Ron Paul and the gold maniacs. How ignorance trumps fact in our political world.

Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================

The Curious Capitalist posted the following article:

Fort Knox: What to Do with Old Yeller
Posted by Roya Wolverson Tuesday, June 28, 2011

Should the U.S. sell off its gold reserves to pay down debt? That’s the latest idea being tossed around by gold bug Ron Paul. Not only would selling Old Yeller help the U.S. pay its bills, says libertarian Paul, but it would put more gold in the hands of the American people and pull back the reins on the Federal Reserve, which is printing money like mad and debasing the value of our currency.

So insistent is Paul about this strategy that he challenged the government to a gold audit to make sure its stash of bullion at Fort Knox is really all there. (According to the Treasury’s inspector general, it is.) So is selling it a good strategy, or is Paul just a crazy kook?

Wonderful idea. The federal government exchange gold for dollars the federal government already has the unlimited ability to create??? What is his next suggestion – Hawaii exchange pineapples for salt water?

And as for “debasing” the value of our currency, the other word for that is inflation. So where is the inflation?

I see no relationship between “printing money like mad” and inflation, not for the short term (above graph) nor for the long term. Paul is just mouthing popular belief, with zero supporting data.

Can there be any doubt? The man is certifiable. Or just doesn’t give a damn about America in his hunger for political gain.

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


==========================================================================================================================================
No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth. It’s been 40 years since the U.S. became Monetary Sovereign, , and neither Congress, nor the President, nor the Fed, nor the vast majority of economists and economics bloggers, nor the preponderance of the media, nor the most famous educational institutions, nor the Nobel committee, nor the International Monetary Fund have yet acquired even the slightest notion of what that means.

Remember that the next time you’re tempted to ask a teenager, “What were you thinking?” He’s liable to respond, “Pretty much what your generation was thinking when it ruined my future.”

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

–A true United States of Europe is the best, long term solution

Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
========================================================================================================================================================================================

John Mauldin, a popular blogger and financial advisor, published an article about a dinner he had with those whom he called “. . . 16 money managers and investors. All very well-informed.” He said,

Charles Gave sat across from me at the middle of the table, and we talked and debated as the rest asked questions and offered opinions for 3-4 hours. . . I was asked if I still thought the euro was going to parity with the dollar, and I said I did, although I was not sure what the euro would look like in three years, or who would be in it. There was some pushback from people who thought the dollar would be the weaker currency.

Clearly, these “very well-informed” people do not understand that the euro is a failed concept – or at least failed in its current form, as all euro nations are monetarily non-sovereign. Because monetarily non-sovereign nations have little control over their money supply, they always are in danger of bankruptcy.

So I asked for a show of hands as to how many people thought the euro would be higher in one year’s time. There were 6 hands raised, but one gentleman said he was actually abstaining. So I asked how many thought the euro would fall, and we got 12 hands. Yes, that is 19 votes for 16 people. Clearly there were at least three economists in the group who voted both ways!

Classic old-line economists. They understand neither the past nor the present, so they vote two ways about the future. That way they always can say the predicted correctly.

Then someone asked Charles about the issue. Now, for those who have never had the extreme pleasure of time with Charles, he is a powerful, white-haired French patrician, and one of the better economists I know. Quite a brilliant thinker and not afraid to express his mind forcefully with a voice that sounds like God talking, with about the same assurance . . . .

“The question is entirely irrelevant” – punctuating the air for added emphasis. “The euro will not exist in a year. The whole thing was dysfunctional from the beginning.”

I suggested that was a tad bearish.

“Not at all. I think it is extremely bullish. The demise of the euro and the return of national currencies will allow for proper allocation of investments and resources. It is the best thing that could happen for the markets.”

Finally, an economist who knows what he is talking about. Welcome to Monetary Sovereignty and Modern Monetary Theory, Mr. Gave.

At some point, Europe needs to realize that the problem with Greece, Portugal, et al. is not illiquidity, but that they are insolvent and have few prospects for economic growth anywhere close to what is needed to solve their problems.

Europe would be better off just taking the money they are giving to Greece and using it to recapitalize their banks. Let Greece go. Give it up. Let them enter a 12-step program or whatever it is that insolvent nations do. That is harsh, but it is also the truth.

Close, but no cigar. Rather than letting Greece go, the EU should let the euro go. For the minor expedient of making trade a bit more convenient, the EU nations surrendered the single most valuable asset any nation can have: Monetary Sovereignty.

Later in his article, Mauldin discusses the possibility of a military coup in Greece. I agree. I also believe other euro nations face the same coup possibility, unless there is a drastic revision in the way the euro is handled. All monetarily non-sovereign governments, being unable to create their currency, need an inward flow of currency from outside their borders. So, keeping the euro requires either an ongoing, positive balance of trade or ongoing support by the EU. The problem is identical to what the U.S. states (also monetarily non-sovereign) face, with one exception. They can have a positive balance of trade with the U.S. federal government.

A true “United States of Europe” would be the best long term solution, but there is too much hubris, hatred and history for that to happen. As I predicted in 2005,


“Because of the Euro, no euro nation can control its own money supply. The Euro is the worst economic idea since the recession-era, Smoot-Hawley Tariff. The economies of European nations are doomed by the euro.”

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


==========================================================================================================================================
No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth. It’s been 40 years since the U.S. became Monetary Sovereign, , and neither Congress, nor the President, nor the Fed, nor the vast majority of economists and economics bloggers, nor the preponderance of the media, nor the most famous educational institutions, nor the Nobel committee, nor the International Monetary Fund have yet acquired even the slightest notion of what that means.

Remember that the next time you’re tempted to ask a teenager, “What were you thinking?” He’s liable to respond, “Pretty much what your generation was thinking when it ruined my future.”

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

–Democrat says budget should be cut more than $2 trillion. As always, no proof offered.

Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
============================================================================================================================================================================================================================================

Note to Lori Montgomery, financial reporter for the Washington Post:

Hi Lori,

You reported,

“Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said the goal of slicing more than $2 trillion from the federal budget by 2021 falls far short of the savings needed to stabilize borrowing, re-energize the economy and avert the threat of a debt crisis.”

Hmmm . . . Let’s see. Federal purchases of goods and services increase business sales, therefore are stimulative. But a $2 trillion reduction in federal spending – money that otherwise would have paid to businesses – will “re-energize the economy.” I’d love to see the math on that.

It also would be interesting to hear Sen. Conrad explain how a $2 trillion reduction in federal spending will “stabilize borrowing” (whatever the heck that means).

By the way, did you ever avail yourself of the opportunity to understand Monetary Sovereignty? Do you have any questions?

Previously she had written to me, saying she would review my summary of Monetary Sovereignty. I’ll let you know what she says in response to this letter, if anything.

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


==========================================================================================================================================
No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth. It’s been 40 years since the U.S. became Monetary Sovereign, , and neither Congress, nor the President, nor the Fed, nor the vast majority of economists and economics bloggers, nor the preponderance of the media, nor the most famous educational institutions, nor the Nobel committee, nor the International Monetary Fund have yet acquired even the slightest notion of what that means.

Remember that the next time you’re tempted to ask a teenager, “What were you thinking?” He’s liable to respond, “Pretty much what your generation was thinking when it ruined my future.”

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

–Debt hawks, nose cutters and suicide bombers – How deficit cutting assaults the middle and the poor

Those, who do not understand the differences between Monetary Sovereignty and monetary non-sovereignty, do not understand economics.
============================================================================================================================================================================================================

The “no pain, no gain” crowd believes someone – preferably the poor – must suffer for us all to reach happiness. Here is a sampling of how they suggest achieving economic nirvana through economic agony:

1. Cut Social Security
2. Cut Medicare
3. Cut Medicaid
4. Cut the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) aka “food stamps”
5. Cut support for community health centers
6. Cut support for job re-training
7. Cut support for affordable housing programs
8. Cut funding for the Administration for Children and Families
9. Reduce the number, pay and retirement benefits of federal employees
10. Eliminate subsidies of student loans
11. Cut all inflation-based program benefits by changing the definition of inflation

See a pattern there? They all would impact low- to middle-income families most. See anything missing? Yes, we also could raise the income tax rates to cut the deficit, but that might impact upper-income families a tad. Republicans have declared income tax rate increases “off the table.” In fact, some Tea (formerly Republican) presidential candidates want to cut the highest tax rates (on the wealthy) further.

The Democrats, which own the Presidency and the Senate, hide in corners and wring their hands helplessly, hoping not to be seen. Though they portray themselves as the champions of the underclass, they have paid the wealthy bankers, then caved in to Republican threats to destroy the American economy (by refusing to raise the debt ceiling.) Instead, the Dems, the cowardly lions of politics, have agreed that benefits for the poor should be cut. Hey, could it be because they themselves are rich?

Understand, there is no financial difference between raising taxes and cutting federal spending. Both reduce the deficit equally. Nevertheless, I am a proponent of cutting federal taxes; they serve no useful purpose. Our Monetarily Sovereign government neither needs nor even uses tax money. It’s destroyed upon receipt.

Though followers of MMT (Modern Monetary Theory) claim taxes create demand for the dollar, there are plenty of state and local taxes to accomplish that purpose. Federal taxes not only are useless, but harmful, in that they remove money from the economy. So I am with the Republicans on the tax issue.

Unfortunately, the mutual desire to reduce federal spending is so wrongheadedly destructive, I say a pox on both parties; neither has even one member who understands Monetary Sovereignty.

Then we have FICA, that tax that doesn’t pay for Medicare, doesn’t pay for Social Security, and in fact, doesn’t pay for anything. It is the most useless, destructive, ignorant, regressive tax ever invented – a masterpiece of screw-the-poor.

For salaried folks, it usually is the biggest tax they pay. For the rich, it barely is noticeable, since it cuts off at $107K, and who needs salary, when you have capital gains at the lowest tax rate? Though the pretense is that business pays half, FICA functionally is a 15% payroll tax on the great unwashed.

The point of this rant is not to tell you how the wealthy minority (aided by the media barons and the clueless, old-line economists) again stick it to the “unwealthy” majority. You already know that. The point is to demonstrate how the “unwealthy” stick it to themselves.

Go into any middle- or lower-class neighborhood and ask a thousand people, “Should the federal deficit and debt be reduced?” and I predict 999 people will say “Yes,” and the other one will say, “Maybe.” These sad, brainwashed souls hardly can wait to cut off their own noses, by reducing the federal assistance they so desperately need.

Read though this blog, and you will see page after page of comments, most presumably by middle- and lower-class people, demanding the deficit and debt be cut because these measures are “unsustainable” and “ticking time bombs,” exactly the myths that have been spread since at least 1940, probably longer. (See: Unsustainable).

And these folks are determined masochists. I have been called every four-letter name essentially for not wanting to apply leeches to anemics, or for saying phrenology is quack science. The idea that the federal deficit needs to be cut is worse than quack science; it’s quack mythology.

The wealthy priests have beat the drums, convincing the lowly savages that asking for less and suffering more, will take them to heaven. The savages wholeheartedly agree, and God help anyone who tries to save them from themselves.

Lower-to-middle income debt-hawks have the same mind-set as those who volunteer to be suicide bombers. They hope to find their happiness in the afterlife.

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


==========================================================================================================================================
No nation can tax itself into prosperity, nor grow without money growth. It’s been 40 years since the U.S. became Monetary Sovereign, , and neither Congress, nor the President, nor the Fed, nor the vast majority of economists and economics bloggers, nor the preponderance of the media, nor the most famous educational institutions, nor the Nobel committee, nor the International Monetary Fund have yet acquired even the slightest notion of what that means.

Remember that the next time you’re tempted to ask a teenager, “What were you thinking?” He’s liable to respond, “Pretty much what your generation was thinking when it ruined my future.”

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY