Tag: Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget

–Why a recession every 5 years?

An alternative to popular faith

In the past 100 years, why have we had 20 recessions or depressions, an average of one economic crisis every 5 years. I was thinking about this, when I received a response to one of my posts. The writer criticized a position by quoting Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson!

Economics is one of the few sciences where someone feels free to correct a hypothesis by quoting two-hundred-year-old statements from a politician. Imagine a physicist or a medical doctor being criticized on the basis of statements by Columbus.

Physics turned with the Relativity and Quantum theories. Medicine changed with the development of the microscope and the discovery of germs. Astronomy changed with the telescope and the realization the sun is just one of myriad stars. Economics has changed, too.

This science, and most of its hypotheses, were turned on their heads with the end of the gold standard. Just as Einstein gave us E = MC2, and told us space and time actually were spacetime, a single continuum, the end of the gold standard told us that debt and money were debt/money, a single entity, and gave us, Money = Debt.

Years ago, money was a physical substance, a barter substance. No debt involved. Later, money represented a physical substance. The merger of debt and money had begun, because the holder of money now was owed the physical substance.

With the end of the gold standard, money became pure debt, in short, debt/money. Yet the public, including the politicians and the media, and sadly even some economists, imagine 1971, the final end to the gold standard, never happened. What they believed before 1971, the greatest change in the history of economics, they still believe. It’s tantamount to basing all your unchanging astronomical theories on a flat world and the earth as center of the universe.

So in the minds of the public, the politicians and the media, debt and money still remain two separate entities. In their minds, the U.S. federal debt is too large, though “federal debt” merely is an accounting term meaning the net money created by the federal government. Those same people, if asked whether the U.S. has too much money, would say, “No,” but they feel the U.S. has too much debt!

In their minds, federal deficits are “unsustainable,” though the federal government now has the unlimited ability to create debt/money.

In their minds, the federal budget should be balanced, even while population growth, the trade deficit and inflation all conspire every day to reduce the per capita supply of real money. With a population annual growth of 1% and a modest 2% inflation, the per capita supply of real money in a balanced budget would fall 26% in only 10 years. Visualize each of us owning $10,000 today. By 2020, we each would own only $7,300 in real money. How could that support even zero economic growth? Add in the needs of growth itself, and the debt/money supply requirement grows further.

In their minds, the current debt should be erased by increased taxes and/or decreased spending, despite acknowledgment that increased taxes and/or decreased spending hurt people and hurt the economy.

In their minds, a federal profit (for instance, on interest coming from loans to industry) is good, despite federal profits being defacto taxes, debt/money coming from the private sector.

In their minds, the federal government is just like you and me, and must live by our rules of fiscal prudence. Yet the federal government is not like you and me, not even like state, county and local governments, not even like corporations. The federal government is unique, for it has the unique power and authority to create unlimited amounts of debt/money.

We first must acquire debt/money in order to spend. The federal government creates debt/money by spending, a wholly different process with wholly different rules.

As a science, economics has not grown from the philosophical beliefs of Everyman. Intuition dominates. It is less a science, than a religion based on personal experience, rumor, authority, faith and desire. Despite close study of endless data (Visualize religious scholars bending endlessly over their bibles), facts are ignored, discounted or twisted, while those who speak facts are ridiculed by the masses.

No politician would dare to say, “Federal debt growth is necessary, forever,” though that is true. The few academics with the courage to speak the truth are shouted down. The repeated failures of the government to prevent inflations, deflations, recessions, depressions and stagflations all are ascribed to normal, inevitable, unstoppable cycles, not to errors of belief and action.

And that is why we have had a recession every 5 years and will continue to do so.

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

— Government’s gain = economy’s loss

An alternative to popular faith

On 4/7/10, The New York Times wrote: “G.M. reiterated a commitment to pay off the balance of its debt to the American and Canadian governments by June. It made payments totaling $2.8 billion, including interest, in December and March toward an initial balance of $8.3 billion.”

That’s $8.3 billion leaving the U.S. economy and disappearing into the American and Canadian governments’ maws, never to be used or even seen, again. Financially, this is an $8.3 billion invisible tax increase – about $28 taken from the pockets of every man, woman and child in America.

The New York Times article continued, “Most of the $50 billion G.M. borrowed was converted to a 61 percent equity stake held by the Treasury Department. The only way the Treasury can recover that debt is through the sale of its stock. (Chief Financial Officer Chris) Liddell said a public stock offering would occur ‘as soon as it makes sense,’ but only “when the markets and the company are ready.”

The private sector will lose whatever the government receives for its stock – another invisible tax increase. The $50 billion will amount to $166 in stealth taxes taken from each American. In addition, the stock sale will depress the value of privately held stock, a loss for American shareholders.

Question: What is the difference between a federal government profit and a tax increase? Answer: Essentially none, if the profit comes out of the U.S. economy.

Moral: The federal government, as the creator of money, never should take money from the private sector. Ask your Congressperson: “If the deficit spending, for which you voted, stimulates the economy, what will be the effect of taking all those billions back out of the economy?”

Amazingly, the media and the politicians, and even some economists, will ignore the pain experienced by people in the private sector and cheer the government’s not taking a loss.

And that is why we have a recession every five or six years, in America.

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

–Sabotaging health care

An alternative to popular faith

It has been a disgrace that the world’s leading, industrial nation, the proudest, most powerful nation in world history, has not provided health care for all its citizens.

Yes, I have voted more often for Republicans than for Democrats, because I felt they were better economists. But today I must give the Democrats credit for doing what is morally right, while taking the big political risk to start the ball rolling.

My Republicans, left to their own devices, would have done nothing. They never have been leaders for social improvements, whether Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare or human rights. While Republicans traditionally have been strong for business, they always have had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into anything that smacks of human benefits for the less fortunate.

That said, the health care plan is far from ideal. Way too many questions to be answered. Consider it only a start, a prototype; you can expect hundreds of changes. My only hope is that the nay-sayers will not try to gut the bill for political advantage.

The question is, and always has been, who will pay for it? I believe the federal government should, and there exists massive evidence on this blog and elsewhere, to prove the government can afford huge deficit increases that will stimulate the economy, and without inflation.

But what if, despite all the evidence, taxes are increased? Economically, a bad idea, no matter what taxes they are. But, which Americans are willing to say, “I’ve got mine and I’m not willing to help those less fortunate than me?” If that’s your attitude, you’re not really an American, although ironically, it seems those who boast loudest about their patriotism often are least likely to extend a hand.

Now we need to see how the program can be improved for the benefit of all. We’ve taken two hundred years to get this far, because that first step always is the hardest. My Republicans, by trying to do everything to sabotage the plan, are on the wrong side of history.

I say now is the time to work with the plan, not against it. Our best minds, cooperating toward on goal, can make the improvements that will protect Americans for decades.

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

–How to cure federal tax loopholes

An alternative to popular faith

The March 15, 2010 New Yorker Magazine contained a piece by Mr. James Suroweicki titled “Special Interest.” The article described a quirk of federal tax law in which private-equity fund managers pay taxes on their share of profits (also known as “carried interest”) at the capital gains rate. Mr. Surowiecki says, “If you manage money for a mutual fund or a public company, you pay regular income taxes; do it for a private fund and you pay capital gains.”

Because capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than regular income, Mr. Suroweicki feels this “loophole” is unfair and should be closed. He probably is right, though his solution is maddeningly typical and wholly wrong. He would close this “loophole” by doing away with the tax break, i.e. increasing the tax on carried interest.

Nowhere does Mr. Suroweicki suggest decreasing the regular income tax, though that step equally would close his hated “loophole,” while additionally providing a tax-relief benefit to the public. Instead he follows the popular faith that all our money really belongs to the government, and should any group find a way to send less than others to the government, the solution is to make them pay more, rather than allowing us to pay less.

The very word “loophole” has pejorative connotations: something that begs to be sealed up. Why can’t the carried interest tax rate be considered the “normal” tax, while the regular tax rates are considered the anomaly. Why must every perceived unfairness in taxes be cured by raising a tax rather than by lowering one?

The federal government does not use tax money to pay its bills. It, in fact, destroys all the tax money sent to it, and it creates new money when it credits the bank accounts of creditors. Federal spending is not limited by federal taxes. When your neighbor finds a way to pay less, this does not increase your own tax burden (though the same cannot be said for state and local taxes, as these entities do not have the unlimited ability to create money).

Yes, there is the pathological, human jealousy the have-nots hold for the haves. But, something more harmful exists: The false beliefs that we are the government, anything taken from the government comes from us, and anything given to the government benefits us.

We are not the government. We pay taxes; the government receives taxes. We are limited in our ability to spend; the government is not. We live, lust, feel, fight, work, worry, conceive and care for children. We dream of the future, but eventually we die. The government does none of these things.

It is a giant machine, a remorseless, monster grinder, only more powerful, because it has the unlimited ability to create its own fuel. Some of us fall into the grinder and lose an arm or a leg. Others escape. Mr. Surowiecki would call that escape a “loophole.” His solution: Close that “loophole” by making sure everyone loses and arm and a leg.

How about making sure no one loses and arm and a leg. How about cutting taxes to address unfairness. Has anyone ever thought of that?

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