Tag: GDP

–John Mauldin spreads the old myths

The debt hawks are to economics as the creationists are to biology.

You may have heard of John Mauldin, self described “investment writer/analyst.” He distributes an E-letter in which he discusses economics. I assume he has many readers who believe what he tells them. More’s the pity, because Mr. Mauldin seems to know little-to-nothing about economics.

Recently I received one of his E-letters, this one titled, “The Dark Side of Deficits.” Here are some direct quotes: “The research of Reinhardt and Rogoff demonstrates that when the government debt-to-GDP level gets to about 90%, trend growth seems to drop by about 1%. They do not offer an explanation, just an observation. My speculation is that it might be government spending and debt crowding out private savings, not leaving enough for productive private investment.”

Perhaps neither Reinhardt nor Rogoff offers an explanation simply because there is none. As readers of this blog know, the federal debt/GDP ratio is totally meaningless. “Federal debt” is the total accumulation of all federal debt for every year since the beginning of this nation; GDP is a one-year measure. Anyone quoting this ratio should stop, immediately. It is a nonsensical apples/oranges statistic.

At last count, Japan’s debt/GDP ratio was 210%, and according to a June, 2010 Associated Press article, “Earlier in the month, Japan upgraded its economic growth in the January-March quarter to an annualized pace of 5 percent from 4.9 percent in a preliminary report.” That’s with a 210% for the phony debt/GDP ratio!

Further, there is no economic mechanism for “government spending and debt to crowd out private savings.” The exact opposite is true. Federal deficit spending, which adds money to the economy, increases savings. The “crowding out” myth is so outrageously wrong, I never know whether to laugh at the ignorance or cry at the result of such beliefs.

Further quoting Mr. Mauldin, “. . . if we do not get control of our deficit spending, we (in the US) risk putting our growth in jeopardy.” Deficit spending adds money to the economy, and this economy is starved for money, but Mr. Mauldin suggests reducing the amount of money coming into the economy. Talk about putting our growth in jeopardy!

And here is a hint about the fundamental cause of Mr. Mauldin’s confusion. He says, “There are those among us who are like teenagers, wanting to make the easy choice and avoid the pain today, not worrying about the consequences down the road.” He seems to adopt the puritanical belief that anything easy or painless inevitably will have dire consequences. So he opts for the most painful solution to our recession — presumably some combination of painful tax increases and painful reduced federal support for things like Medicare, Social Security, infrastructure, environment, defense and education. I assume he has his teeth filled without novocaine.

Note to Mr. Mauldin: When someone is starving, the easiest, least painful choice is to feed them, not to remove food as you suggest. Money is the food of our economy, and adding money to a starving economy is the only sensible act.

But, of all the foolish comments in Mr. Mauldin’s E-letter, perhaps the most frightening was this one, describing his travels: “. . . back to Dallas for a speech to the local Tiger 21 group. Then, starting September 11, I fly to Amsterdam for the International Broadcasting Conference, then to Malta, Zurich, Mallorca, Denmark (speech open to public), and London, home for one day, and then off for a speech to Cambridge Brokers on the 24th. Then I’m in Houston on October 1 for another public speech.”

Good heavens, the man is going to innoculate and indoctrinate all those people with nonsense, and those people will tell others, who will tell others, and soon a huge number will believe they know something about economics, when in fact, they know less than nothing. They know wrong.

If you read Mr. Mauldin’s writings, just for laughs, then enjoy. But if you read for his economic analyses and his market predictions, be cautious.

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

No nation can tax itself into prosperity

–Open letter to John Mauldin re. his myths

      John Mauldin is President of Millennium Wave Advisors, LLC (MWA) which is an investment advisory firm registered with multiple states. He also is a registered representative of Millennium Wave Securities, LLC, (MWS) an NASD registered broker-dealer. He is the author of Thoughts from the Frontline, a blog at Mauldin.
      Recently, Mr. Mauldin wrote an article for his blog, and I wrote to him with a critique, as follows:

5/9/10
Mr. Mauldin:

      This note is sent to you in the spirit of helpfulness. Your article titled “The Center Cannot Hold,” quoting G. Cecchetti, M. S. Mohanty, and Fabrizio Zampolli contains several widely quoted, commonly believed myths. For example:

      Myth: “Long before we get to the place where we in the US are paying 20% of our GDP in interest (which would be about 80% of our tax collections, even with much higher tax rates) the bond market, not to mention taxpayers, will revolt. The paper’s authors clearly show that the current course is not sustainable.”
      Fact: Federal borrowing no longer (after 1971) is necessary nor even desirable. See: How to Eliminate Federal Deficits

      Myth: “A higher level of public debt implies that a larger share of society’s resources is permanently being spent servicing the debt. This means that a government intent on maintaining a given level of public services and transfers must raise taxes as debt increases.”
      Fact: Society’s resources do not service federal debt. See: Taxes do not pay for federal spending.

      Myth: “And if government debt crowds out private investment, then there is lower growth.”
      Fact: This also commonly is stated, “Government debt crowds out private borrowing” and government debt crowds out private lending.” There is no mechanism by which federal spending can crowd out investment, borrowing or lending. On the contrary, federal spending adds to the money supply, which stimulates investment, borrowing and lending. See: Why spending stimulates investment

      Myth: “A government cannot run deficits in times of crisis to offset the affects of the crisis, if they already are running large deficits and have a large debt. In effect, fiscal policy is hamstrung.”
      Fact: This is the strangest myth, since running deficits in a time of crisis is exactly what the U.S. government has been doing. It would be true of Greece and the other EU nations, but not of then U.S., Canada, Australia, China and other monetarily sovereign systems. See: Greece’s solution

      Myth: “[…] the current leadership of the Fed knows it cannot print money.”
      Fact: This myth is even stranger than the above “strangest” myth, since printing money is exactly what the Fed does. See: Unsustainable debt.

      Myth: “As frightening as it is to consider public debt increasing to more than 100% of GDP, an even greater danger arises from a rapidly aging population.”
      Fact: The famous federal debt/GDP ratio is completely meaningless – a classic apples/oranges comparison – that neither describes the health of the economy, nor measures the government’s ability to pay its bills nor has any other meaningful purpose. See: The Debt/GDP ratio

      If you would like to see more common myths about our economy, go to: Common economic myths

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

–Nonsense from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget

An alternative to popular faith

Demonstrating the bankruptcy of the typical debt-hawk position, here are excerpts from a long Email I just received from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a leading anti-debt advocate.

“The current fiscal path of the United States government is unsustainable. For the past forty years, our debt-to-GDP ratio has averaged around 40 percent. This year, it is projected to exceed 60 percent, the highest point since the early 1950s. […] By the end of the decade, debt is projected to be 90 percent of GDP, approaching our record high of around 110 percent after World War II. Things will deteriorate further as the Baby Boom retirement accelerates. Ten years later, the debt is expected to be well over 150 percent of GDP. By 2050, it is projected to be over 300 percent and still heading upward.” Though they claim the “fiscal path is unsustainable,” they project all the way to 2050. The lowest (since WWII) Debt/GDP ratio of about 35% came 70 years earlier, at 1979-1980, the end of the Carter administration, which also was the time of the highest inflation

 

Deficits vs inflation thru 09

[…]It is not at all clear how exactly such a crisis would unfold – what would prompt it or how it would play out. A crisis could occur as soon as this year, or decades from now. It could begin inside or outside the country. The crisis could be dramatic or gradual. It could come from an economic or another financial shock, or even a political surprise.” In short, “We don’t know when; we don’t know how; and we don’t know what. Otherwise, we’re sure.”

“Experts agree that we will be in a crisis when we can no longer service our debt obligations. However, we will probably never face this scenario.” This is the first time I ever have heard a debt hawk make this admission, which the author repeatedly forgets, later in the Email.

“There are a number of different crisis scenarios: Scenario 1: The Gradual Crisis – We stay the current course and try to muddle through. Our massive borrowing leads to less capital available for productive private investment, which lowers economic growth.“ Federal deficit spending adds money to the economy. There is no mechanism by which added money can reduce the supply of capital.

“Increasing debt service payments – particularly when interest rates return to normal – squeeze out other areas of the budget. The steady crowding out of government spending on programs that boost the economy, such as spending for education, infrastructure and innovation, will hurt our competitiveness.” This crowding out only can happen in a debt-hawk world, where deficits are restricted, either by tax increases or by reduced spending – a self-fulfilling prophecy.

“Scenario 2: The Political Risk Crisis – Political calculations trump risk threats. […] As a result, more budget resources are shifted from children to seniors, and from investment in programs boosting future growth. […] creditors lose confidence in U.S. fiscal management. Our creditors increasingly demand large risk premiums on purchases of their debt, sharply lower their purchases of our debt, or, in the worst case, stop buying our debt if the shift occurs suddenly. Credit ratings agencies lower our sovereign credit rating.” This neglects the simple fact that since the end of the gold standard, in 1971, the federal government no longer has needed to borrow its own money. Rather than borrowing by creating T-securities out of thin air, then selling them, the government can and should create money directly, and omit the borrowing step.

“Scenario 3: Catastrophic Budget Failure – An abrupt crisis occurs. […] at some point financial markets or foreign lenders decide we are no longer a good credit risk, possibly due to debt affordability concerns.” Debt affordability? Didn’t you just say,” Experts agree that we will be in a crisis when we can no longer service our debt obligations. However, we will probably never face this scenario.”

“[Creditors] stop buying our debt securities or demand dramatically higher interest rates due to increased perceived risk. […] In the extreme case, the U.S. may not be able to borrow at any interest rate.” Creditors concerned with hyperinflation or even default will not buy U.S. debt.” As we said, the U.S. no longer needs to sell debt. Issuance of Treasury securities could end today, and this would not change by even on penny, the government’s ability to spend.

“Scenario 4: Inflation Crisis – Higher debt is managed through inflation. […] Under strong political pressure, the Fed […] does not raise interest rates despite signs of increasing inflationary pressures. […] Fiscal consolidation will require spending cuts that will hurt safety net programs. Business investment incentives will disappear and tax rates will rise, as policymakers search for revenue. Household taxes rise and government services are reduced.” Wait. Isn’t that exactly what you are preaching – spending cuts and tax increases?

“Scenario 5: External Crisis -A dollar or trade crisis leads to a fiscal crisis. When the economy recovers in a few years, our current account deficit (which had narrowed during the recession) resumes widening to record levels. […] Capital inflows slow abruptly as investors see better risk-return opportunities elsewhere, decide the risks of the U.S. market are too high […] A sudden stop in lending lowers the dollar, increases inflation and interest rates[…]” A widening of the current account deficit means dollars leave the U.S., which if anything, would be anti inflationary.

“Scenario 6: Default Crisis – A series of events lead to a default.” Once again, you already have said the U.S. will not default.

“[…] Our need to pay higher interest rates increases debt service and crowds out public and private spending. […]” Higher interest rates increase the amount of money in the economy which facilitates private spending.

“[…}A new administration defaults or attempts to renegotiate our debts. Burned creditors stop buying U.S. debt or demand onerous interest premiums.[…]” Again, defaults? You’ve already discussed this impossibility.

“Countries that have sufficient domestic savings to finance their debt are less vulnerable than those that must attract considerable foreign capital – such as the United States. ” Totally false. The U.S. does not service its debt with savings. It creates money, ad hoc, to pay its debts.

“[…] Our large trade deficit outlook is considered unsustainable and a likely crisis flash point.”You already have admitted U.S. has the unlimited ability to service its debts. So what do you mean by “unsustainable”?.

“Some top economists argue that the U.S. can “afford” even more debt awhile longer because its debt service will still remain quite manageable. They also expect that the United States can avoid adjustment longer than fiscal policy norms might suggest because the dollar is the world’s reserve currency.” The debt service is manageable, not because the dollar is the world’s reserve currency, but rather because the government has the unlimited ability to pay its bills, and does not need to borrow.

“While certain countries are often cited to show that high sovereign debt ratios can be sustained without crisis (Italy, Belgium, Japan now), these countries – unlike the United States – can finance their debt through their substantial domestic savings.” Government debt is not financed through private savings. You and I do not pay federal debt with our savings.

“Many governments facing similar circumstances to the United States over the next generation have tried to avoid fiscal adjustment by running higher inflation to reduce their debt burden. Though appealing, this strategy hurts the economy and its citizens (particularly those on a fixed income).” There ever is a reason for a sovereign nation, in control of its money, to reduce its debt through inflation.

The entire premise of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget is that buyers of T-securities control the fate of the U.S., when in fact, the U.S., as the creator of dollars, no longer needs anyone to buy T-securities. This lack of understanding would be amusing were it not for the fact that the government acts on these beliefs.

One of the reasons we have been so slow to exit recession, is the government’s timid stimulus responses. The too little / too late, initial $150 per person mailing two years ago was restricted by debt fear. A $1,000-$2,000 per person mailing at that time, would have ended the recession.

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

–Ben Bernanke and the popular faith

An alternative to popular faith

According to the April 8, 2010 Wall Street Journal, “Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said Wednesday that huge U.S. budget deficits threaten the nation’s long-term economic health and should be addressed soon.” That is the popular faith, with “faith” being defined as belief without scientific evidence.

By using the words “addressed” and “soon” Mr. Bernanke is relieved of the responsibility to provide a specific solution or a timetable.

The Journal said, “In remarks to the Dallas Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Bernanke agreed […] that the economy, while improving is still too weak to bear all the new taxes and spending cuts that would come with an aggressive deficit reduction campaign.” The Journal continued, “Cutting the deficit ultimately will mean choosing between cutting (Social Security and Medicare) entitlements, raising taxes or other spending cuts.”

This is exactly correct. Federal deficits never have been shown to cause inflation (See: item #8. )or to have any other negative effect on people or on the economy in general. In fact, substantial evidence indicates that reducing deficits has caused nearly every recession and depression in our history. (See: Click here, items #3 and #4. )

By contrast, increasing taxes or cutting Medicare and Social Security benefits or cutting other expenses (defense, infrastructure, health care, food stamps, education, research, etc.) absolutely will have a negative effect on people and on the economy in general.

So which does a sane person choose, something not proven to have a negative effect or something proven to have a huge negative effect?

Mr. Bernanke worries large deficits cause high interest rates. He subscribes to the popular faith that low rates stimulate the economy, despite there being no historical relationship between interest rates and economic growth (See Item #10 ), as he should have learned from his, and his predecessor’s twenty futile rate cuts leading into the recession.

Quoting the Journal, “[…] higher rates push up borrowing costs for many businesses and consumers,” ignoring the many businesses and consumers who are lenders, and who benefit from higher rates. For every borrower there is a lender. All of you who own savings accounts, NOW accounts, money market accounts, corporate bonds and T-securities profit when rates are higher. It may surprise you to learn higher rates have been economically stimulative, because they’ve forced the government to pay more interest into the economy. Finally, some economic hypotheses indicate low rates were partly at fault for the housing bubble.

In summary, Mr. Bernanke promotes a goal with no proven benefit, provides neither a plan nor a timetable for achieving his goal, admits it would require tax increases and spending cuts, both of which hurt people and the economy, and he discusses a possible problem (high interest rates) history shows is more a benefit than a problem.

At long last, will someone please stand up and say, “The popular faith doesn’t seem to work. May we try something new?”

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