Tag: economy

–Why the crazy stock market fall

An alternative to popular faith

I recently read an article containing wonderment that despite good news (the April jobs report showed payrolls grew by 290,000) the stock market crashed. The author, John Curran, speculated: “One reason is that the Euro crisis in spite of all efforts remains very much a crisis, and that threatens the global economy. The second reason is that Thursday’s stock market blowout pointed up a dangerous vulnerability in the financial markets, one that we’ve known of (high frequency trading) but sort of forgotten. Third, the Labor Department’s jobs report while positive in some respects also contained a bit of negative news […] (increased unemployment).

While the Greek/EU situation is serious, it will not seiously affect the U.S. economy, so long as our government continues to deficit spend. Second, while high frequency, automated trading can cause short term, manic effects on the stock market, the longer term effects are minimal. Finally, the way unemployment is calculated (only those looking for a job are counted), makes it inevitable that when times improve, unemployment statistics rise. People who had given up, start again to look for jobs. So from that standpoint, the stock market is wrong.

There is one other scenario, that could have far greater significance than any of the above: The off shore oil well blowout. Not only will it cause enormous destruction in of itself, but it will prevent further offshore drilling for an unknown time. Weeks? Certainly. Months? Possibly. But weeks and months are no big deal.

Perhaps even years, and that is a big deal for our economy. For the past few decades, inflation has been caused, not by deficit spending, but by Oil Prices.

Even with the worst case scenario, the actual supply loss won’t be felt soon, but if the projected loss of oil production is significant, it will cause oil prices to rise, thus causing inflation. The debt hawks will assume (wrongly) the inflation is caused by deficits, and will demand that taxes be increased and spending decreased — either of which will stall economic growth and move us into a recession.

And that will drop the stock market.

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

No nation can tax itself into prosperity

–The EU and the “hair of the dog”

An alternative to popular faith

AP 5/7/2010: “European leaders sought Friday to convince fearful markets that the Greek debt crisis won’t spread to other countries and derail the continent’s hesitant economic recovery. France and Italy approved their share of a euro 110 billion ($140 billion) bailout to keep Greece from imminent default […] EU leaders have insisted for days the Greek financial implosion was a unique combination of bad management, free spending and statistical cheating that doesn’t apply to any other eurozone nation, such as troubled Spain or Portugal.”

As I’ve noted elsewhere, GREECE has problems neither unique nor unanticipated. In a June 5, 2005 SPEECH at the University of Missouri, Kansas City, I said, “I mentioned Germany. They are in trouble, again. Their economy is stagnant. They want to increase their supply of money by cutting taxes. But, because of the Euro, no European nation can control its own money supply. The Euro is the worst economic idea since the recession-era, Smoot-Hawley Tariff. The economies of European nations are doomed by the Euro.“

We have a similar, though thankfully different situation here in the U.S. Replace “Greece” with “California,” and you have an identical problem. Until 1971, the U.S. was on a gold standard, which limited its ability to create money. Today, Greece is limited by the “euro standard”. California is limited by the “dollar standard.” All standards have the same function: Limit money creation.

Like Greece, California is unable to create money at will. It has borrowed as much as it can, and no sources of money are on the horizon. Now try to imagine the other states, Illinois, New York et al, giving or lending money to California to bail it out of its immediate problems. Obviously, that wouldn’t work:
1) The states can’t afford it.
2) The “solution” would, at best, be temporary. It merely would delay the inevitable, while putting California deeper in debt.
3) It would exacerbate the looming bankruptcies of the other states.

Now, the E.U. proposes a “hair of the dog” solution for Greece. It is asked to commit financial suicide by raising taxes, reducing spending and borrowing even more money, the very thing that got it into trouble. Meanwhile, the other E.U. nations will commit suicide along with Greece, by lending it precious money they can’t spare.

The solution for the U.S states is clear: Federal creation and input of money. The federal government has this power, in fact, gave itself this power specifically to prevent American bankruptcies, and has used this power many times, most recently to end the recent recession.

The solution for the E.U. states is equally clear, and that solution is not loans from wealthier E.U. nations to poorer E.U. nations. The solution is for the E.U. to function just like the U.S. Fed. Create money and supply it to the E.U. states. Until then, the E.U. will live in a dream world, or rather a nightmare world of ongoing financial desperation.

More than 200 years ago, the U.S. was a group of independent nations, each with individual mores and beliefs. Yet for mutual survival, they had the good sense to ignore their differences and come together under one rule. The EU should do the same.

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

No nation can tax itself into prosperity

–The federal debt is unsustainable — still?

The debt hawks are to economics as the creationists are to biology. Those, who do not understand Monetary Sovereignty, do not understand economics. If you understand the following, simple statement, you are ahead of most economists, politicians and media writers in America: Our government, being Monetarily Sovereign, has the unlimited ability to create the dollars to pay its bills.
================================================================================================================================================================

People who don’t know what they’re talking about, but who want to sound erudite, love to use dramatic terms that can’t be disproved. A classic example is “ticking time bomb,” when referring to the federal debt and deficit.

This blog contains three posts (“Federal debt: ‘A ticking time bomb”; “Debt bomb redux”; “More debt bomb nonsense” ) sampling the thousands of times since 1940 (!), the debt has been called a “time bomb.”

The nice thing about “ticking time bomb”: The users never needed to prove or substantiate anything. They didn’t have to say when it would explode or what would make it explode or what would happen after it exploded. They don’t even feel the need to explain why their dire predictions have been wrong, wrong and wrong, every year. They could just use the expression, then stand back, look wise and bask in the adoration.

Well, another description of the federal debt and deficit can be included in the “I know nothing, but I want to look smart” club. This time the term is “unsustainable.” In a previous post I hoped never to see that trite, meaningless term again (See: Unsustainable), but it was not to be. Here are just a few of the uses in the past 28 years.

–February 7, 1982: Ronald Reagan: “[…]rapid, unsustainable expansion of Federal spending and money growth[…]
–December 11, 1983: The New York Times; Editorial Desk:“[…]large and growing deficits are unsustainable. They have to be reduced […]
–1998: Douglas Elmendorf and N. Gregory Mankiw: “Current patterns of taxes and spending are unsustainable.”
—February 28, 2001: George W. Bush:. “Social Security’s spending path is unsustainable in the long run, driven largely by demographic trends.”
–March 3, 2005: Edmund L. Andrews: “Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve, warned on Wednesday that the federal budget deficits were ‘unsustainable,’ and he urged Congress to scrutinize both spending and taxes to solve the problem.”
–February 13, 2006: Paul Krugman: “Last year America spent 57 percent more than it earned on world markets. That is, our imports were 57 percent larger than our exports. It all sounds unsustainable. And it is.”
–05/15/09: Lita Epstein, DailyFinance, “Anyone who understands the U.S. debt picture won’t be surprised by President Barack Obama‘s statement that U.S. deficit spending is ‘unsustainable.’
–4/27/10: Reuters: By Pedro Nicolaci da Costa: “’In the absence of further policy actions, the federal budget appears set to remain on an unsustainable path,’ Bernanke told the 18-member National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform.”
–5/20/10:Professor Alan Blinder, former member of President Clinton’s original Council of Economic Advisers, and Vice Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System: “[…]even though everybody knows that the federal budget deficit is on an unsustainable path toward the stratosphere.”

And now, again: 6/10, 2010 The U.S. economy continues a slow, painful recovery, but Congress must prepare to address an “unsustainable” level of debt in the federal budget, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke cautioned Wednesday.

And again: 6/28/10: House Democratic Majority Leader Steny Hoyer: “Debt is a national security threat. Unsustainable debt has a long history of toppling world powers.”

And again: 7/8/10: The Committee For a Responsible Federal Budget: “The debt of the United States is rising to unprecedented – and unsustainable – levels.”

And again: 11/11/10: Representative Jan Schakowsky: “. . . we have to do something; the debt and deficit are not sustainable. . .”

–11/26/10: Sheila C. Bair, Chairman of the FDIC: “The Congressional Budget Office projects that annual entitlement spending could triple in real terms by 2035, to $4.5 trillion in today’s dollars. Defense spending is similarly unsustainable . . . “

–12/3/2010:Dick Durbin, senior Senator from Illinois (D): “Borrowing 40 cents out of every dollar we spend for missiles or food stamps is unsustainable.”

–2/21/11: Doug Elmendorf, head of the Congressional Budget Office: “The nation’s fiscal path is unsustainable, and the problem cannot be solved through minor tinkering.” If his name sounds familiar in this context, he, along with noted economist, Greg Mankiw, said almost exactly the same thing way back in 1998 [See above]. When do these gentlemen acknowledge that they repeatedly have been wrong?

–5/13/11: Frank R. Wolf, Republican congressman from Virginia: “It may have surprised some people when Standard & Poor’s warned last month that the United States could lose its coveted status as the world’s most secure economy if lawmakers don’t rein in the nation’s unsustainable debt. I have been sounding a similar alarm for almost five years, trying to get the attention of Congress and past and present administrations that America cannot continue on its debt and deficit track . . . ”

–7/25/11: iMFdirect: By Rodrigo Valdés: “By the end of this year, federal debt held by the public will represent 70 percent of the U.S. economy, almost double the 36 percent it was in 2007. The federal fiscal deficit will be 9.3 percent of GDP this year. That, quite simply, is not sustainable.”

All these years, the debt has grown, while remaining not only a ticking time bomb, but also unsustainable. How is that possible? Easy. No one knows what “unsustainable” means. Does it mean the government can’t pay its bills? Does it mean America will go bankrupt? Is there any data that proves the debt can’t be sustained?

There is no such data. The federal government has the unlimited power to pay any bills of any size. No federal check ever has or ever will bounce, not because we’re big or lucky, but rather because the government creates money to pay its bills by reaching into vendors’ bank accounts and crediting them.

Does “unsustainable mean that large federal deficits cause inflation? No, ever since the end of the gold standard in 1971, there has been zero relationship between large deficits and inflation, which seems to be related mostly to oil prices.

The whole notion of federal debt unsustainability is not in accord with fact or possibility.

For 30 years the gurus have told us the debt is unsustainable, without them having the slightest notion what it means. The next time someone tells you the federal debt is unsustainable, you’ll know they have no idea what they are talking about.

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

No nation can tax itself into prosperity

–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