Tag: deficits

–GM pays and the innocent cattle “moo.”

An alternative to popular faith

The latest headlines trumpeted, “GM repays loans of $8.1 billion, and it happened ahead of schedule.” Innocent taxpayers cheered this wonderful news. Earlier headlines told how GM went bankrupt, thereby cheating creditors out of more than $20 billion, and then too, innocent taxpayers cheered. Finally, the U.S. government paid $50 billion for 60% of GM, which the government hopes to sell at a profit, and when it does, innocent taxpayers will cheer once again.

So everything is wonderful, right? Actually, those three pieces of news were terrible for America, and thus, terrible for taxpayers.

When GM went bankrupt, and creditors lost more than $20 billion, this represented more than $20 billion that disappeared from the economy. If putting money into the economy is a stimulus, this was an anti-stimulus. Those creditors were real people and real companies. Millions of people were affected.

I myself owned a few of those GM bonds that lost about 70% of their value. That’s money my fellow creditors and I won’t be able to spend on goods and services, nor will we invest that money in economic growth. It’s gone. Disappeared. Poof!

No need to get into the question of why the government chose to lend GM money rather than to make good on GM’s obligations to real people and real companies. It’s probably a combination of politics and economic ignorance.

Then, when GM repaid the government, another $8.1 billion disappeared from the economy – another anti-stimulus. That’s $8.1 billion that GM will not use for employee salaries or for the purchase of goods and services from its thousands of suppliers. That money, too, is gone. Disappeared. Poof!

And lest you believe it went to taxpayers, it did no such thing. It will not put one cent into any taxpayer’s pocket, nor will it reduce federal taxes by even one cent. It simply has disappeared as a credit on a federal balance sheet, never to be seen, again.

Finally, when the government sells its GM stock, all the money it receives will disappear into that same balance sheet. No taxpayer will receive any, and no federal taxes will be reduced. The money simply will be gone. Another anti-stimulus. And if GM makes a profit on its sale of stock, the anti-stimulus will be even greater. Poof!

And the taxpayers will cheer.

I wonder, when you hear the cattle “moo,” while waiting in line to be cut into steaks, is that mooing the way innocent cattle cheer?

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

–Nonsense from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget

An alternative to popular faith

Demonstrating the bankruptcy of the typical debt-hawk position, here are excerpts from a long Email I just received from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a leading anti-debt advocate.

“The current fiscal path of the United States government is unsustainable. For the past forty years, our debt-to-GDP ratio has averaged around 40 percent. This year, it is projected to exceed 60 percent, the highest point since the early 1950s. […] By the end of the decade, debt is projected to be 90 percent of GDP, approaching our record high of around 110 percent after World War II. Things will deteriorate further as the Baby Boom retirement accelerates. Ten years later, the debt is expected to be well over 150 percent of GDP. By 2050, it is projected to be over 300 percent and still heading upward.” Though they claim the “fiscal path is unsustainable,” they project all the way to 2050. The lowest (since WWII) Debt/GDP ratio of about 35% came 70 years earlier, at 1979-1980, the end of the Carter administration, which also was the time of the highest inflation

 

Deficits vs inflation thru 09

[…]It is not at all clear how exactly such a crisis would unfold – what would prompt it or how it would play out. A crisis could occur as soon as this year, or decades from now. It could begin inside or outside the country. The crisis could be dramatic or gradual. It could come from an economic or another financial shock, or even a political surprise.” In short, “We don’t know when; we don’t know how; and we don’t know what. Otherwise, we’re sure.”

“Experts agree that we will be in a crisis when we can no longer service our debt obligations. However, we will probably never face this scenario.” This is the first time I ever have heard a debt hawk make this admission, which the author repeatedly forgets, later in the Email.

“There are a number of different crisis scenarios: Scenario 1: The Gradual Crisis – We stay the current course and try to muddle through. Our massive borrowing leads to less capital available for productive private investment, which lowers economic growth.“ Federal deficit spending adds money to the economy. There is no mechanism by which added money can reduce the supply of capital.

“Increasing debt service payments – particularly when interest rates return to normal – squeeze out other areas of the budget. The steady crowding out of government spending on programs that boost the economy, such as spending for education, infrastructure and innovation, will hurt our competitiveness.” This crowding out only can happen in a debt-hawk world, where deficits are restricted, either by tax increases or by reduced spending – a self-fulfilling prophecy.

“Scenario 2: The Political Risk Crisis – Political calculations trump risk threats. […] As a result, more budget resources are shifted from children to seniors, and from investment in programs boosting future growth. […] creditors lose confidence in U.S. fiscal management. Our creditors increasingly demand large risk premiums on purchases of their debt, sharply lower their purchases of our debt, or, in the worst case, stop buying our debt if the shift occurs suddenly. Credit ratings agencies lower our sovereign credit rating.” This neglects the simple fact that since the end of the gold standard, in 1971, the federal government no longer has needed to borrow its own money. Rather than borrowing by creating T-securities out of thin air, then selling them, the government can and should create money directly, and omit the borrowing step.

“Scenario 3: Catastrophic Budget Failure – An abrupt crisis occurs. […] at some point financial markets or foreign lenders decide we are no longer a good credit risk, possibly due to debt affordability concerns.” Debt affordability? Didn’t you just say,” Experts agree that we will be in a crisis when we can no longer service our debt obligations. However, we will probably never face this scenario.”

“[Creditors] stop buying our debt securities or demand dramatically higher interest rates due to increased perceived risk. […] In the extreme case, the U.S. may not be able to borrow at any interest rate.” Creditors concerned with hyperinflation or even default will not buy U.S. debt.” As we said, the U.S. no longer needs to sell debt. Issuance of Treasury securities could end today, and this would not change by even on penny, the government’s ability to spend.

“Scenario 4: Inflation Crisis – Higher debt is managed through inflation. […] Under strong political pressure, the Fed […] does not raise interest rates despite signs of increasing inflationary pressures. […] Fiscal consolidation will require spending cuts that will hurt safety net programs. Business investment incentives will disappear and tax rates will rise, as policymakers search for revenue. Household taxes rise and government services are reduced.” Wait. Isn’t that exactly what you are preaching – spending cuts and tax increases?

“Scenario 5: External Crisis -A dollar or trade crisis leads to a fiscal crisis. When the economy recovers in a few years, our current account deficit (which had narrowed during the recession) resumes widening to record levels. […] Capital inflows slow abruptly as investors see better risk-return opportunities elsewhere, decide the risks of the U.S. market are too high […] A sudden stop in lending lowers the dollar, increases inflation and interest rates[…]” A widening of the current account deficit means dollars leave the U.S., which if anything, would be anti inflationary.

“Scenario 6: Default Crisis – A series of events lead to a default.” Once again, you already have said the U.S. will not default.

“[…] Our need to pay higher interest rates increases debt service and crowds out public and private spending. […]” Higher interest rates increase the amount of money in the economy which facilitates private spending.

“[…}A new administration defaults or attempts to renegotiate our debts. Burned creditors stop buying U.S. debt or demand onerous interest premiums.[…]” Again, defaults? You’ve already discussed this impossibility.

“Countries that have sufficient domestic savings to finance their debt are less vulnerable than those that must attract considerable foreign capital – such as the United States. ” Totally false. The U.S. does not service its debt with savings. It creates money, ad hoc, to pay its debts.

“[…] Our large trade deficit outlook is considered unsustainable and a likely crisis flash point.”You already have admitted U.S. has the unlimited ability to service its debts. So what do you mean by “unsustainable”?.

“Some top economists argue that the U.S. can “afford” even more debt awhile longer because its debt service will still remain quite manageable. They also expect that the United States can avoid adjustment longer than fiscal policy norms might suggest because the dollar is the world’s reserve currency.” The debt service is manageable, not because the dollar is the world’s reserve currency, but rather because the government has the unlimited ability to pay its bills, and does not need to borrow.

“While certain countries are often cited to show that high sovereign debt ratios can be sustained without crisis (Italy, Belgium, Japan now), these countries – unlike the United States – can finance their debt through their substantial domestic savings.” Government debt is not financed through private savings. You and I do not pay federal debt with our savings.

“Many governments facing similar circumstances to the United States over the next generation have tried to avoid fiscal adjustment by running higher inflation to reduce their debt burden. Though appealing, this strategy hurts the economy and its citizens (particularly those on a fixed income).” There ever is a reason for a sovereign nation, in control of its money, to reduce its debt through inflation.

The entire premise of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget is that buyers of T-securities control the fate of the U.S., when in fact, the U.S., as the creator of dollars, no longer needs anyone to buy T-securities. This lack of understanding would be amusing were it not for the fact that the government acts on these beliefs.

One of the reasons we have been so slow to exit recession, is the government’s timid stimulus responses. The too little / too late, initial $150 per person mailing two years ago was restricted by debt fear. A $1,000-$2,000 per person mailing at that time, would have ended the recession.

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

–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


.
.

–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