Tag: deficit

–Giving life to a lie

An alternative to popular faith

The May 15, 2010 issue of NewScientist Magazine included an excellent piece by James Giles, titled “Giving life to a lie.” I strongly recommend you read it. (See: LIE for the full article.)

It tells how a statement by John Houghton, former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change – “Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen” – supposedly was repeated in three books, 100 blogs and 24,000 web pages.

Despite this widespread circulation and belief, the statement never was made. It was created by conservative columnist Piers Akerman. It was a lie.

The article, with its subtitle, “In the battle for hearts and minds, a plausible falsehood too often trumps the truth,” goes on to explain how a lie can acquire almost universal acceptance. Here are a few quotes: “. . . a falsehood has to have at least a shred of believability.” “Any falsehood can acquire currency … so long as there are enough people inclined to believe it . . . Falsehoods can come to be believed simply because others believe them. . . This is an information cascade, a process described by the economist DavidHirshleifer . . .” “The mainstream media often participates in the cascade … the more often you hear something, the more likely you are to believe it is true.”

Today, the big lie in economics is, “The federal debt is unsustainable” (See: UNSUSTAINABLE ).

The word ‘unsustainable,” means unable to endure. What is the evidence the federal debt cannot endure? That is, what evidence shows the debt cannot continue, cannot continue to grow, cannot continue to be serviced by the federal government, or will cause economic hardship? Amazingly, no such evidence exists. It all is myth.

That is why you never will see such evidence provided by any of the newspaper or magazine articles making the claim, nor will economists provide such evidence. They all merely will make the claim and support it with other claims, also unsupported by evidence (i.e., “The debt is unsustainable. It will cause inflation. It will reduce the availability of lending funds. Our children and grandchildren will pay for it through higher taxes. Nations will refuse to lend to us. Eventually, we’ll be like Zimbabwe.”) As each lie begets additional lies, the entire package becomes impervious to fact. More and more believe it, until it seems to become solid truth – all without supporting evidence.

The U.S. is 225 years old, yet the federal debt has grown about 1500% in just the past 30 years – a truly amazing increase. Despite this unprecedented debt growth, the federal government never has trouble servicing its debt, nor do we have inflation beyond what the government specifically wants (about 2%-3%), nor is there any mechanism by which the federal debt, which actually is the main source of dollars, can reduce the availability of lending funds. Nor do taxes pay for debts, which is how the debt managed to grow so much. In fact, tax rates are lower today than 30 years ago. And, nations do not refuse to lend to us. Nor do we even need nations to lend to us.

Why does this lie, which the most easily obtainable evidence shows to be wrong, have such widespread following and persistence? First, it has the requisite “shred of believability.” We think of the federal government as being like us – an anthropomorphic misunderstanding. If my debts grow too large, they are not sustainable. I might not be able to obtain the money to service them, and I even can go bankrupt. The same can be said of you, your business, your city, county and state. It even can be said of the European Union nations. But it cannot be said of the U.S. government.

I cannot create unlimited amounts of money to pay my bills. Nor can you, businesses nor local governments. Even Greece and Spain cannot, for they are constrained by EU rules. The U.S. government however, has no such constraints, as it proves every day. It can pay any bill of any size, immediately, simply by crediting the bank account of any creditor.

Then there is the collection of taxes. Local governments use taxes to pay their bills, which is why local governments can go bankrupt if taxes do not support spending. The federal government does not use taxes to pay its bills, because it alone has the unlimited power to create money. For that reason, our children and grandchildren will not pay for the debt. No one will. The government pays its debts by creating money, ad hoc.

The notion that federal borrowing replaces private borrowing has a quasi-arithmetic logic about it. “There is only so much money to lend, and if the government borrows it all, the funds will be used up and there will be none left for the private sector.” In reality, lending facilitates more lending. When you lend to the bank, by depositing in your bank account, this does not reduce the bank’s ability to lend. When the government borrows, it merely exchanges one form of money for another. It does not “use up” lending funds. And when the government spends, it creates lending funds.

Many nations often are used as an example of what excessive debts cause: Zimbabwe, WWII Germany, Brazil, Italy et al. But, each had special circumstances, that were unlike those in the U.S. and not directly related to excessive deficits. For instance, in the case of Zimbabwe, wars, corrupt leadership (Robert Mugabe), stealing farm land from owners, loss of exports and other problems caused its economic disaster.

As the media broadcast the lie, and more people came to believe it, the lie became a cascade. It became a truth unto itself, a self evident statement requiring no supporting evidence.

Are you old enough to remember when “Stomach ulcers are caused by emotional stress” was such a self-evident statement. No one doubted it, and no one asked for evidence, until one day it was discovered the vast majority of stomach ulcers are caused by a bacterium (Helicobacter pylori). Even today, some people cling to that original lie about ulcers.

In summary, when someone tells you the federal deficit and debt are too large, ask for factual evidence in the form of data. They will not provide factual evidence. They merely will give you more opinions (inflation, taxes, children, eventually, etc.) also unsupported by data. If you would rather depend on facts than on myth, read through the various posts on this blog, beginning with SUMMARY, and do read that article.

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

No nation can tax itself into prosperity

–What can save California?

An alternative to popular faith

California is broke and billions in debt. It’s unlikely California can pay its debts with tax increases and/or spending cuts, either of which could destroy the state’s economy. Tax increases and spending cuts always cause national recessions; the same would likely happen to California.

The best solution for California, and for all the other states in financial trouble, is to have the federal government step in with the necessary billions, which it easily could do. The government merely would credit California’s checking account at the Federal Reserve Bank, and debit its own balance sheet — a step it can take as easily, as repeatedly and as endlessly as the Rose Bowl scoreboard changing a score.

However, that won’t happen under current circumstances. The debt hawk belief that federal deficits are a problem, makes such support politically toxic. There are, however, two events which could force the federal government’s hand: Bankruptcy or disaster.

If California were to announce it planned to declare bankruptcy, businesses world wide would be threatened with ruin. Remember, California is one of the largest “nations” in the world — reputedly the 8th largest ( CALIFORNIA ) ahead of Russia and Spain. The federal government could not ignore such a threat, and would have to pay some or all of the bills, by a direct infusion of money.

Or, it could delay the inevitable, by lending California money ala Greece. (Loans to GM and Chrysler et al do not provide a model, because California cannot lop off large sections of its business and turn away from its citizens as companies can. So such loans, or even loan guarantees, just would put California deeper in debt.)

The other “solution” for California, though having terrible human consequences, would be to undergo a sufficiently large disaster, the most likely being a huge Los Angeles, earthquake, perhaps in the 8.0+ range. The government would declare LA County, perhaps even Southern California, a disaster area, and step in with the billions necessary to rebuild. Many of those billions would spread around the state, allowing the economy to recover.

Yes, FEMA didn’t rebuild New Orleans as it should have, but Louisiana doesn’t have California’s political clout, with only 9 electoral college votes compared to California’s 55.

I don’t know whether Governor Schwarzenegger has begged hard enough for federal support. Perhaps he is waiting for “the Big One.”

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

No nation can tax itself into prosperity

–A mainstream economist writes about the EU

An alternative to popular faith

Readers of this blog and Modern Monetary Theory blogs know the mainstream economists have been ignorant about the realities of today’s post-gold-standard economy, and this ignorance has caused untold damage, as ignorance always does.

Here is a perfect example. John Cochrane, professor of finance at the University of Chicago, wrote an article titled, “Greek Myths and the Euro Tragedy,” published in the May 18, 2010 Wall Street Journal. His concluding paragraph read:

”The only way to solve the underlying euro-zone fiscal mess (and our own) is to slash government spending and to focus on growth. Countries only pay off debts by growing out of them.. And no, growth does not come from spending, especially on generous pensions and padded government payrolls. Greece’ spending over 50% of GDP did not result in robust growth and full coffers. At least the looming worldwide sovereign debt crisis is heaving “fiscal stimulus” on the ash heap of bad ideas.”

Let’s examine this amazingly clueless article, sentence by sentence: ”The only way to solve the underlying euro-zone fiscal mess (and our own) is to slash government spending and to focus on growth.” By definition, economic growth requires money growth. There is no known mechanism by which a nation simultaneously can reduce net money creation (aka “deficit spending”), while promoting growth.

”Countries only pay off debts by growing out of them.” Wrong. Countries pay off debt by creating the money to pay the debt. Economic growth does not pay for government debt. Countries do not pay debt with GDP or with taxes on GDP. In a monetarily sovereign nation, as is the U.S., taxes do not support spending. Were taxes to drop to zero, the government’s ability to spend would not be affected by even one penny.

”And no, growth does not come from spending, especially on generous pensions and padded government payrolls.” Federal spending does cause growth, which is why every recession and depression in U.S. history has been cured with increased federal spending. As for “generous pensions and padded government payrolls,” this represents money paid to real people, who will spend this money on goods and services to stimulate the economy. Professor Cochrane must believe there is some strange force that will cause reductions in private spending to stimulate the economy.

”Greece’s spending over 50% of GDP did not result in robust growth and full coffers.” Since when is 50% of GDP a magic spending number? Greece’s problems relate to its inability, caused by EU rules, to create money to service its debt. (Greece is not monetarily sovereign.) Spending as a percentage of GDP is irrelevant to causing or to solving its problems, which only can be solved by an infusion (not a reduction) of money.

”At least the looming worldwide sovereign debt crisis is heaving “fiscal stimulus” on the ash heap of bad ideas.” Here is monetary ignorance at its best. Greece is not a monetarily sovereign nation; the U.S. is. Any blanket statement about national debt, that does not take this difference into consideration, is certain to be wrong. The notion that the U.S. could be emerging from our recession without fiscal stimuli, would be laughable were it not so sad. If anything, the stimuli were too little, too late (See April 9, 2008 LETTER )

In summary, Professor Cochrane merely parrots bits and pieces of things he has heard from various (wrong) sources, and with them created an article, stunning in its inaccuracy, but printed by the Chicago Tribune, probably because he is from the University of Chicago, a hotbed of obsolete, mainstream economics. It is their influence and leadership that has resulted in an average of one recession every five years. Is there any way they could have done worse?

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

No nation can tax itself into prosperity

–Open letter to John Mauldin re. his myths

      John Mauldin is President of Millennium Wave Advisors, LLC (MWA) which is an investment advisory firm registered with multiple states. He also is a registered representative of Millennium Wave Securities, LLC, (MWS) an NASD registered broker-dealer. He is the author of Thoughts from the Frontline, a blog at Mauldin.
      Recently, Mr. Mauldin wrote an article for his blog, and I wrote to him with a critique, as follows:

5/9/10
Mr. Mauldin:

      This note is sent to you in the spirit of helpfulness. Your article titled “The Center Cannot Hold,” quoting G. Cecchetti, M. S. Mohanty, and Fabrizio Zampolli contains several widely quoted, commonly believed myths. For example:

      Myth: “Long before we get to the place where we in the US are paying 20% of our GDP in interest (which would be about 80% of our tax collections, even with much higher tax rates) the bond market, not to mention taxpayers, will revolt. The paper’s authors clearly show that the current course is not sustainable.”
      Fact: Federal borrowing no longer (after 1971) is necessary nor even desirable. See: How to Eliminate Federal Deficits

      Myth: “A higher level of public debt implies that a larger share of society’s resources is permanently being spent servicing the debt. This means that a government intent on maintaining a given level of public services and transfers must raise taxes as debt increases.”
      Fact: Society’s resources do not service federal debt. See: Taxes do not pay for federal spending.

      Myth: “And if government debt crowds out private investment, then there is lower growth.”
      Fact: This also commonly is stated, “Government debt crowds out private borrowing” and government debt crowds out private lending.” There is no mechanism by which federal spending can crowd out investment, borrowing or lending. On the contrary, federal spending adds to the money supply, which stimulates investment, borrowing and lending. See: Why spending stimulates investment

      Myth: “A government cannot run deficits in times of crisis to offset the affects of the crisis, if they already are running large deficits and have a large debt. In effect, fiscal policy is hamstrung.”
      Fact: This is the strangest myth, since running deficits in a time of crisis is exactly what the U.S. government has been doing. It would be true of Greece and the other EU nations, but not of then U.S., Canada, Australia, China and other monetarily sovereign systems. See: Greece’s solution

      Myth: “[…] the current leadership of the Fed knows it cannot print money.”
      Fact: This myth is even stranger than the above “strangest” myth, since printing money is exactly what the Fed does. See: Unsustainable debt.

      Myth: “As frightening as it is to consider public debt increasing to more than 100% of GDP, an even greater danger arises from a rapidly aging population.”
      Fact: The famous federal debt/GDP ratio is completely meaningless – a classic apples/oranges comparison – that neither describes the health of the economy, nor measures the government’s ability to pay its bills nor has any other meaningful purpose. See: The Debt/GDP ratio

      If you would like to see more common myths about our economy, go to: Common economic myths

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell