Tag: depressions

-The debt ceiling illusion

An alternative to popular faith

      Sometime in October, the federal debt will touch the legal ceiling of $12.1 trillion, and Congress will decide whether or not to raise it. Surely, the debt ceiling law is among the nation’s silliest.
      Visualize this: All year, you recklessly spend more than you earn, and at the end of the year you announce that you will not pay your bills because you are frugal.        That’s Congress.
      Congress authorizes federal spending and federal taxing. So Congress already has control over the federal debt. It is Congress that has created the $12 trillion debt. Now, Congress will decide whether to pay for what Congress has authorized.
If Congress doesn’t increase the debt, several bad things could happen. The U.S. could default on its debts, thereby removing forever the trust other nations and our own citizens have in our money. Borrowing would become much more difficult and the world would begin to dump its T-securities – a financial calamity. Would Congress be that stupid? Well, it’s Congress.
      Or, the recovery from this recession could end, and we could plunge into a depression of unprecedented magnitude. Would Congress be that stupid? Well, it’s Congress.
      Or, the Treasury could implement some accounting tricks like redeeming government employee retirement funds, now invested in T-securities. Or the Treasury could stop paying interest on government trust funds. Both actions are internal devices without substance, merely delaying the inevitable, as does the vote on the debt ceiling.
      No responsible person, who cares about America, would vote against raising the debt ceiling, but we’re talking about Congress, a group that often embraces style over substance. The debt ceiling has two results. First, it is a shameful admission by members of Congress they know or care little about the bills they vote for, and focus on the individual, pork-barrel amendments they can sneak in. Generally, Congress is a “You-vote-for-mine-and-I’ll-vote-for-yours” club.
      Second, the debt ceiling gives members of Congress political cover — the ability to vote for spending for their constituencies, while voting against spending as a whole, thus to demonstrate how frugal and disciplined they are.
      There should not be a debt ceiling. If Congress wishes to be frugal, it should do so when authorizing, not when paying, its debts. Any Congressperson who speaks against raising the debt ceiling is a phony. Or is that statement a tautology?

Oh, and by the way. Limiting the creation of debt limits economic growth, but that is a subject discussed in many posts on this blog.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
For more information, see http://www.rodgermitchell.com

-Do you believe President Obama is gay ??


An alternative to popular faith

       If a reporter were to come to his editor with a proposed article titled, “President Obama is gay,” the editor would demand supporting evidence, before that article ever saw daylight.
      However, if the same reporter submitted an article titled, “Federal deficit is too high,” history says the editor would ask for no supporting evidence, nor would the article contain any. The media merely assume, as a matter of faith, that revenue neutrality is more prudent than deficits.

      Economics is rare, perhaps unique, among sciences, most of which demand evidence for their hypotheses. Only in economics can intuition and popular faith obviate facts or even the desire for facts. Thus, I have had editors, columnists and reporters tell me it is “obvious” that large deficits are unsustainable, crowd out lending funds, lead to recessions, depressions, inflations and hyper-inflations. When I ask for evidence to support these views, I seldom hear from them again, probably because they feel scientific evidence is unnecessary in a science, but more importantly, they don’t have any.
      Even the Concord Coalition, an organization that for seventeen years, has collected vast amounts of money to preach for federal deficit reduction, unashamedly offers no evidence to support its views. Check its website, http://www.concordcoalition.org, or write to them and you will see they neither offer, nor have, evidence.
      Because our leaders parrot the economic beliefs promoted by the media, lack of evidence has contributed heavily to the government actions that yield repeated recessions. Until the media learn to ask, “What is your evidence?” we will continue to suffer periodic, economic traumas. These traumas may seem inevitable and unavoidable, but in reality they are caused by beliefs lacking evidence.
      If you don’t believe President Obama is gay, unless you see solid evidence, don’t believe the federal deficit is too high, unless you see solid evidence.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
For more information, see http://www.rodgermitchell.com

–The low interest rate/GDP growth fallacy

The debt hawks are to economics as the creationists are to biology. Those, who do not understand monetary sovereignty, do not understand economics. Cutting the federal deficit is the most ignorant and damaging step the federal government could take. It ranks ahead of the Hawley-Smoot Tariff.

==========================================================================================================================================

       The Fed raises interest rates to fight inflation. To fight recession, the Fed does the opposite. It cuts interest rates.

This may sound logical except for one, very small detail. The opposite of inflation is not recession. The opposite of inflation is deflation. So doing the opposite of what you would do to counter inflation makes no sense when trying to counter a recession.

We could have a recession with deflation. We could have a recession with inflation, which is called “stagflation.” The history of Fed rate cuts, as a way to stimulate the economy, is not a good one. The Fed, under Chairman Greenspan, instituted numerous rate cuts. The result: A recession that President Bush’s tax cuts cured.

The Fed, under Chairman Bernanke, instituted numerous rate cuts. The result: The 2008 recession.

Why does popular faith hold that cutting interest rates stimulates the economy? Because popular faith views only one side of the equation. But, for each dollar borrowed a dollar is lent. $B = $L.

Cutting interest rates does cost borrowers less. A business needing $100 million might be more likely to borrow if interest rates are low than when they are high. Further, consumers are more likely to spend when borrowing is less costly. So making borrowing less costly stimulates business growth and consumer buying. At least, that is the theory.

What seems to be ignored is the lending side of the equation. When interest rates are low, lenders receive less money. And who are the lenders? Businesses and consumers.

You are a lender when you buy a CD or a bond, or put money into your savings account. When interest rates are low, you receive less money, which means you have less money to spend on goods and service — which means less stimulus for the economy.

In short, interest rates flow through the economy, with some people and businesses paying and some receiving. Domestically, it’s a zero-sum game — except for the federal government.*

A growing economy requires a growing supply of money. Cutting interest rates does not add money to the economy. That is why there is no historical correlation between interest rates and economic growth. During periods of high rates, GDP growth is not inhibited. During periods of low rates, GDP growth is not stimulated.

Please review the following graph:

monetary sovereignty

Blue is interest rates. Red is GDP growth. Not only are low interest rates not associated with high economic growth, but the opposite seems to be true. There seems to be a correlation between high interest rates and high GDP growth. How can this be?

*When interest rates are high, the federal government pays more interest on T-securities, which pumps more money into the economy. This additional money stimulates the economy.

This shows why the Fed’s repeated rate cuts do not seem to stimulate the economy. The action has been shown, time and again, to be counter-productive. Cutting interest rates to stimulate the economy is like pouring water on a drowning man.

Do you remember these headlines: “Employers slashed 80,000 jobs in March.” “The U.S. central bank has lowered rates by 3 percentage points since mid-September” “The loss of jobs signals another interest rate cut by the Federal Reserve later this month.” “Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke acknowledged Wednesday that the country could be heading toward a recession, saying federal policymakers are ‘fighting against the wind’ in combating it.”

Rate cut after rate cut did nothing. So what was the Fed’s plan? More rate cuts. During the previous recession, the Fed also attempted rate cut after rate cut, also to no avail. The recession, finally ended with the Bush tax cuts. The Fed has not learned from experience, but stubbornly adheres to the popular faith that interest rate cuts stimulate the economy.

Rate cuts do not stimulate the economy. They never have. They never will.

“Stimulating” an economy means making it larger. A large economy requires more money than does a smaller economy. Therefore, the only thing that stimulates the economy is the addition of money.

Rate cuts, by reducing the amount of interest the federal government pays, actually reduce growth of the money supply. We are on the edge of a recession, because the economy is starved for money. The coming “stimulus” checks will help, but they are too little and too late. This should have been done months ago, and the amounts should be far larger.

The only way to prevent or cure a recession: Federal deficit spending. There is no excuse for recession or inflation. These problems are not economic failures. They are leadership failures.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

For more information, see http://www.rodgermitchell.com

-Taxing poverty to support health care

The debt hawks are to economics as the creationists are to biology. Those, who do not understand monetary sovereignty, do not understand economics. Cutting the federal deficit is the most ignorant and damaging step the federal government could take. It ranks ahead of the Hawley-Smoot Tariff.
==========================================================================================================================================

       It has been estimated 50 million Americans do not have health insurance. Presumably, the vast majority can’t afford it. The U.S. Congress’s solution is to fine each of these people $1,000.
      (Next, we can fine each homeless person $1,000 for not paying rent.)
       The Congressional Budget Office estimates the fines will raise $36 billion over 10 years. Do the math. That $36 billion requires 36 million people to remain uninsured. In short, the government plan requires the program to fail!
       The government claims it would provide subsidies for poor and “some” middle-class families. That will require complex definitions for “poor,” remembering how cost of living varies markedly around the country. A Manhattan resident earning $30 thousand might be poor, while half that income might do very nicely in a rural town. Then there is the question of how to count dependents – children and adults.
      (Next, we can fine each starving person for not buying enough food.)
       And if families are forced to spend money on health insurance, will they be precluded from sending their kids to college or even allowing them to complete high school? Ah, that pesky law of unintended consequences.
      (Next we can fine each jobless person for not working.)
      Part of the plan also includes cutting costs by reducing payments to hospitals. Of course, this would require hospitals to find ways to save money. They can cut nursing staff and equipment, employ fewer doctors and maintenance people and serve cheaper food. And no need to clean the rooms every day. Now that should improve health care.
       If the government can subsidize the poor and “some” middle-class, why not merely subsidize them and forget about the ridiculous tax on poverty and on hospitals? This all is a perfect example of why the government is excellent at supplying money, but truly terrible at managing.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
For more information, see http://www.rodgermitchell.com