Author: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

MBA Northwestern, business turnaround expert, economist

–Fiscal Sustainability Teach-In and Conference

Mainstream economics has led us to an average of one recession every five years. People have been fed obsolete hypotheses for so long and so often, we now have knee-jerk agreement among the media, the politicians and some economists.

But deficits neither are normal nor inevitable. Many prominent economists have discovered a better way to foster economic growth. They will host a conference to discuss their ideas, and you are invited.
==================================================================

April 28th: Fiscal Sustainability Teach-In and Conference
________________
“The Fiscal Sustainability Teach-In Conference will be the important event in Washington on April 28. This will feature important work by honest scholars. It deserves (your)attention, and […] respect.”
— James K. Galbraith, The University of Texas at Austin. [April 19, 2010 via email with permission]
________________
The deficit hawks are at it again: attacking Social Security and Medicare with obsolete economic notions. We offer a counter-narrative to the false but conventional notion that Federal deficit spending is harmful, that it is a burden to the next generation, that deficit spending risks insolvency — basically that the Federal Government Budget is some how analogous to a household budget when, in fact, it is quite different.

The Teach-In Conference on Fiscal Sustainability on April 28th, 2010 in Washington, DC aims to do just that with some real world, honest economics.

We can move beyond the false economic orthodoxy that got us into the current economic mess and that is now being promoted to attack Social Security and Medicare — and harming our nation and it’s people. You can participate.

The tentative program schedule: Interesting topics and excellent presenters as of 04/16/10:

8:30–8:45 AM Welcoming Remarks
8:45–10:15 AM What Is Fiscal Sustainability? Bill Mitchell, Research Professor in Economics and Director of the Centre of Full Employment and Equity (CofFEE), at the University of Newcastle, NSW Australia, and blogger at billy blog

10:15–10:30 AM BREAK
10:30 AM–12:00 PM Are There Spending Constraints on Governments Sovereign in their Currency? Stephanie Kelton, Associate Professor of Macroeconomics, Finance, and Money and Banking, Research Scholar at The Center for Full Employment and Price Stability (CFEPS), University of Missouri – Kansas City, Research Associate at The Levy Economics Institute of Bard College, and blogger at New Economics Perspectives

12:00–12:15 PM BREAK
12:15–1:45 PM The Deficit, the Debt, the Debt-To-GDP ratio, the Grandchildren and Government Economic Policy Warren Mosler, International Consulting Economist, Independent Candidate for the US Senate in Connecticut, and blogger atmoslereconomics.com

1:45–2:00 PM BREAK
2:00–3:15 PM Inflation and Hyper-inflation Marshall Auerback, International Consulting Economist, blogger at New Deal 2.0 and New Economic Perspectives, and Mat Forstater, Professor of Economics, Director of CFEPS, Department of Economics, University of Missouri — Kansas City, Research Associate at The Levy Economics Institute of Bard College, and blogger at New Economic Perspectives

3:15–3:30 PM BREAK
3:30–5:00 PM Policy Proposals for Fiscal Sustainability L. Randall Wray, Professor of Economics, Director of CFEPS at the University of Missouri – Kansas City, and Senior Scholar at The Levy Economics Institute of Bard College; and Pavlina Tcherneva, Assistant Professor of Economics at Franklin and Marshall College, Senior Research Associate at CFEPS and Research Associate at The Levy Economics Institute of Bard College and bloggers at New Economic Perspectives

How you can participate:
1. Contribute to the cost of the Conference — Please click below and make a donation of $50 (or more if you want) to show support. It’s about strength in numbers (the entire budget is under $10,000).
Make Donation
2. Attend the Teach-In — watch these pages for location and other logistical information
3. Spread the word — write a blog post, talk with your friends.
4. Educate yourself — some great introductory resources are:
o Teaching the Fallacy of Composition: The Federal Budget Deficit, by L. Randall Wray
o Fiscal sustainability 101, by William Mitchell
o 7 Deadly Innocent Frauds, by Warren Mosler
o In Defense of Deficits, by James K. Galbraith
o A Quick Summary, by Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

Please do what you can to help bring the truth to light. Deficits are not normal. Social Security and Medicare can survive without benefit cuts.

Every little bit helps. Thank you.
________________
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com


.
.

–Did Goldman Sachs really commit fraud?

An alternative to popular faith

The public feels Goldman Sachs committed fraud and should be punished. This time the innocent public may have it right. People who wouldn’t know the security in question, a synthetic collateralized debt obligation, from a nylon shirt, somehow understand what many of the experts don’t seem to get.

Goldman Sachs marketed synthetic CDOs, reportedly designed to fail. They were created by a man who stood to make a billion, and allegedly did make a billion, when the product in fact, failed. Goldman told no one about this. Their defenses so far are three: Legally they didn’t have to tell anyone; the buyers were sophisticated investors; and Goldman itself lost money – proof they wouldn’t invest in a product they thought would fail.

The law will be argued in court, but when a brokerage advises its clients to buy a security, and provides reasons why, do the clients have a reasonable expectation that the brokerage is telling the whole truth? If your broker says, “Buy this,” when in fact he knows it was designed specifically to go down, and in fact was designed by someone who is paid for it to go down, is that fraud? Or if your broker merely accepts your order, but says nothing about the information he possesses, is that fraud?

And if the buyer were a sophisticated clone of Warren Buffett and Bill Gates, would that make cheating less illegal? Many of Bernie Madoff’s customers were sophisticated investors. Does that absolve Bernie of liability for cheating them?

Finally, Goldman lost money, but not because it invested in the CDOs, hoping they would go up. Rather, it’s been reported they were unable to unload them to unsuspecting customers, and were stuck with a bunch. The Shakespearian expression for that is “hoist with one’s own petard,” which means to be hurt by your own attempt to hurt someone else. If a man attempts to bomb a building, and is injured by the blast, is he now innocent of a crime?

The lawyers will receive millions to argue the various arcane ipso factos, and the conservatives will claim the SEC is a tool of Democrats (and vice versa), but after all the shouting and fury and technicalities and excuses and public grandstanding and denials, the innocent public may have it figured out. If it looks like a fraud, smells like a fraud, walks like a fraud and quacks like a fraud, it probably is a fraud.

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


–What does the Tea Party want? Ask Sarah Palin

An alternative to popular faith

It’s a peculiarity of the human species, that if you speak from the pulpit of patriotism or religion, you can spew almost any kind of nonsense, and gather followers.

Take Sarah Palin, perhaps the nation’s leading demagogue. She shouted this irrationality to a cheering Tea Party crowd, “Is this what their ‘change’ is all about? I want to tell them, nah, we’ll keep clinging to our Constitution and our guns and religion – and you can keep the change.” The mob screamed in ecstasy, without bothering to wonder what she meant.

Does “they” just refer to Democrats, or is “they” the whole U.S. government? Hard to tell. Ironic, how hating the government now equates with patriotism and the Constitution.

According to Mrs. Palin, “they” have violated the Constitution in some unexplained way. And she indicates “they” will take Tea Party guns and religion away. She doesn’t explain how “they” will do that, but so long as she wraps herself in the flag and religion, her worshipers won’t remind her she has no idea what the hell she’s talking about.

I empathize with Tea Party folks, because one thing they want, I also want: Lower taxes. But I would be embarrassed to allow a hate-mongering, anti-everything, nitwit like Sarah Palin be my guide.

Really folks, is this the best you can do? There are excellent, economic ways to reduce taxes (which you will see if you comb through this blog site). But knock it off with the American flags, the Constitution, guns and religion, none of which have anything to do with lowering taxes.

Unfortunately for Tea Party “logic,” they not only want lower taxes, but lower deficits and less government. At the same time, they want a stronger army, better schools, federal supervision of banks and other financial firms, better roads, defense of our borders, defense against terrorism, safer food, better retirement, better unemployment insurance, police, health care, rescue from hurricanes and other disasters, more jobs and a better environment.

Hey, Tea Party. The things you want cost money. So if you want both lower taxes and a reduced deficit, where will the money come from? Cutting both taxes and the deficit requires dramatically reduced government spending. So, how will that get you the things you want? It won’t. All it will get you is a Sarah Palin.

Sure, raw, mob emotion can make you feel strong. Look what it did for Joseph Goebbels. But eventually, morning will come and you will realize your torches, pitchforks and white sheets were silly. Only then, can we have the rational discussions that will help us create and take the steps to improve our nation.

Sadly, the “T” in Tea Party does not yet stand for “Think.”

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


–Watch Ben Bernanke’s high wire balancing act

An alternative to popular faith

April 14, 2010: By JEANNINE AVERSA, AP Economics Writer; WASHINGTON – “Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke […] testifying before Congress’ Joint Economic Committee, also once again called on lawmakers and the White House to come up with a plan to whittle down record-high budget deficits.”

Ben Bernanke is a smart man. He knows federal deficits are nothing more than a balance sheet measure of money created by the federal government. He knows the $12 trillion debt merely is a statement that in the history of the United States, the federal government has created $12 trillion net dollars. He knows that to “whittle down record-high budget deficits” is another way to say, the government should create and spend less money.

But also knows the federal government cannot default on debts of any size, and creating and spending money stimulates economic growth. So, he favors continuing federal stimuli (aka deficit spending).

If you think that is a mixed message consider this: He said, “A credible plan to pare the deficit could provide the economy with benefits in the near term, including lower longer-term interest rates and increased consumer and business confidence.” And, “A moderate U.S. economic recovery is likely to warrant very low interest rates for a long time.”

First, he says the deficit should be reduced in order to lower interest rates. Then, he says the Fed will keep rates low for a long time. Question: If the Fed can keep interest rates low for a long time, why does Bernanke need a plan to whittle down deficits?

Is it to avoid inflation? There is widespread belief that large deficits cause inflation, despite history saying otherwise. See: Deficits, inflation and hyperinflation And though raising interest rates prevents and cures inflation, the Fed believes it must keep rates low to “increase consumer and business confidence.”

What’s a guy to do? He keeps rates low and deficit spending high. But, he knows the public believes deficits are too high (This is the same public that wants neither tax increases nor to forgo the benefits stimulus spending buys. It wants a magical deficit decrease.) So Bernanke, by seeming to agree with the public, takes the political route, saying in essence, “Those high deficits aren’t my fault. Blame Congress and the President. I’m just doing what’s necessary to help the economy,” (which, don’t tell anybody, means running big deficits and keeping rates low).

The balance is not between what’s good and bad for the economy. That’s the easy part. The balance is between what’s good for the economy and what’s good politically. They are quite different, and the high wire balancing act is tough.

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