the dilemmas they would bring, from turning them on, ruling them, putting them into hazardous or unpleasant situations, and turning them off.

For instance:

The First Steps Toward a Quantum Brain: An Intelligent Material That Learns by Physically Changing Itself

An intelligent material that learns by physically changing itself, similar to how the human brain works, could be the foundation of a completely new generation of computers.

Radboud physicists working toward this so-called “quantum brain” have made an important step. They have demonstrated that they can pattern and interconnect a network of single atoms, and mimic the autonomous behavior of neurons and synapses in a brain.

Says project leader Alexander Khajetoorians, Professor of Scanning Probe Microscopy at Radboud University, “This requires not only improvements to technology, but also fundamental research in game-changing approaches.

Our new idea of building a ‘quantum brain’ based on the quantum properties of materials could be the basis for a future solution for applications in artificial intelligence.”

For artificial intelligence to work, a computer needs to be able to recognize patterns in the world and learn new ones.

Today’s computers do this via machine learning software that controls the storage and processing of information on a separate computer hard drive. “Until now, this technology, which is based on a century-old paradigm, worked sufficiently. However, in the end, it is a very energy-inefficient process,” says co-author Bert Kappen, Professor of Neural networks and machine intelligence.

The physicists at Radboud University discovered that by constructing a network of cobalt atoms on black phosphorus they were able to build a material that stores and processes information in similar ways to the brain, and, even more surprisingly, adapts itself.

An intelligent material that learns by physically changing itself, similar to how the human brain works, could be the foundation of a completely new generation of computers. Radboud physicists working toward this so-called “quantum brain” have made an important step. They have demonstrated that they can pattern and interconnect a network of single atoms, and mimic the autonomous behavior of neurons and synapses in a brain.

Science, human survival, and morality march to different drum beats. We developed atomic energy first. Since then we have struggled to use it without destroying ourselves.

From corn to cows to trees to your pet dog, almost every living thing we touch has been subject to some measure of our evolutionary tinkering. But our evolutionary tinkering required years of trial and error, and sometimes didn’t work at all.

Now, with CRISPR-Cas9, we can do in a day what formerly took years. It has given us the power to eliminate malaria simply by eliminating the Anopheles Stephensi mosquito via what is known as a “gene drive.”

But should we eliminate that species? We already have, many times. But should we do it intentionally? That question is addressed in the New York Times Magazine, here.

The elimination of an entire species is no small decision. No one can say for certain what the side effects will be, what other animals will be affected and how?

And if we intentionally eliminate one species will we eliminate another unpopular species the same way?

But then, in reality, there is no question at all. If it’s possible to do it, someone will do it, and then someone else will do it. And the question will have been answered.

The title of this post is: “Should we build a moral computer?”

But in reality, a better title might be, “When will we build a moral computer, and how will we survive it?“

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 economics scare-mongers defy facts. Were you fooled?

Since 1981, the CRFB (Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget) has been scaring you about a “soon-to-come economic doomsday.”

The fiscal apocalypse always is imminent — always just around the corner.

Does the fact that it never arrives embarrass the CRFB? Apparently not,

If you made the same wrong predictions every year for the past 40 years wouldn’t you be a bit hesitant about doing it yet again? And if you were one of the CRFB’s readers, wouldn’t you have learned long ago not to trust anything these people say?

It seems that being wrong again and again and again, doesn’t cause them any embarrassment, nor does it cause their followers any second thoughts.

The CRFB keeps peddling the same nonsense every year, using exactly the same words. Only the numbers change.

Today, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released its March 2021 Long-Term Budget Outlook, confirming that the federal budget is on an unsustainable long-term trajectory.

Let us pause to examine the word “unsustainable.” What does it mean? The CRFB never says.

Does “unsustainable” mean the federal government will go bankrupt? No, that cannot happen.

It can happen to monetarily non-sovereign entities like U.S. states, counties, and cities. It can happen to euro nations because they are monetarily non-sovereign. It can happen to businesses, and to you and to me.

But it cannot happen to the U.S. government. It is Monetarily Sovereign. It creates U.S. dollars by the very act of paying creditors.

[To pay a creditor, the federal government sends instructions (in the form of a check or wire) to the creditor’s bank. The instructions say, “Pay to the order of________”

When the bank receives those instructions, it does as it is told. It increases the numbers in the creditor’s checking account. At the moment that happens, a money measure known as “M1” increases.

The bank then clears the instructions through the government’s own Federal Reserve Bank, which always approves government instructions. In short, the government approves its own instructions.

That is the way the federal government creates dollars.]

Because the government never can run short of instructions, it never can run short of dollars.

Does “unsustainable” mean the federal government will be unable to pay its debts? No. Clearly having unlimited money gives the government unlimited ability to pay its debts.

Does “unsustainable” mean countries or people will begin to reject payment in dollars? No. The U.S. has a massive economy. Long after people begin to reject euros, and the money of smaller economies like those of Japan, Canada, Australia, England, China et al, they still will accept U.S. dollars.

Does “unsustainable” mean that one day, China will demand a return of all the dollars it has lent the U.S.? No. China has not lent the U.S. any dollars. (The U.S. government, having the unlimited ability to create dollars, has no need to borrow dollars.)

What erroneously is termed “borrowing” actually is China making deposits of U.S. dollars into its own T-security accounts held at the Federal Reserve Bank. There the dollars remain until China wants them back. The U.S. government has no need for them.

Whenever China wants those dollars returned, the Bank merely transfers them to China’s own checking account, at any bank in the world. This is a simple money transfer that is no burden on the U.S. or on taxpayers. It happens every day of the week.

Does “unsustainable” mean we will have uncontrolled inflation? No, our Monetarily Sovereign government has unlimited control over the value of the U.S. dollar, a control it has exercised many times over the years.

It formerly was accomplished by arbitrarily changing the dollar’s exchange value with gold or silver. Today, it is accomplished by arbitrarily changing the interest rates paid on Treasury Securities. Raising the rates makes the dollar more valuable (i.e., decreases inflation).

So what does “unsustainable” mean? It means, “We want you to be worried, frightened even, about some unknown thing lying in the shadows.” But folks, the only thing lying is the CRFB, and they do it every day:

Analysis of CBO’s March 2021 Long-Term Budget Outlook | Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (crfb.org)

Under current law, CBO projects federal debt held by the public to rise from less than 80 percent of GDP at the end of FY 2019 to 202 percent of GDP by 2051.

Under a more realistic scenario, debt could reach nearly 260 percent of GDP by 2051.

Why is it bad that the total of deposits into T-bill, T-note, and T-bond accounts (wrongly called “debt”) will be more than double Gross Domestic Product?

It isn’t. One has nothing to do with the other. It’s like announcing that the number of blond-haired people will be double the number of fire-plugs in Chicago. The “debt”/GDP ratio is an irrelevant apples/oranges comparison.

So-called “federal debt” is the total of deposits into T-security accounts, similar to bank savings accounts. In today’s federal bookkeeping system, it also is the net total of federal deficits run by the federal government in the 240 years since the U.S. began.

By contrast, GDP is a one-year total of spending by the U.S. public and private sectors. Increases or decreases in deposits do not correlate with increases or decreases in spending. The U.S. government has the power to stop accepting dollars in T-security accounts, while continuing to spend, forever.

Japan, which has a ratio exceeding 250%, long ago proved the meaninglessness of that meant-to-be-scary debt/GDP fraction.

Perhaps, that is why the CRFB never specifically says what problems the ratio supposedly causes — just a vague reference to “unsustainable.”

Deficits Will Explode. Under current law, CBO projects annual budget deficits will grow to 13.3 percent of GDP by 2051.

While this is lower than the COVID-driven deficit of 14.9 percent of GDP in FY 2020, it will be nearly three times higher than the 2019 deficit of 4.6 percent of GDP, roughly four times as high as the 3.3 percent of GDP average seen over the past 50 years, and higher than any point in modern history outside of World War II and the current crisis.

Ooooh, “explode”! How frightening. The CRFB fails to mention that 2020, 2019, the past 50 years, and World War II, all were periods of large deficits and of economic growth.

And what are those terrible “deficits” the CRFB wants to scare you with? Deficits are times when the federal government pumps more stimulus dollars into the private sector than it removes via taxing.

Not only does federal deficit spending stimulate economic growth, but the economy could not grow without federal deficit spending. In fact, when federal deficit spending is reduced, we have recessions and depressions.

When the growth in federal deficit spending is reduced (red line), we eventually have recessions, which are cured by increases in deficit spending. Other than that, there is no relationship between deficit spending and federal “debt” (blue line).

Is a growing economy something that should frighten you??? The idea is laughable.

Spending Will Continuously Outpace Revenue.

CBO projects spending will grow from 21.0 percent of GDP in 2019 to 31.8 percent of GDP by 2051, while revenue will grow from 16.3 to 18.5 percent of GDP.

Over the long term, rising health care, retirement, and interest costs will cause a significant increase in spending. Revenue will also grow under current law, but only modestly.

In the above paragraphs, the CRFB confuses federal finances with personal finances.

You and I, and indeed all monetarily non-sovereign entities, use income (“revenue”) to fund spending. Without some form of income, we can’t spend.

The Monetarily Sovereign government, which creates dollars, ad hoc, from thin air, whenever it spends, needs no income. In fact, the federal government destroys all income upon receipt.

When, for instance, your tax dollars reach the U.S. Treasury, they cease to be a part of any money measure (M0, M1, M2, M3). Your tax dollars effectively no longer exist.

While comparisons between revenue and spending are important for you and me, they are meaningless for the federal government. The CRFB intentionally confuses the two.

Major Trust Funds Are Headed Toward Insolvency.

CBO projects Highway Trust Fund (HTF) insolvency in FY 2022, Medicare Hospital Insurance (HI) trust fund insolvency in FY 2026, Social Security Old Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) trust fund insolvency in calendar year 2032 and Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) trust fund insolvency in calendar year 2035.

On a theoretical combined basis, the Social Security program will be insolvent in calendar year 2032.

The major “trust funds” are not really trust funds (See “The phony ‘trust fund’ controversy”), and whatever one wishes to call them, they are not “headed for insolvency.”

Given that the federal government has the unlimited ability to create dollars, no federal agency can become insolvent unless the government wishes it to be insolvent. The federal government could (and should) end collection of the FICA tax, and still pay Social Security and Medicare benefits, forever.

The Long-Term Outlook is Similar to Last Year.

Ultimately, high debt levels will slow income and wage growth, increase interest payments, place upward pressure on interest rates, reduce the fiscal space available to respond to a recession or other emergency, place an undue burden on future generations, and heighten the risk of a fiscal crisis.

Once the current crisis ends, policymakers must work to get our long-term fiscal house in order.

It’s all a lie.

**Increased debt levels (red line) have not slowed personal income growth (blue line).**

As for “increased interest payments,” they stimulate economic growth by adding dollars to the private sector

**There has been no “upward pressure on interest rates” which instead are at historic lows.**

And because the federal government has the unlimited ability to create dollars, by definition it always has infinite “fiscal space” to respond to a recession or other emergency. It has demonstrated this infinite fiscal space by repeatedly passing multi-trillion dollar stimulus packages.

There is no burden on future generations. Future taxes will not fund today’s spending. The only burden on future generations would be a poverty burden if the government had not spent trillions to stimulate the economy.

And finally, “fiscal house in order” is a word-salad meaning nothing with regard to our Monetarily Sovereign federal government.

In Summary

The CRFB article is one gigantic lie, designed to scare those who do not understand the workings of a Monetarily Sovereign entity. It makes false claims that are contradicted by easily seen facts.

These are people who insist you are standing in the midst of a thunderstorm while you plainly can see the sun shining.

Michigan mansion once owned by Eminem is back on the market — **Maintaining the Gap**

Why does the CRFB lie about the economy? Because they are paid by, and controlled by, the very rich, who because of Gap Psychology, want you to accept higher taxes and lower federal benefits.

[“Rich” is a relative term. If you have $1,000, and everyone else has $1, you are rich.; The wider the Gap between you and those who are poorer, the richer you are.

“Gap Psychology” is the desire to become richer by widening the income/wealth/power Gap below, while narrowing the Gap above.

Being funded by the rich, the CRFB spreads lies that will influence you to believe the federal government can’t afford social benefits.

They want you meekly to accept your lower station in life, so that the rich can maintain or increase their control over America.]

This is the same motive behind the repeated, claims that federal deficit spending is the dreaded “socialism.” It isn’t. “Socialism” is government ownership and control. Though all governments are partly socialistic, most federal spending involves neither ownership nor control.

But the rich know that the word “socialism” has pejorative implications, so they apply it to such federal benefits as Medicare, Social Security, SNAP programs, etc.

It is all a lie proxies for the rich continually repeat until the false ideas are implanted so deeply into the public consciousness, that obvious facts are doubted.

Because of liars like the CRFB, the rich own you, and only the truth can set you free.

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

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: