Tag: debt

–Let’s destroy the food, clothing and shelter of the rich

The debt hawks are to economics as the creationists are to biology.

Here’s an idea to help our economy. The rich have access to more food, more clothing and better shelter than have the poor. So let’s take some food, clothing and shelter from the rich and destroy it.

What? You don’t see how that can help the economy? You think it’s a stupid idea? Well, maybe. But isn’t it identical with what the politicians want to do right now?

You see, money is the food that makes the economy run. Today’s economy is starved for money. Yet, the politicians want to increase federal taxes on the rich, which will destroy some economic “food.” That’s right, federal taxes destroy money. The federal government doesn’t use taxes for spending. There is zero relationship between federal taxes and federal spending. (This is different from state and local governments, which do rely on taxes for spending.)

So, if you understand that taking food, clothing and shelter from the rich, and destroying it is useless and harmful, then you also understand that increasing federal taxes on the rich is equally useless and harmful. And if you understand it, why don’t your federal government representatives understand it?

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

No nation can tax itself into prosperity

–Mr. Felix Salmon quotes popular myths

The debt hawks are to economics as the creationists are to biology.

On August 19, 2010, Felix Salmon posted:

“There aren’t many things that the government can do to try to boost the number of jobs in the U.S., but at the top of the list has to be attempts to boost lending to small and medium-sized businesses. . . This morning, a Treasury announcement showed one way that this can and should be done. Treasury’s CDFI Fund has awarded just over $100 million to 180 local financial institutions, including $750,000 to my own credit union. That kind of money, leveraged and lent out to small businesses, can do more for creating jobs than just about any other government program. The CDFI initiative is small beer, however, compared to the Small Business Jobs and Credit Act, which would create a $30 billion fund to be used to encourage small banks to lend to small businesses. Combined with standard bank leverage, that could mean $300 billion in new, job-creating loans.”

Isn’t it odd that people who want the federal government (which cannot go bankrupt) to borrow less, also want the private sector (which is subject to bankruptcy) to borrow more? Mr. Salmon quotes the myth of fractional-reserve banking. It doesn’t exist. A bank’s lending is not limited by its reserves. A bank could have $0 reserves and still lend billions. The federal government lends all banks sufficient money to cover any amount of reserves. Bank lending is limited by capital, not reserves.

Popular wisdom holds that banks are at fault for not lending enough. Nonsense. Rather than trying first to indebt business, the government first should provide business with profits. It does this by buying goods and services, in short, by deficit spending.

Business borrowing is not the first stimulus for business growth. Profits come first; then borrowing. To borrow today in hopes of profits tomorrow, is a dangerous game. It’s exactly what homeowners did and this kind of thinking was the single most important reason for our recession. Small businesses go bankrupt so often, because they borrow without profits to support their borrowing. A loan should leverage profits, not hopes.

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

No nation can tax itself into prosperity

–Britain’s grand experiment: The debt hawk agenda

The debt hawks are to economics as the creationists are to biology.

This should be interesting.

Here are some quotes from The Economist:
“The budget, unveiled by George Osborne, the new chancellor of the exchequer, in June: To balance the books, he raised some taxes, notably VAT, but three-quarters of the savings will come from spending cuts. Most government departments will shrink by a quarter, though Mr Osborne excluded the National Health Service from his savagery. In the heated debate between Keynesian economists (who worry that a weak world economy needs more government spending) and fiscal hawks (who believe deficits must be tackled now to stave off Grecian disaster), Britain is the prime exhibit for tough love.”

“Mr Osborne plans to get the job essentially done by 2014-15. If all goes to plan, the deficit will fall from 11% of GDP in 2009-10 to 2.1% in 2014-15. The structural deficit, which strips out the effects of the economic cycle, will drop from 8.7% of GDP to 0.8%. On a similar basis, the government will by then be running a small surplus on the current budget, which excludes net investment (due to be slashed anyway over the next couple of years). This is a much faster retrenchment than the previous Labour government envisaged. It planned to return the cyclically-adjusted current budget to balance in 2016-17. Labour’s fiscal consolidation would have amounted to 4% of GDP by 2014-15; Mr Osborne is aiming at 6.3%.”

Never mind that Britain can’t have a “Grecian disaster.” Britain is monetarily sovereign. Greece is not. Completely different situations. Raise taxes; cut spending. Government runs a surplus. That is the debt hawk mantra. If Britain actually follows through on these steps (doubtful), it will suffer terribly.

All you debt hawks out there; what is your prediction?

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

No nation can tax itself into prosperity

–Quick prediction for the next two years

The debt hawks are to economics as the creationists are to biology.

Here is a quick, overly simplistic prediction about what is likely to happen in the next two years. If you disagree (or even agree), feel free to add your own predictions.

1. The Democrats, fearing the weak economy will cost them the House and Senate, urgently will try to stimulate the economy before November.

2. However, stimulating the economy requires federal spending and/or reduced taxes, both of which add to the federal debt. Republicans, not wanting the economy to recover before the November elections, will object to any increases in the federal debt, falsely claiming it’s “unsustainable” and “our children will pay for it.”

3. Every stimulus plan put forth by the Democrats will be met with the threat of a Senate filibuster, plus objections by the media, the Tea Party and all others who have been hypnotized by the debt hawks.

4. The Democrats, paralyzed with fear about the federal debt, then will talk about increasing federal taxes on the “rich,” so as to be revenue neutral. This will add to the Democrats’ stigma as the “tax and spend party.” Small business owners, the primary economic engine in America, will find themselves defined as “rich,” so will become even more reluctant to hire and invest. Worse, because revenue neutral plans do not add money to the economy, they will not prove to be stimulative.

5. The economy will not recover significantly, and may even regress. The voters and the media will blame the Obama administration for not creating more jobs, but will offer no non-debt solutions, as there are none. Voters, wanting stimulus without deficits (in other words, magic), will vent their frustration on incumbents, giving Republicans enough representation in both Houses to stifle any Democratic initiatives, but not enough representation to advance Republican initiatives. Further, since the Republicans have been vociferous about deficits, they will have left themselves no way to stimulate the economy.

6. Within two years, President Obama will blame the lack of economic growth on Republican recalcitrance, thereby setting the stage for a Democratic comeback in 2012.

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

No nation can tax itself into prosperity