–Committee For A Responsible Federal Budget

An alternative to popular faith

On May 19th, I received the following Email from the Committee For A Responsible Federal Budget:

Dear friend, I am excited to share with you the latest CRFB initiative that I believe will quickly become a critical tool in educating the public regarding the fiscal outlook and motivating policymakers to take responsible action to put the country on a sustainable course. Today, we are publicly launching our “Stabilize the Debt” budget simulator (http://crfb.org/stabilizethedebt/).

“The ‘Stabilize the Debt’ challenge continues CRFB’s distinguished tradition of engaging policymakers, opinion leaders, the media, and the public in deliberating and discussing what it takes to be fiscally responsible. This new online endeavor is part of our long tradition of developing timely “Exercise in Hard Choices” exercises, and we are excited about our newest version.
[…]
“‘Stabilize the Debt’ challenges the user to think about reducing the debt in the longer term and maintaining it at a sustainable level, as opposed to simply balancing the budget for a single year. It promotes thinking about the need for both medium- and long-term term fiscal goals and how to attain them. It uses the goals from the Peterson-Pew Commission on Budget Reform from the Red Ink Rising report of stabilizing the debt at 60 percent of GDP by 2018 and keeping it low.

“I encourage you to take the challenge and share with all your friends. Since Congress appears unlikely to produce a budget this year and have the needed debate over fiscal priorities, this simulator can fill that void by enabling Americans to discover and discuss the difficult choices that must be made and engage in a nationwide dialogue on how best to put the country on a sound fiscal course. Sincerely, Maya MacGuineas, CRFB President

“For press inquiries, please contact Kate Brown at (202) 596-3365 or brown@newamerica.net.”
———————————————————————————————————————————————
Not having had Ms. MacGuineas’s Email address at the time, I wrote the following letter to Ms. Brown on May 19th. And again on May 20th. And May 24th. And May 27th. To date, no answer, which is normal for all debt hawk organizations. Knowing they have no data to support their claims, they simply ignore requests for data, even when, as you’ll see, I offered to promulgate their beliefs:

———————————————————————————————————————————————-

“Ms. Brown,

If you can supply historical, statistical evidence that the U.S. federal debt and deficit need to be reduced or are not sustainable, or that the federal debt needs to be stabilized at “60 percent of GDP by 2018,” I would be glad to post this data on my web site, https://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com. I also will mail this information to my list of 100+ economics professors, 50 newspaper and magazine columnists, and 30 newspaper and magazine editors around the country.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell”
————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Try it yourself. Write to any debt hawk organization or any debt hawk politician or economist, and ask for data to support the idea that the debt is too large. In the unlikely event you receive anything that constitutes evidence, please forward it to me.

Subsequently, I did find Maya MacGuineas’s Email address and wrote to her and Ms. Brown. For your interest, here is a calendar of my requests to supply evidence and my offer to send this evidence to economists and the media all over America:
May 19: Wrote to Ms. Brown
May 20: Wrote to Ms. Brown
May 24: Wrote to Ms. Brown
May 27: Wrote to Ms. Brown
May 28: Wrote to Ms. Brown & Ms. MacGuineas
June 1: Wrote to Ms. MacGuineas

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

No nation can tax itself into prosperity

–Giving life to a lie

An alternative to popular faith

The May 15, 2010 issue of NewScientist Magazine included an excellent piece by James Giles, titled “Giving life to a lie.” I strongly recommend you read it. (See: LIE for the full article.)

It tells how a statement by John Houghton, former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change – “Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen” – supposedly was repeated in three books, 100 blogs and 24,000 web pages.

Despite this widespread circulation and belief, the statement never was made. It was created by conservative columnist Piers Akerman. It was a lie.

The article, with its subtitle, “In the battle for hearts and minds, a plausible falsehood too often trumps the truth,” goes on to explain how a lie can acquire almost universal acceptance. Here are a few quotes: “. . . a falsehood has to have at least a shred of believability.” “Any falsehood can acquire currency … so long as there are enough people inclined to believe it . . . Falsehoods can come to be believed simply because others believe them. . . This is an information cascade, a process described by the economist DavidHirshleifer . . .” “The mainstream media often participates in the cascade … the more often you hear something, the more likely you are to believe it is true.”

Today, the big lie in economics is, “The federal debt is unsustainable” (See: UNSUSTAINABLE ).

The word ‘unsustainable,” means unable to endure. What is the evidence the federal debt cannot endure? That is, what evidence shows the debt cannot continue, cannot continue to grow, cannot continue to be serviced by the federal government, or will cause economic hardship? Amazingly, no such evidence exists. It all is myth.

That is why you never will see such evidence provided by any of the newspaper or magazine articles making the claim, nor will economists provide such evidence. They all merely will make the claim and support it with other claims, also unsupported by evidence (i.e., “The debt is unsustainable. It will cause inflation. It will reduce the availability of lending funds. Our children and grandchildren will pay for it through higher taxes. Nations will refuse to lend to us. Eventually, we’ll be like Zimbabwe.”) As each lie begets additional lies, the entire package becomes impervious to fact. More and more believe it, until it seems to become solid truth – all without supporting evidence.

The U.S. is 225 years old, yet the federal debt has grown about 1500% in just the past 30 years – a truly amazing increase. Despite this unprecedented debt growth, the federal government never has trouble servicing its debt, nor do we have inflation beyond what the government specifically wants (about 2%-3%), nor is there any mechanism by which the federal debt, which actually is the main source of dollars, can reduce the availability of lending funds. Nor do taxes pay for debts, which is how the debt managed to grow so much. In fact, tax rates are lower today than 30 years ago. And, nations do not refuse to lend to us. Nor do we even need nations to lend to us.

Why does this lie, which the most easily obtainable evidence shows to be wrong, have such widespread following and persistence? First, it has the requisite “shred of believability.” We think of the federal government as being like us – an anthropomorphic misunderstanding. If my debts grow too large, they are not sustainable. I might not be able to obtain the money to service them, and I even can go bankrupt. The same can be said of you, your business, your city, county and state. It even can be said of the European Union nations. But it cannot be said of the U.S. government.

I cannot create unlimited amounts of money to pay my bills. Nor can you, businesses nor local governments. Even Greece and Spain cannot, for they are constrained by EU rules. The U.S. government however, has no such constraints, as it proves every day. It can pay any bill of any size, immediately, simply by crediting the bank account of any creditor.

Then there is the collection of taxes. Local governments use taxes to pay their bills, which is why local governments can go bankrupt if taxes do not support spending. The federal government does not use taxes to pay its bills, because it alone has the unlimited power to create money. For that reason, our children and grandchildren will not pay for the debt. No one will. The government pays its debts by creating money, ad hoc.

The notion that federal borrowing replaces private borrowing has a quasi-arithmetic logic about it. “There is only so much money to lend, and if the government borrows it all, the funds will be used up and there will be none left for the private sector.” In reality, lending facilitates more lending. When you lend to the bank, by depositing in your bank account, this does not reduce the bank’s ability to lend. When the government borrows, it merely exchanges one form of money for another. It does not “use up” lending funds. And when the government spends, it creates lending funds.

Many nations often are used as an example of what excessive debts cause: Zimbabwe, WWII Germany, Brazil, Italy et al. But, each had special circumstances, that were unlike those in the U.S. and not directly related to excessive deficits. For instance, in the case of Zimbabwe, wars, corrupt leadership (Robert Mugabe), stealing farm land from owners, loss of exports and other problems caused its economic disaster.

As the media broadcast the lie, and more people came to believe it, the lie became a cascade. It became a truth unto itself, a self evident statement requiring no supporting evidence.

Are you old enough to remember when “Stomach ulcers are caused by emotional stress” was such a self-evident statement. No one doubted it, and no one asked for evidence, until one day it was discovered the vast majority of stomach ulcers are caused by a bacterium (Helicobacter pylori). Even today, some people cling to that original lie about ulcers.

In summary, when someone tells you the federal deficit and debt are too large, ask for factual evidence in the form of data. They will not provide factual evidence. They merely will give you more opinions (inflation, taxes, children, eventually, etc.) also unsupported by data. If you would rather depend on facts than on myth, read through the various posts on this blog, beginning with SUMMARY, and do read that article.

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

No nation can tax itself into prosperity

–Even Paul Volcker doesn’t get it.

An alternative to popular faith

If even Paul Volcker doesn’t get it, how can the man in the street hope to understand — unless the man in the street is willing to look at the facts and Volcker isn’t?

“5/19/2001: STANFORD, California (Reuters) – Europe’s debt crisis shows the risks for the United States if it does not get its budget deficits under control, former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker said on Tuesday. ‘If we need any further illustration of the potential threats to our own economy from uncontrolled borrowing, we have only to look to the struggle to maintain the common European currency, to rebalance the European economy, and to sustain political cohesion of Europe,’ Volcker said.
[…]The U.S. budget deficit hit $1.4 trillion in 2009, roughly 10 percent of the economy. The White House projects the deficit this year will reach $1.6 trillion. The large deficits have evoked comparisons to Greece. But in a speech to the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research in California, Volcker said the United States differs from that country and other small European countries whose credit markets have come under speculative attack. Unlike those countries, the United States benefits from well-established currency and credit markets that are considered safe havens in times of financial turmoil.
[…]’There are serious questions, most immediately about the sustainability of our commitment to growing entitlement programs,’ said Volcker, who heads an outside panel of experts advising Obama on the economy”
.

Here is Paul Volcker, who of anyone, should know better, saying the difference between the U.S. and European countries is we have a well-established currency. No, Mr. Volcker, the difference is we are a monetarily sovereign nation and the EU countries are not. And that difference makes all the difference.

Somehow, the fact that we are running trillion-plus deficits, with none of the problems the EU nations are experiencing, doesn’t seem to penetrate Mr. Volcker’s skull. He has the debt hawk’s “It-hasn’t-happened-yet-but-I’m-sure-one-day-it-will” mentality, rather than the scientist’s “It-hasn’t-happened-yet.-I wonder-why” mentality.

Mr. Volcker, the reason “it” (inability to service national debts) happened to Greece, but not to the U.S., is simple: The U.S. has the unlimited ability to pay its bills, merely by crediting creditors’ bank accounts. EU rules prevent Greece from doing this. Either Mr. Volcker truly doesn’t understand the difference, which would be remarkable, or he has been paid to adopt a debt hawk agenda that forces him to close his eyes to basic fact.

Anyone who says Greece’s problems foreshadow similar problems for the U.S. either is ignorant of the facts or a liar.

And by the way, for those debt hawks who keep warning us that deficits cause inflation, we’re running the deficits, but: “5/19/2010: WASHINGTON (AFP) – US consumer prices fell for the first time in 13 months in April, the government said Wednesday as analysts warned of the risk of deflation in the world’s largest economy.” Isn’t it inconvenient the way facts seem to get in the way of wrong opinion?

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

No nation can tax itself into prosperity

–What’s the deal with professional economists?

An alternative to popular faith

I probably shouldn’t generalize, but what’s the deal with professional economists? Why are so many blind to the obvious? Economics is a difficult, complex field, requiring substantial brain power to understand even the basics. There are no unintelligent professional economists. They are exposed to consumption theory, capital theory, the theory of economic growth, and the analysis of labor markets. Yet, many don’t understand the simple truths that all money is debt, and a growing economy requires a growing supply of debt.

They are taught such esoteric lessons as producer theory, consumer theory, choice under uncertainty, welfare analysis and mechanism design. Yet, many believe an expanded health care system is unaffordable for the government.

Professional economists learn general equilibrium analysis, social choice and welfare economics, cooperative, noncooperative game theory and repeated games and economics of information. Yet, many believe federal borrowing reduces the availability of lending funds.

They immerse themselves in time series analysis, ARMA models, VARs, and detrending, dynamic stochastic general equilibrium models of business cycles, and New Keynesian theories. Yet, many say a balanced federal budget is more prudent than a federal deficit.

They author and publish papers on linear/non-linear regression theory on estimation, consistency, asymptotic properties and hypothesis testing. Yet, many believe federal taxes pay for federal spending, our children and grandchildren will pay for federal deficits, and the US will have difficulty finding lenders.

They critique writings on panel data regression, maximum likelihood estimation for tobit, logit and probit estimations, generalized method of moment estimation, least absolute deviation estimation, quantile regression method, nonstationary time series, cointegration, UAR and Kalman filtering for the time-varying parameter estimation. Yet, many neither recognize that debt/GDP is a useless, highly misleading, apples/oranges ratio, nor that low interest rates do not stimulate the economy.

They speak on neoclassical growth model, endogenous growth theory, models of product variety, and Schumpeterian models. Yet, many do not understand the crucial differences between a monetarily sovereign government vs. Greece or Illinois.

Why do so many smart people closely examine minutia, while ignoring abundant, overwhelming and widely available evidence? In effect, professional economists seem to spend lifetimes examining and expounding on one dot in a pointillist work, while ignoring the Sunday Afternoon on the Island of la Grande Jatte?

What’s the deal with professional economists? Why are so many blind to the obvious?

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

No nation can tax itself into prosperity