Tag: deficits

-What triggers recessions and depressions?


An alternative to popular faith

        Readers of this blog know debt growth is necessary for economic growth. The graphs and data in the various posts, for instance The federal debt and federal deficit are necessary for economic growth, show that surpluses preceded every depression in U.S. history, and reductions in debt growth preceded every recession in the past 50 years.
        While this degree of correspondence transcends coincidence, it leaves a troubling question: What is the trigger? The recession of 2001 was preceded by ten years of deficit growth reductions, while the recession of 2007 was preceded by only three. Other recessions also were preceded by varying periods of reduced deficit growth or surpluses. Similarly, the 1929 Great Depression was preceded by nine years of surpluses, while the 1819 depression was preceded by only two.
        This makes predicting a recession difficult. While running a surplus seems to be a fairly prompt causative agent for recessions or depressions, debt growth can decline for several years before a recession begins. Reduced deficit growth is a necessary detonator of recession or depression, but some other event must serve as a more immediate signal, a trigger. For example:

*The recession of 1960 may have been triggered by the Vietnam war, which began in 1959
*The 1970 recession: Possible trigger: Also may have been the Vietnam war, this time by the protests and the public realization the war was going poorly.
*The 1973 recession: Possible trigger: The first Arab oil embargo
*The 1980 recession: Possible trigger: The Iranian revolution causing another oil crisis
*The 1990 recession: Possible trigger: Desert Storm
*The 2001 recession: Possible trigger: The bursting of the “dot.com” bubble.
*The 2007 recession: Possible trigger: Collapse of the subprime mortgage market
        All recessions and depressions share one factor – reduction in debt growth – but all have had different triggers. It appears if we have only reduced deficit growth without the trigger, no recession or depression will result. And, a trigger event, without reduced deficit growth, will not cause a recession. The recession/depression bomb requires both a detonator (reduced debt growth) and a trigger.
        Triggers are difficult to evaluate (i.e., how serious they are), but as one small step toward predicting recessions we should keep in mind that a recession is far more likely during federal deficit growth rate decreases.

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

-When is a recession?


An alternative to popular faith

        Readers of this blog and of the summary are familiar with the fact that all six depressions in U.S. history immediately were preceded by extreme reductions in federal deficits (aka “surpluses”):

1817-1821: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 29%. Depression began 1819.
1823-1836: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 99%. Depression began 1837.
1852-1857: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 59%. Depression began 1857.
1867-1873: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 27%. Depression began 1873.
1880-1893: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 57%. Depression began 1893.
1920-1930: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 36%. Depression began 1929.

        You also are familiar with the following graph showing that the last nine recessions began with reductions in federal debt growth and were cured with increases in federal debt growth.
Fed debt private investors 50-09

Note how debt growth declines before recessions and increases to cure recessions

In 1996, the prelude to Free Money, titled “The Ultimate America” predicted future recessions would follow decreases in debt growth. Since then it happened again, twice.

        Six depressions and nine recessions — a total of fifteen out of fifteen times at which federal debt growth declined and the economy fell — is an amazing, almost unheard of, correlation in a complex science like economics.
        Even more startling, the first edition of Free Money was published in 1996, and it predicted future recessions would be precipitated by decreases in debt growth. This would be akin to finding it has rained all day in Chicago every June 1st, following sunshine all day every May 30th, for the past fifteen years, and accurately predicting it would happen, again — twice more.
        A sharp-eyed reader, who may be associated with the Concord Coalition, (the group claiming federal debt must be reduced, but which never provides evidence) pointed out two recessions, in 1981 and in 1991, where federal debt growth seemed to move up in advance.
        While even thirteen out of fifteen is a remarkable correlation in a science that seldom sees such correlations, the reader’s concern was understandable.
        As you can see on close inspection, federal debt growth did decline in advance of the 1981 recession – not terribly significant, but a decline nonetheless. (The 1981 recession should be considered a continuation of the recession twelve months earlier — caused by the Iranian Revolution which took place in 1979, with its increased oil prices — from which we didn’t fully recover.)

Debt growth declines in advance of 1981 recession

        With regard to the 1991 recession, we come up against the definition of the word “recession.” The media arbitrarily say a recession is a decline in the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for two or more consecutive quarters, which means you can’t identify a recession until it is more than six months along . Look at the following graph:

        GDP growth (blue line) turned down in 1989, while debt growth was falling. Why did the government say the recession began in 1991? Hard to say. Perhaps it was due to the very slight bump at the end of 1989.
        This graph indicates the increase in federal debt growth was beginning to cure the 1989 recession, and the momentum of continuing increased debt growth finally cured the recession in 1991.
        A strong correlation between federal debt growth and GDP growth seems to exist.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com
P.S. You might try this experiment. Ask Diane Lim Rogers (drogers@concordcoalition.org), the Concord Coalition economist, for evidence to support her claim the debt is too large. I predict she either will not answer you, or she will tell you the debt is too large and “everyone knows” it should be reduced. “Everyone knows” is what passes for evidence at Concord.

-New thinking from the New America Foundation


An alternative to popular faith

        Here is the text of an Email I sent to Steve Coll, President and CEO of the New America Foundation (http://newamerica.net/) (Offices in Washington, DC and San Francisco, CA). According to their web site, “The New America Foundation is a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy institute that invests in new thinkers and new ideas to address the next generation of challenges facing the United States.” They publish 12 “Principles” by which they live.
—————————————————————————————————————————————-

Dear Steve;
        Your principle #10, “Do not perpetuate budget myths” is excellent. In that regard you might wish to reconsider certain statements on your web site:

“In reality, the availability of debt financing is far from unlimited; in fact Japan and China have already begun to slow their purchasing of U.S. debt.”
        A myth. The federal government does not need to sell U.S. debt to Japan, China or to any other country or person. The government creates debt (T-securities) out of thin air, collateralized only by full faith and credit. It just as easily could create money out of thin air, also collateralized by full faith and credit, and eliminate the debt creation and sales step. Debt creation and sales is a relic of the gold-standard days.
See: How to eliminate federal debt, deficits and interest payments

        “While deficits can spur consumption and thus improve the immediate economic situation when there is slack in the economy, they lead to slower growth in living standards over the long run.”        
A myth. Federal deficits are necessary both for short term and long term growth. A growing economy requires a growing supply of money. Where else will the money come from to grow our economy?
See: I believe

        “Moreover, high deficits increase interest payments, which crowd out important tax and spending priorities and leave the budget with far less flexibility than it would otherwise.”        
Partly true, partly a myth. High deficits can increase interest payments. However the conclusion is circular reasoning. Interest payments can “crowd out” spending priorities only if the government is precluded from running deficits. To date, despite massive deficits for the past 30 years, interest payments never have crowded out anything.

        “Lastly, deficits shift the burden of paying for today’s spending to future generations, which may cause over-consumption by present generations at the expense of consumption by future generations.”
A myth: Today’s deficits are paid by future generations only if the future generations decide to run surpluses. When any generation runs a deficit, it’s tax payments do not even cover its current expenses, let alone past expenses. Deficits do not cost taxpayers money. Only surpluses cost taxpayers money.
See: It isn’t taxpayers’ money

        I have suggestions for a 13th and 14th principle:
13. Base all suggestions on supporting data, not on popular faith.
14. To accept new thinkers and new ideas, be prepared to let go of old thinkers with old ideas.”

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

-Is inflation too much money chasing too few goods?


An alternative to popular faith

In the post “Do deficits cure inflation?” we saw that contrary to popular faith, deficit spending (i.e., too much money) has not caused inflation. We also saw that inflation can be cured by increasing the reward for owning money, i.e. by increasing interest rates.

Now we question another piece of popular faith: Is inflation caused by too much money chasing too few goods?

Begin with the notion of “too much money.” We already have seen that federal deficits are not related to inflation. What about another definition of money: M3? Please look at the following graph:

Clearly there is no immediate relationship between money supply and inflation. What about a subsequent relationship. Could “too much money” today, cause inflation later?

The graph indicates no such cause/effect relationship, with M3 peaks preceding inflation peaks by anywhere from 2 years to 10 years. It is difficult to imagine a graph revealing less relationship.

What about “too few goods”? If too few goods caused inflation, this would manifest itself with GDP moving opposite to CPI. Again, that does not seem to happen:

There seems to be no regular pattern, with GDP and CPI sometimes rising together and sometimes separately. In today’s international economy, it is difficult to substantiate the idea of a wide-spectrum commodity shortage when sufficient purchasing power exists.

Individual nations can experience shortages of individual commodities. Individual poor nations can experience shortages of a broad basket of commodities. But can a wealthy nation, with plenty of money to spend, suffer a shortage of a broad basket of commodities, thereby causing inflation? Has it recently happened?

Seems unlikely these days as products are made in multiple nations and shipped to multiple nations, with easy international shipping and instantaneous money convertibility. Your cotton shirt may have been grown in Egypt, woven in India, assembled in China, labeled in Italy and sold in the U.S. Clearly, a cotton shirt shortage would be rare, as any of these steps could occur in various countries, and that’s just one product. A nationwide “too-few-goods” situation, coincident with “too much money,” seems impossible.

There is however, one exception: Oil.

The graph below compares overall inflation with changes in energy prices, which are dominated by oil prices.

Oil is the one commodity that has worldwide usage, affects prices of most products and services, and can be in worldwide shortage. That is why, when oil prices rise or fall steeply, inflation rises and falls in concert.

The large oil price moves “pull” inflation in the same direction. When oil prices increased or decreased the most, inflation came along for the ride.

In summary, inflation is not caused by deficit spending or by “too much money chasing too few goods.” Inflation is caused by a combination of high oil prices and interest rates too low to counter-balance the oil prices.

The high oil prices can be caused by real shortages and/or by price manipulation.

Hyperinflation is a different beast, altogether. Every hyperinflation has been caused by shortages, most often shortages of food.

Zimbabwe, Weimar Republic, and Argentina had food shortages that created hyperinflations.

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