Tag: economy

–BP’s Adventures in Wonderland

An alternative to popular faith

Congressmen hate the truth. They don’t understand it. Why, they wonder, would anyone tell the truth when a lie is so much more convenient. So, you’ll get no greater outrage than when someone not only tells the truth, but does so in a politically risky manner.

Congressmen sitting on those high perches, pointing their talons down at businessmen, and demanding full genuflection. Congressmen express shock, “Shock, I say,” and indignation too. How dare these business people desire money, when that act is expressly reserved for politicians?

So when Rep. Joe Barton said, “I do not want to live in a country where any time a citizen or a corporation does something that is legitimately wrong is subject to some sort of political pressure that is – again, in my words, amounts to a shakedown. So I apologize,” Washington showed its outrage at this truth.

Yes, BP’s executives, and those down the line, made horrible decisions in the name of profits. And they should be punished. But wasn’t the federal government at least partly responsible? All those regulators who were accepting bribes to look the other way. Weren’t they aiding and abetting?

The Mineral Management Service, that was supposed to supervise offshore drilling, but instead accepted numerous gifts and even bedroom service – weren’t they a federal agency working for President Obama?

So when Mr. Obama threatened BP chairman, Carl-Henric Svanberg, with the full weight of the U.S. government, Mr. Svanberg caved, and bravely responded something to the tune: “We’ll set up a $20 billion damages fund and we’ll take the money from our shareholders.” Ah, courage.

Now Mr. Obama trumpets about how he forced BP to give money to some people by taking it from other people. Oh, and by the way, he also caused more people untold damage and misery by ending offshore drilling for six months, but please don’t mention it.

BP’s CEO Tony Hayward has spent hours and hours being grilled by Congress, because after all, isn’t the CEO of a giant company supposed to know every detail of every action by every employee every minute of the time? Sure, and under the same logic, why isn’t President Obama sitting in front of those same Congressmen, answering questions about his Mineral Management Service’s failures? Why is Obama able to point his finger at Hayward, while Hayward can’t point at Obama?

In summary: Joe Barton told the truth and was punished by Washington. BP took money from one group of people to pay another group, and Washington thinks that’s fair. Tony Hayward admitted fault and was vilified by Washington. President Obama admitted nothing and then caused even worse problems, and was applauded by Washington. Meanwhile, Washington, which was partly at fault, and has the unlimited ability to create money, while taking nothing from people, has not created a damages fund, but rather sits back and points fingers.

Lewis Carroll would love it.

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

No nation can tax itself into prosperity

–I’m angry with the Chicago Tribune

An alternative to popular faith

I live in Chicago, and I’m angry with the Chicago Tribune. It continues to be clueless about economics. In a June 15th editorial, the Tribune said, “With 79 percent of Americans rating (the federal debt) ‘extremely serious’ or ‘very serious,” it tied with terrorism for the top (‘scariest threat’). So what does the Obama administration plan to do about it? It proposes to pile on more debt. . . . Americans have good reason to be so worried about the . . . that someone will have to repay.”

Does the term “exploding national debt” sound familiar. If you go back and read TICKING TIME BOMB , MORE BOMB NONSENSE and DEBT BOMB REDUX you will see that the Tribune and its media friends have been referring to the federal debt in explosive terms for the past seventy years! Think about it. For seventy years the media has told you a debt bomb is been ready to explode, and today we are no closer to any of those dire forecasts than we were in 1940.

Does daily failure of prediction stop the Tribune? Nope. Tribune readers keep following their prophet up the mountain to await the end of the world. When the world fails to end, do they ever begin to question their leader? No, they march back down, and sit mesmerized as their prophet repeats the same old predictions – for more than seventy, long years.

Here is what outrages the Chicago Tribune today: “$50 billion in emergency spending to help state and local governments . . . avert massive layoffs of teachers, police and firefighters . . . Block a 21 percent scheduled cut in reimbursements to doctors who treat Medicare patients.”

Yes, helping avert layoffs of teachers, police, firefighters and doctors truly is awful, especially when compared with the unsupported, unproven, patently wrong “risk” of a federal debt that in the Tribune’s misguided words, “someone will have to repay.”

If you read some of the posts on this blog, starting with SUMMARY you will see there is no “someone” who has to pay. Taxpayers neither owe nor service the federal debt. There is no relationship between federal income and federal spending. The so-called “debt” merely is a balance sheet calculation of net money created by the federal government, a calculation that neither inhibits, nor is inhibited by, federal spending.

A curse be upon the person who first labeled this balance sheet column “debt” rather than the correct, “net money created.” Incorrectly calling it “debt” has misled millions of otherwise intelligent people, and worse, has prevented important programs (See: CHILDREN & GRANDCHILDREN) of benefit to us all.

I’m angry with the Tribune, not because they are clueless. Each of us is clueless about many things. I’m angry with them because they have such power to make a positive difference in our economy, but instead they are too intellectually lazy to learn, preferring to parrot the popular myths of the day. What a waste.

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

No nation can tax itself into prosperity

–Punish BP or . . . ?

An alternative to popular faith

Those rotten scoundrels have ruined our oceans and our shores. They should pay not only for the cleanup, not only for the jobs lost because of the pollution, not only for the damage, but they even should pay for jobs lost because of President Obama’s decision to stop deep-water drilling. BP should pay, pay, pay until they bleed, then pay some more. These people must be held accountable.

Phew! Now I feel better.

But, wait. What is BP? It’s a legal description, nothing more than words on a piece of paper. It has no physical existence. You can’t punish BP any more than you can punish a law or a page of sheet music. BP, as a legal entity, neither caused, nor can cure, the oil spill. That disaster was caused by people, and it is people, not a piece of paper, who must be held accountable.

So the question becomes, which people should be punished? BP has a huge number of employees, the vast majority of whom had nothing to do with the oil spill. It has a huge number of innocent shareholders, a huge number of innocent suppliers, a huge number of innocent oil users. In some ways, you and I are part of BP, because as users of oil and oil-related products (i.e. all products) we are affected by what its employees do.

Which of those people should be “held accountable”? What if holding all of BP “accountable” means thousands of innocent people will be fired, or innocent suppliers will be put out of business, or all of us will have to pay more for our oil and gas, or all of us who hold BP stock, either directly or as part of a fund, will lose? What if punishing BP has an adverse effect on the whole economy. Is that wise?

Somewhere between vengeance and economic reality lies the answer. Punishing BP, as a company, punishes all of us who already are suffering from the gusher. And though widespread vengeance may feel good, there is a “cut-nose-spite-face” aspect to be considered. So, what can be done to help prevent a repeat?

First, let’s identify the people specifically responsible. Certain BP employees. Certain employees of BP suppliers. The guys who mixed and poured the rotten cement that didn’t hold.

And, with all the focus on BP, let’s not forget those government employees who failed equally. I’m talking about the people who, after having been bribed with nice gifts, so readily approved all of BP’s actions.

Yes, we should fine, fire, even jail all the responsible individuals. That would help prevent future problems. Of course, that doesn’t pay for all the efforts to cure the situation nor for all the losses. Who should pay the billions for that?

If you really care about the economy, and are not just flailing out in retribution, you would agree the economically wise approach would be for the federal government to pay. That way, the guilty would be punished, the innocent spared and the economy stimulated.

Government pays = people benefit. BP pays = people pay.

So what’s your choice: Vengeance or money in your pocket?

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

No nation can tax itself into prosperity

— Let’s blame China

An alternative to popular faith

Here we go, again. The typical beggar-thy-neighbor approach to international trade.

————————————————————————————-
6/10/10: By David Lawder; WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said on Thursday that reform of China’s exchange rate is “critically important” to the U.S. and global economies and a more flexible yuan was in China’s interest.
[…]
In his testimony, Geithner said the Obama administration wanted China to change policies that disadvantage American companies and to provide a more level playing field for U.S. products and investments. He vowed the administration would “apply forcefully” all remedies available under U.S. law to curb China’s unfair trade practices, including anti-dumping and countervailing duty complaints.
[…]
“A stronger yuan would benefit China because it would boost the purchasing power of households and encourage firms to shift production for domestic demand, rather than for export,” he said. “[…]which is particularly important now, with China’s economy facing a risk of inflation in goods and in asset prices.”
————————————————————————————-

Think of it this way. When two nations each have the unlimited ability to create money, which nation benefits from a positive balance of trade? That is, which nation benefits when one sends more of its goods and services to the other?

In CHINA TRADE we saw that the nation exporting fewer resources (i.e. exporting more, easily created money), has the advantage. The Obama administration seems to believe international trade is a zero-sum game, where for every “winner” (net goods and services exporter) there is a “loser” (net goods and services importer). So in their minds, for the U.S. to be a winner, we must make sure there are enough nations that are losers – as I said, the beggar thy neighbor approach to international trade.

The technical truth is, the U.S. could we wealthy without exporting a single dollar’s worth of goods and services. Visualize that our exports were zero and the U.S. government were the sole “export” customer. Rather than exporting steel, sausage and services, the government would buy all this output. No, don’t get excited. I don’t suggest we stop exporting. I’m just trying to demonstrate a point.

Could the government afford it? Yes, the government has the unlimited ability to create the money to afford anything. Would our industries suffer? No, they would receive the same money as if they actually had exported. Would this increase the money supply to inflationary levels? No, the total money within the economy would be the same as if it had come in from other nations.

Yes, we’d have to solve the problem of what we do with all the goods and services we produce (Create new industries for this purpose??), but the U.S. literally could survive and prosper with no exports at all – as though it were the only nation on earth.

The Obama administration merely has set up China as a straw man, to take the blame for our economy’s failure to grow as fast as it should. But, the real blame should go to the debt hawk belief that federal deficit spending should be minimized. For years, our stimulus efforts have been too-little, too-late, and even today, while growth is painfully slow, and millions are out of work, there is more concern about so-called debt (i.e. money created) than about economic success.

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

No nation can tax itself into prosperity