Its about time that we take care of our own! On Nov 6 2012 Americans rejected the Conservative "Fend For Yourself" religion. In a Monetarily Sovereign Nation there is no need for a balanced budget. Actually Government does not need revenue to spend, it can collect it later as a way to give value to the currency it creates. Spending > Revenue expands the economy, Spending < Revenue contracts the economy, Spending = Revenue is irrelevant and unnecessary. Fiscal Monetary reform is an important agenda for ethical, economic, and political reasons and to undo the privatized franchise by which our economy has been based upon a debt based currency. The deficit terrorism by Fiscal Conservatives threatening austerity and even deeper privatization is based upon the Gold Standard model when dollar was backed by gold and limited, thanks to Nixon, this is no longer the case since 1971, and is thereby false, fraudulent and clearly a fear tactic based upon disinformation. When we align the nature of our economics and the capacities of modern money with the policies of governance as a socializing agenda significant changes will be possible. Based on understanding how sovereign fiat money actually is used can impact Fiscal Policy allowing the Federal government to extend funding for the construction of roads, mass transit, bridges and other "hard" infrastructure to put people back to work which would increase demand for products. This same process can be applied to social infrastructure such as national health care, education, and pensions. Further, an employer of last resort (ELR) process could be established, whereby individuals who wanted to work could be provided a living wage for advancing any number of needed projects toward building communities. Modern Monetary Theory > MMT AND A GOVERNMENT FOR THE PEOPLE | <a href="http://sco.lt/8zdEO1" rel="nofollow">http://sco.lt/8zdEO1</a>; government is not a wealth taker. It is a wealth maker. What’s more, the wealth it makes is not just its own. Generally speaking, people create much more wealth with the aid of government than they do without it. We don’t first become rich and then decide to form a government. First we form governments. Then and only then can we become rich. Without a strong government that works for all, it is not possible to have a strong economy that works for all. They go together. This important insight is actually inscribed in the preamble of the US Constitution, where “to promote the general welfare” is listed as one of the principal purposes of our federal government, along with establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility, defending the nation and securing the blessings of liberty."
Anyways, here is the current Conservative- Libertarian, TEAPARTY CONFEDERATE view..on what the US Constitution should be as they claim in this article Articles of Confederation was preferable http://batr.org/view/122602.html
"We continually hear about restoring the meaning, intent and spirit of the Constitution. Few know that we had a far preferable blueprint for a federation before the 1789 U.S. Constitution. It was called the Articles of Confederation. Have you ever read it? If not you should. At the outset it’s opening declaration has - Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union Between the States. Some may want to misconstrue that perpetual means subordinate. In Article II, the basis for union is stated with total clarity - Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled.
Concern for national defense, diplomacy and treaties, assumption of war debt, extradition to state courts, unencumbered travel and commerce, coinage and adjudicator of disputes between states are subjects of mention. Prohibitions on specific areas for states are listed, while the few sections of administration by "a Committee of the States" are noted.
No doubt the U.S. Constitution, added valuable protections against a tyrannical central government in the Bill of Rights. But, the nature of the expanded roles for the executive and judicial branches in that same - U.S. Constitution - elevating them to a theoretical and dubious co-equal status, created the inevitable usurpation of the legitimate power of the independent states. We all know the tragic history of the unimpeded executive despotism in America. Far fewer understand the catastrophic precedent in the decision of Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury vs Madison - placing the Supreme Court as the arbiter of the constitutionality of congressional legislation. The mere restoration to the constraints in the 1789 U.S. Constitution will not revive the Republic from its demise into an absolutist oppressor. Only a systemic dismantling of that central government, returning primacy back to individual states will restore the vision of the American Revolution." SARTRE - December 26, 2002 http://batr.org/view/122602.html
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Obama administration's plan for U.N. climate change talks encountered swift opposition after its release Tuesday, with Republican leaders warning other countries to proceed with
Exposing the Racist History Of Libertarianism And Murray Rothbard Murray Rothbard was the student of Ludwig Von Mises and a friend of Ayn Rand. Rothbard was a racist, and believed in the "voluntary" separation of the races. I have argued that his teacher, Mises, was an elitist with fascist tendencies. This part of libertarian history is a part that the libertarians would like to cover up. It slips out at times and has done so with Ron Paul, Rand Paul and others. But we need to take a look at what these guys believed, circa 1990 because that was not so long ago. We know that Rothbard spoke kindly of David Duke, the KKK office seeker. One disaffected libertarian was dismayed that Rothbard would seek to align himself with a pure racist just because he believed in limited government. The only reason that Rothbard did not back a separate state for blacks was because he was afraid it would cost too much in "foreign aid". It should be noted that Ron Paul distanced himself from Rothbard's racism, in stating that racism is a collectivist view. Still, there is a strong racial tension in libertarian thought. Ron Paul's newletters had racist thoughts in them, although Dr Paul stated they were put in his publications without his knowledge. I have no reason to doubt that. But these were mistakes that are significant. But even Rand Paul made a racial gaff right after he won the senate seat, that he regretted, when he said he was for the repeal of the 1964 civil rights act. It would seem that this racial/libertarian theme continues. Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/exposing-the-racist-history-of-libertarianism-and-murray-rothbard-2011-10#ixzz3EOKScLjE
The obsession with deficit reduction is wrongheaded and ill-informed.
Mahilena Dianz's insight:
Deficit-worriers portray a future in which we’re impoverished by the need to pay back money we’ve been borrowing. They see America as being like a family that took out too large a mortgage, and will have a hard time making the monthly payments.
This is, however, a really bad analogy in at least two ways.
First, families have to pay back their debt. Governments don’t — all they need to do is ensure that debt grows more slowly than their tax base. The debt from World War II was never repaid; it just became increasingly irrelevant as the U.S. economy grew, and with it the income subject to taxation.
Second — and this is the point almost nobody seems to get — an over-borrowed family owes money to someone else; U.S. debt is, to a large extent, money we owe to ourselves.
The founding generation of 1776, waged and won a war for independence. But the revolutionaries who led this war effort did not just seek to separate from England. They sought to establish an ...
Mahilena Dianz's insight:
if the people let elites manipulate politics, an aristocracy of wealth would re-emerge in their young republic and eventually destroy it. No republic, the Jeffersonians argued, can tolerate inequality and survive
Critics of “big government” talk as if it’s beyond question that the state’s involvement with our lives is a bad thing. But where would you prefer to live, small-government Mogadishu or big-government Stockholm?
The T-Party reactionaries, as an article of faith, decry the rise of central government and its power. Liberals praise it as a force for good. The radical or l
Mahilena Dianz's insight:
But in the end, the much aligned Machiavelli wins. Its about power in government.
The T-Party reactionaries, as an article of faith, decry the rise of central government and its power. Liberals praise it as a force for good. The radical or liberal should ask whose intrest, the ruling elites, or the people, does it serve ?
Government growth was a by product of a changing economy. Even hide bound reactionaries like failed Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork admit this. He said of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, "was framed by men who did not forsee the scope,technolgies and intricate interdependence of today's economy."
Their is a mythical time ,circa 1765, a good old days of limited government in the imagination of the T-Party. Of course, this romanticization leaves out details like slavery, voting restricted to property owning whites , women as chattel and Native American people viewed as vermin to be removed for the profit of land speculators like Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Andrew Jackson all of whom became President.
Would Democrats and Progressives find common ground among themselves by embracing a premise defining just one fundamental and indisputable principle of...
Mahilena Dianz's insight:
Would Democrats and Progressives find common ground among themselves by embracing a premise defining just one fundamental and indisputable principle of fiscal and monetary policy? History suggests they can and have done so as champions of Federal funding for social safety net programs, the environment and renewable energy, education, health care, etc. However, cohesion dissipates when they ask themselves, “How will we pay for IT?”
Their options are limited by their understanding of how Federal spending operates; either increase taxes (preferably on the rich) and/or rob Peter’s budget to pay for Paul’s, sell Treasury securities and/or issue direct transfers. All of these options except one flow from a premise which is outdated and the primary cause of America’s economic and social dysfunction beginning with Nixon, when on August 15, 1971, he abandoned the international gold standard and ushered in global non-convertible currencies and flexible exchange rates. “Before 1971, the federal government needed to obtain money from outside sources, because it did not have the unlimited ability to create money.
Its ability to create money (actually, to credit accounts), was limited by its supply of gold. In August, 1971, the federal government gave itself the unlimited ability to credit accounts. It became Monetarily Sovereign.
This meant, from a fiscal sense, it no longer needed to “borrow” nor did it need to tax. It could credit accounts at will. "Borrowing and taxing have no effect on the federal government’s ability to credit accounts. If borrowing fell to $0 or rose to $100 trillion, neither act would affect by even one dollar, the federal government’s ability to credit accounts. The same is true for federal taxes. If taxes fell to $0 or rose to $100 trillion, the federal government’s ability to credit checking accounts would remain infinite."
Borrowing is a relic of the gold standard days, and while taxing does have anti-inflationary purposes, it no longer funds federal spending. Thus, taxpayers do not pay for federal spending. The federal government credits accounts ad hoc, regardless of taxes.” http://goo.gl/EWBDAr R. M. Mitchell
Democrats, as well as Republicans, Independents, Progressives, Libertarians, etc. appear to have completely rejected the inescapable fact that America and the rest of the world are no longer bound by convertible currency and fixed exchange rate principles. By implicitly and explicitly clinging to gold standard rubrics America’s elected (and many appointed) fiscal and monetary policy makers, are unable to design public spending/investment policies for medium and long term economic and social development for all Americans.
At best, short-term palliatives dominate fiscal policy thinking, debates and outcomes. There is no other alternative when the entire appropriations process has as its foundation the premise that the Federal Government faces solvency constraints and must, therefore, tax and borrow to fund federal spending.
Democrats and Republicans are unfortunately offering tax plans to address this issue. Republican plans such as Rep. Paul Ryan’s represent the “tried-and-failed” trickle-down policies of the past. Democratic proposals to expand child care credits or to create a secondary earner tax break could help families in the short term, but fail to address the actual dynamics of wage stagnation, and high unemployment among vulnerable sub populations.
The left, in particular, would relish opportunities for long term planning accompanied by corresponding appropriations. However, when both sides of the aisle believe in some version of the canard that America faces a solvency risk and, therefore, must manage its finances like America’s households there will never emerge authorizations/appropriations addressing a long term perspective. The inevitability of this is but a continuation of our national fiscal policy failures since Nixon.
Nixon ushered in the paradigm shift in domestic and international monetary policy by unilaterally forcing the world into fiat currency issuance. His Treasury Secretary, Arthur Burns initially opposed but later agreed with his decision to default on the Bretton Woods Agreement to convert dollars to gold. At that moment the U.S. would no longer need revenue per se to spend. It would, going forward, never, involuntarily face solvency constraints.
What needs to happen now is that Democrats and Progressives disabuse themselves of the outdated notion that our government can go broke.
Nor can Japan, China or many other nations enjoying the status of being monetarily sovereign. For example, if debt/GDP served as an indicator of a nation’s economic sustainability, why isn't Japan insolvent? Its debt/GDP ratio is above 200%. Yet, investors purchase its Yen denominated securities by the tens of millions every day. Investors understand monetary sovereignty. They know that Japan issues its own nonconvertible, fiat currency and owes all of its “debt” in Yen and can meet any obligation denominated in Yen.
Just like us.
Investors who understand modern national income operations buy American, British, Canadian, Japanese securities fully aware of the fact that they will be paid their interest and principle by the sovereign issuer of the securities they buy since all that’s needed is a computer keystroke to mark up their checking accounts.
The exact process holds for Federal government purchases of goods, services and to make transfer payments. For most it is counter intuitive when confronted with the reality of government spending without first having to tax or borrow. Logically, any currency issuer must first issue/spend its currency into the market place before it can take some of it back through taxation or selling treasury securities.
So, in the real world of federal spending all that's needed is an appropriation. The revenue spreadsheet will show deficits and surpluses as appropriate but they will have no bearing on the ability of the Treasury to credit accounts. These are two separate and distinct operations neither constrains the other.
When Democrats and Progressives understand these as unrelated money management operations they will then be in position to legislate for public purposes.
They will have as there unifying premise the indisputable fact that America cannot involuntarily go broke, run out of money, face bankruptcy, become insolvent or any other of the ‘debt-fear monger’ canards to constrain fiscal policies benefiting the majority of Americans.
How many Americans would, once they have been educated about monetary sovereignty, reject proposals for free universal education from pre-K to post graduate? What would be the downside to single payer health care with finely tuned controls for costs at all levels of the system? Who would oppose repairing our infrastructure and transportation which would create millions of short and long term jobs? Who wouldn’t support the elimination of bankruptcy now threatening or occurring in our towns, cities and states? However, because elected officials don’t understand and legislate using the principles of monetary sovereignty millions of Americans will suffer unnecessarily.
George A. Akerlof, Paul Krugman, Robert Solow, Michael Spence, and Joseph E. Stiglitz - Five Nobel Prize winners discuss what they each see as the biggest problem facing the global economy of the future
Monetary Facts Conservatives would not want you to know
Mahilena Dianz's insight:
Some Monetary Facts that Conservatives would not want you to know, actually they are too dumb to understand they think we are still under the Gold Standard and that Federal Money is limited...this is bullshit of the greatest kind
China is NOT the USA's banker. The US is net exporter of aggregate demand to China. China net exporter of goods
The Federal Reserve is the USA banker and the World's
The Federal Government never borrows from anyone, it sells treasury notes and pays its interest, this creates money for the private sector. The US Treasury, not the Fed is the one that has the authority to prints money when there is need for paper currency. However most money creation happens on electronic accounts.
Our monetary system is FIAT, meaning it is not tied to any metals. Money is only a promise to pay by the Treasury an IOU, but our money is the World's reserve currency.
There is not “collateral” on government debt. The only security is the full faith of the U.S. gov.
OPEC won't drop the dollar. Even then. The US won't go bankrupt.
The US dollar is just a tax-credit. Gov spending finances taxation
The purpose of taxation is to create constant demand for the gov's money
Payments on the former debt will happen as they do right now with the money coming from fiscal deficit, not taxes
That before the government can tax and or loan its own money, it must first spend it into existence
The government deficit = the private sector surplus
The US dollar is an IOU a promise to pay backed by the treasury
All dollars in the world, which is the World's Currency is FIAT money, IOU's
There is no relation of Dollars to any metals, we went off Gold Standard in 1971 by Nixon
The US Government can issue a check for any amount at anytime without causing inflation
Government Spending increases Aggregate Demand since it is new money to the private sector, it has to happen before Taxes can be collected, Taxes are not needed for government to spend
Actually as such, our Government has the ability to guarantee an income to every citizen, and manage its effect thru taxes and the Federal Reserve interests, therefore preventing inflation or deflation
A line many liberals hear from their conservative counterparts is, “Liberals never use facts.” Which I find ironic because it’s usually said towards something I’ve written that contains not only facts, but the sources to those facts. It’s also humorous because often the individuals who say this never provide any kind of facts to counter …
Mahilena Dianz's insight:
"The only way Republicans are “fiscally conservative” is when it comes to spending money on the poor. Then suddenly it’s “money we can’t afford.” Of course, that’s only until the next tax break for the wealthy comes up for a vote, or they can increase our already bloated defense budget, then suddenly those deficit increases are “vital for the health of our nation.”
Having money linked to a Gold Standard is an idea that almost every economist opposes. It is described as the economic equivalent of creationism and a major cause of the Great Depression. It is ign...
Mahilena Dianz's insight:
"The gold standard belongs to another era and it is testament to how backward looking the Republican party is that it supports it. There are good reasons why no economist supports it. The gold standard lead to financial instability and recession. It deprives government of the ability to fight recessions, instead leaving the economy stuck in recession. It would separate the money supply from the fundamentals of the economy."
At the moment and since 1971 the Treasury and the Central bank can create as much money as it wants without limit. "However in a gold standard the central bank can only print as much money as gold it has. For example if the government has one billion dollars in gold, then it can only print one billion dollars. Or the country might not have any paper notes but instead just use coins. From the late 1800s until the 1930s all the developed countries were on a gold standard. Its proponents argue that a gold standard avoids inflation and instead has stable prices. It is claimed it avoids the central bank destroying the economy through hyperinflation. The gold standard is described as a model for fiscal responsibility that prevents trade deficits and budget deficits."
'The thing about the gold standard is that most of its advocates base their arguments on morality rather than economics. Ron Paul criticises the “debasement” of the dollar which he claims amounts to “theft”. Gold is seen as something real and solid, whereas paper is seen as almost fake or only an illusion. Nostalgic references are made to how much a dollar used to be able to buy. Gold is intrinsically valuable whereas paper is not. Paper money is controlled by the government which many would oppose on principle. Paper money is associated with hyperinflation and chaos (Ron Paul has been predicting imminent hyperinflation for the last 30 years). Gold is “responsible” and the opposite of wasteful government.
However in a survey of economists, zero supported a gold standard. There are many reasons for this. The main advantage or problem (depending on your point of view) of the gold standard is that is severely constrains the actions of the government. It cannot use monetary policy to influence the economy. A common response to recession is to print money which a gold standard prevents a government from doing. This means it must use fiscal measures, but a gold standard limits these as well. This means a government cannot do much to combat a recession no matter how severe it is. Instead it must stand idly by and let the recession take its course. While some hardcore free marketers would agree with this, most economists recognise that if the government doesn’t intervene the recession gets worse.
Interest rates are normally set according to the state of the economy. If the economy is booming and inflation is rising, then interest rates will be raised to stop the economy overheating. If the economy is stagnant and unemployment is high, then interest rates will be lowered to give the economy a boost. Under a gold standard, interest rates would be set according to the supply of gold. This is unrelated to the state of the economy which can cause serious problems. So if gold reserves are low then interest rates will be risen even if the economy is in a recession."
GOLD STANDARD IS PURE CONSERVATIVE GARBAGE AND FRAUDULENT THINKING, ITS THE EQUIVALENT OF THE CONSERVATIVE REACTION TO SCIENCE AND THE BELIEF IN CREATIONISM...it is the conservative obsession with morality even when it is a morality invented by them which leads to the corporatist nation.
This is why it is important to KNOW MODERN MONETARY THEORY AND THE ACTUAL SOCIAL VALUE OF FIAT MONEY ...
WHY NOT GIVE GOVERNMENT THE LIBERTY TO CREATE AS MUCH MONEY AS THE SOCIETY NEEDS TO ENSURE THE LIFE LIBERTY AND PROSPERITY OF ALL OF ITS CITIZENS....this can happen if we put the Central Bank as a Public Bank under the control of the Treasury, that way there would not be a national debt or deficit
Socialism Key to North Dakota's Propspertiy and 3.3% Unemployment Rate The Bank Behind the North Dakota Miracle North Dakota is the only state to be in continuous budget surplus since the banking crisis of 2008. Oil is certainly a factor, but it is not what has put North Dakota over the top. Alaska has roughly the same population as North Dakota and produces nearly twice as much oil, yet unemployment...
Mahilena Dianz's insight:
These are the same principles involved in the other articles here regarding modern monetary reform #modernmonetarytheory #mmt
Our Federal Government borrows from who? well itself, and it pays interest to other private banks to manage this...if we put the Federal Reserve under the treasury or make it a public bank we would not need to pay interest on the money we borrow from ourselves and we would not have a National Debt
Sharing your scoops to your social media accounts is a must to distribute your curated content. Not only will it drive traffic and leads through your content, but it will help show your expertise with your followers.
How to integrate my topics' content to my website?
Integrating your curated content to your website or blog will allow you to increase your website visitors’ engagement, boost SEO and acquire new visitors. By redirecting your social media traffic to your website, Scoop.it will also help you generate more qualified traffic and leads from your curation work.
Distributing your curated content through a newsletter is a great way to nurture and engage your email subscribers will developing your traffic and visibility.
Creating engaging newsletters with your curated content is really easy.