–Even Paul Volcker doesn’t get it.

An alternative to popular faith

If even Paul Volcker doesn’t get it, how can the man in the street hope to understand — unless the man in the street is willing to look at the facts and Volcker isn’t?

“5/19/2001: STANFORD, California (Reuters) – Europe’s debt crisis shows the risks for the United States if it does not get its budget deficits under control, former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker said on Tuesday. ‘If we need any further illustration of the potential threats to our own economy from uncontrolled borrowing, we have only to look to the struggle to maintain the common European currency, to rebalance the European economy, and to sustain political cohesion of Europe,’ Volcker said.
[…]The U.S. budget deficit hit $1.4 trillion in 2009, roughly 10 percent of the economy. The White House projects the deficit this year will reach $1.6 trillion. The large deficits have evoked comparisons to Greece. But in a speech to the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research in California, Volcker said the United States differs from that country and other small European countries whose credit markets have come under speculative attack. Unlike those countries, the United States benefits from well-established currency and credit markets that are considered safe havens in times of financial turmoil.
[…]’There are serious questions, most immediately about the sustainability of our commitment to growing entitlement programs,’ said Volcker, who heads an outside panel of experts advising Obama on the economy”
.

Here is Paul Volcker, who of anyone, should know better, saying the difference between the U.S. and European countries is we have a well-established currency. No, Mr. Volcker, the difference is we are a monetarily sovereign nation and the EU countries are not. And that difference makes all the difference.

Somehow, the fact that we are running trillion-plus deficits, with none of the problems the EU nations are experiencing, doesn’t seem to penetrate Mr. Volcker’s skull. He has the debt hawk’s “It-hasn’t-happened-yet-but-I’m-sure-one-day-it-will” mentality, rather than the scientist’s “It-hasn’t-happened-yet.-I wonder-why” mentality.

Mr. Volcker, the reason “it” (inability to service national debts) happened to Greece, but not to the U.S., is simple: The U.S. has the unlimited ability to pay its bills, merely by crediting creditors’ bank accounts. EU rules prevent Greece from doing this. Either Mr. Volcker truly doesn’t understand the difference, which would be remarkable, or he has been paid to adopt a debt hawk agenda that forces him to close his eyes to basic fact.

Anyone who says Greece’s problems foreshadow similar problems for the U.S. either is ignorant of the facts or a liar.

And by the way, for those debt hawks who keep warning us that deficits cause inflation, we’re running the deficits, but: “5/19/2010: WASHINGTON (AFP) – US consumer prices fell for the first time in 13 months in April, the government said Wednesday as analysts warned of the risk of deflation in the world’s largest economy.” Isn’t it inconvenient the way facts seem to get in the way of wrong opinion?

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

No nation can tax itself into prosperity

–Words from 2005

An alternative to popular faith

Sometimes the things you say and the things you predict come back to haunt you. And sometimes they don’t.

Here is what I told a group of economists and economics students on June 5, 2005, at the University of Missouri, Kansas City. Five years is a long time. You be the judge and let me know what you think:

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

No nation can tax itself into prosperity

 

–Why the crazy stock market fall

An alternative to popular faith

I recently read an article containing wonderment that despite good news (the April jobs report showed payrolls grew by 290,000) the stock market crashed. The author, John Curran, speculated: “One reason is that the Euro crisis in spite of all efforts remains very much a crisis, and that threatens the global economy. The second reason is that Thursday’s stock market blowout pointed up a dangerous vulnerability in the financial markets, one that we’ve known of (high frequency trading) but sort of forgotten. Third, the Labor Department’s jobs report while positive in some respects also contained a bit of negative news […] (increased unemployment).

While the Greek/EU situation is serious, it will not seiously affect the U.S. economy, so long as our government continues to deficit spend. Second, while high frequency, automated trading can cause short term, manic effects on the stock market, the longer term effects are minimal. Finally, the way unemployment is calculated (only those looking for a job are counted), makes it inevitable that when times improve, unemployment statistics rise. People who had given up, start again to look for jobs. So from that standpoint, the stock market is wrong.

There is one other scenario, that could have far greater significance than any of the above: The off shore oil well blowout. Not only will it cause enormous destruction in of itself, but it will prevent further offshore drilling for an unknown time. Weeks? Certainly. Months? Possibly. But weeks and months are no big deal.

Perhaps even years, and that is a big deal for our economy. For the past few decades, inflation has been caused, not by deficit spending, but by Oil Prices.

Even with the worst case scenario, the actual supply loss won’t be felt soon, but if the projected loss of oil production is significant, it will cause oil prices to rise, thus causing inflation. The debt hawks will assume (wrongly) the inflation is caused by deficits, and will demand that taxes be increased and spending decreased — either of which will stall economic growth and move us into a recession.

And that will drop the stock market.

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

No nation can tax itself into prosperity

–The federal debt is unsustainable — still?

The debt hawks are to economics as the creationists are to biology. Those, who do not understand Monetary Sovereignty, do not understand economics. If you understand the following, simple statement, you are ahead of most economists, politicians and media writers in America: Our government, being Monetarily Sovereign, has the unlimited ability to create the dollars to pay its bills.
================================================================================================================================================================

People who don’t know what they’re talking about, but who want to sound erudite, love to use dramatic terms that can’t be disproved. A classic example is “ticking time bomb,” when referring to the federal debt and deficit.

This blog contains three posts (Federal debt: ‘A ticking time bomb”; “Debt bomb redux”; “More debt bomb nonsense” ) sampling the thousands of times since 1940 (!), the debt has been called a “time bomb.”

The nice thing about “ticking time bomb”: The users never needed to prove or substantiate anything. They didn’t have to say when it would explode or what would make it explode or what would happen after it exploded. They don’t even feel the need to explain why their dire predictions have been wrong, wrong and wrong, every year. They could just use the expression, then stand back, look wise and bask in the adoration.

Well, another description of the federal debt and deficit can be included in the “I know nothing, but I want to look smart” club. This time the term is “unsustainable.” In a previous post I hoped never to see that trite, meaningless term again (See: Unsustainable), but it was not to be. Here are just a few of the uses in the past 28 years.

–February 7, 1982: Ronald Reagan: “[…]rapid, unsustainable expansion of Federal spending and money growth[…]
–December 11, 1983: The New York Times; Editorial Desk:“[…]large and growing deficits are unsustainable. They have to be reduced […]
–1998: Douglas Elmendorf and N. Gregory Mankiw: “Current patterns of taxes and spending are unsustainable.”
—February 28, 2001: George W. Bush:. “Social Security’s spending path is unsustainable in the long run, driven largely by demographic trends.”
–March 3, 2005: Edmund L. Andrews: “Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve, warned on Wednesday that the federal budget deficits were ‘unsustainable,’ and he urged Congress to scrutinize both spending and taxes to solve the problem.”
–February 13, 2006: Paul Krugman: “Last year America spent 57 percent more than it earned on world markets. That is, our imports were 57 percent larger than our exports. It all sounds unsustainable. And it is.”
–05/15/09: Lita Epstein, DailyFinance, “Anyone who understands the U.S. debt picture won’t be surprised by President Barack Obama‘s statement that U.S. deficit spending is ‘unsustainable.’
–4/27/10: Reuters: By Pedro Nicolaci da Costa: “’In the absence of further policy actions, the federal budget appears set to remain on an unsustainable path,’ Bernanke told the 18-member National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform.”
–5/20/10:Professor Alan Blinder, former member of President Clinton’s original Council of Economic Advisers, and Vice Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System: “[…]even though everybody knows that the federal budget deficit is on an unsustainable path toward the stratosphere.”

And now, again: 6/10, 2010 The U.S. economy continues a slow, painful recovery, but Congress must prepare to address an “unsustainable” level of debt in the federal budget, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke cautioned Wednesday.

And again: 6/28/10: House Democratic Majority Leader Steny Hoyer: “Debt is a national security threat. Unsustainable debt has a long history of toppling world powers.”

And again: 7/8/10: The Committee For a Responsible Federal Budget: “The debt of the United States is rising to unprecedented – and unsustainable – levels.

And again: 11/11/10: Representative Jan Schakowsky: “. . . we have to do something; the debt and deficit are not sustainable. . .”

–11/26/10: Sheila C. Bair, Chairman of the FDIC: “The Congressional Budget Office projects that annual entitlement spending could triple in real terms by 2035, to $4.5 trillion in today’s dollars. Defense spending is similarly unsustainable . . . “

–12/3/2010:Dick Durbin, senior Senator from Illinois (D): “Borrowing 40 cents out of every dollar we spend for missiles or food stamps is unsustainable.”

–2/21/11: Doug Elmendorf, head of the Congressional Budget Office: “The nation’s fiscal path is unsustainable, and the problem cannot be solved through minor tinkering.” If his name sounds familiar in this context, he, along with noted economist, Greg Mankiw, said almost exactly the same thing way back in 1998 [See above]. When do these gentlemen acknowledge that they repeatedly have been wrong?

–5/13/11: Frank R. Wolf, Republican congressman from Virginia: “It may have surprised some people when Standard & Poor’s warned last month that the United States could lose its coveted status as the world’s most secure economy if lawmakers don’t rein in the nation’s unsustainable debt. I have been sounding a similar alarm for almost five years, trying to get the attention of Congress and past and present administrations that America cannot continue on its debt and deficit track . . . ”

–7/25/11: iMFdirect: By Rodrigo Valdés: “By the end of this year, federal debt held by the public will represent 70 percent of the U.S. economy, almost double the 36 percent it was in 2007. The federal fiscal deficit will be 9.3 percent of GDP this year. That, quite simply, is not sustainable.”

All these years, the debt has grown, while remaining not only a ticking time bomb, but also unsustainable. How is that possible? Easy. No one knows what “unsustainable” means. Does it mean the government can’t pay its bills? Does it mean America will go bankrupt? Is there any data that proves the debt can’t be sustained?

There is no such data. The federal government has the unlimited power to pay any bills of any size. No federal check ever has or ever will bounce, not because we’re big or lucky, but rather because the government creates money to pay its bills by reaching into vendors’ bank accounts and crediting them.

Does “unsustainable mean that large federal deficits cause inflation? No, ever since the end of the gold standard in 1971, there has been zero relationship between large deficits and inflation, which seems to be related mostly to oil prices.

The whole notion of federal debt unsustainability is not in accord with fact or possibility.

For 30 years the gurus have told us the debt is unsustainable, without them having the slightest notion what it means. The next time someone tells you the federal debt is unsustainable, you’ll know they have no idea what they are talking about.

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

No nation can tax itself into prosperity