Tag: Greece

–Does China need to export as much as it does?

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

It widely is believed China must continue to increase its exports to maintain its economic growth and to pay its massive population. The desire for growing exports is what drives China’s reluctance to revalue the yuan upward.

But, does China’s economy really rely on ever-increasing exports? China is a Monetarily Sovereign nation. As such it has the unlimited ability to create its own sovereign currency.

Think of what happens when Chinese Factory “A” exports to the United States. Factory “A” receives dollars, a foreign currency it cannot use to pay its workers. So how does Factory “A” pay its workers? It exchanges these dollars for the yuan China creates from thin air.

This means, for every dollar Chinese Factory “A” receives, the Chinese government creates 6.7 yuan (current exchange rate), which it gives to Factory “A” in exchange for U.S. dollars. Factory “A” pays its workers with yuan, created by the Chinese government, while the Chinese government amasses dollars.

The Chinese government can use some of those dollars for international trade (oil purchases, etc.), but many become T-securities held in China’s account at the Federal Reserve Bank. In short, China’s economic growth requires the Chinese government to create yuan from thin air.

If Chinese factories exported less and received fewer dollars, the Chinese government could continue to create and distribute the same number or yuan as now. The only difference: Instead of giving these yuan to its people in exchange for many dollars, it merely would give those same yuan to the people, while receiving fewer dollars.

There would be less accumulation of T-securities at the FRB, a difference that has scant effect on the Chinese worker or on the Chinese economy.

How would the Chinese government give yuan to its people, if it were not exchanging yuan for dollars? Answer: More domestic deficit spending on things like roads, health care, retirement benefits, etc. A case might be made that the Chinese population would be better off receiving salaries for building domestic roads, providing domestic health care, etc., than receiving salaries for creating toys, clothing and other export items of no domestic value.

Without exports, the Chinese government would create about the same number of yuan as it now creates with exports. The entire domestic process would be affected very little. Yes, China can use U.S. dollars for certain imports, but I suspect it already has stockpiled enough dollars for that purpose to last several lifetimes, so the question becomes: Does China need to export as much as it does?

Monetarily non-sovereign nations like the PIIGS, which cannot produce unlimited amounts of money, need to have a positive balance of payments. So the other question is: Why does the U.S., which is monetarily sovereign, want to increase exports?

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

No nation can tax itself into prosperity

–The “impossible” cure for stagflation

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

Stagflation is economic stagnation or high unemployment combined with high inflation. Here is what a Wikipedia author said. “It is a difficult economic condition for a country, as both inflation and economic stagnation occur simultaneously and no macroeconomic policy can address both of these problems at the same time”

This is one statement with which, both mainstream economists and Modern Monetary Theorists (MMT) seem to agree. I disagree with both.

Economic stagnation, high unemployment and recession all indicate the same fundamental problem: The economy is starved for money. Inflation (wrongly) is felt to be caused by too much money, which is why we experience the universal belief that “no macroeconomic policy can address both of these problems at the same time.”

Stagflation is most likely to occur when oil prices spike. A rapid increase in oil prices causes inflation. It also has a negative effect on production and economic growth. U.S. stagflation could occur, even in the near future, were any major oil producing states, for economic or political reasons, decide to reduce production dramatically.

Debt hawks (aka mainstream economists) would address stagflation with increased federal spending, while simultaneously increasing taxes to “pay for” the spending. The benefits of the increased spending would be offset by the damages of increased taxation. The former adds money to the economy; the later removes money from the economy — equal and opposite effects.

Even today, as we try to recover from the worst recession in decades, debt hawks continue to demand increased taxes to “pay for” spending, not realizing that in a monetarily sovereign nation, taxes do not pay for spending. Simultaneously, the Fed, wrongly believing interest rate cuts stimulate the economy, would lower rates, thereby exacerbating the inflation.

The Fed believes this, because raising interest rates does cure inflation, and for reasons known only to the Fed, they believe inflation is the opposite of recession, so for recessions, they do the opposite. Unfortunately for Fed theorists and for us citizens, the opposite of inflation is deflation, not recession, so doing the opposite doesn’t work.

MMT followers also would increase spending (good) and increase taxes (bad), because they believe taxes control inflation.

In short, MMT and debt hawk economists would follow the same path, an irony lost on both groups, each of which correctly claims the other does not understand current economics.

To cure stagflation, one must deal with two distinct problems – recession and inflation – using two distinct solutions. The solution for recession is federal deficit spending. Money is the lifeblood of an economy. During a recession, an economy suffers from “anemia,” a shortage of money. The treatment for anemia is to increase the blood supply. The government’s deficit spending adds money to the economy, curing the stagnation. Deficit spending can be accomplished by cutting taxes, increasing spending or both.

Then, to cure the inflationary part of stagflation, the government must raise interest rates, thereby increasing the reward for owning money, i.e increasing the value of money.

Increase deficit spending while increasing interest rates: The simple solution for taxation. Why will the government not take these easily administered steps? Because the mainstream economists wrongly belief deficit spending causes inflation, while MMT wrongly believes tax increases control inflation, and the Fed wrongly believes raising interest rates slows the economy.

Until these three groups understand economic realities, please pray we don’t encounter a stagflation, because the government will find it incurable.

Summary of how each group would attempt to defeat stagflation:

Mainstream economics (debt hawks):
Reduce taxes to stimulate economy
Reduce federal spending to cut federal debt
Increase interest rates to fight inflation
(Result: Reduction in federal spending nullifies tax reduction and exacerbates recession)

Modern Monetary Theory:
Increase taxes to fight inflation
Increase spending to stimulate economy
Reduce interest rates to fight inflation
(Result: Tax increase nullifies spending increase and exacerbates recession. Reduced interest rates exacerbate inflation)

Mitchell:
Reduce taxes to stimulate economy
Increase spending to stimulate economy
Increase interest rates to fight inflation
(Result: Tax reduction & spending increase cure recession; interest rate increase cures inflation)

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

No nation can tax itself into prosperity

–Britain’s grand experiment: The debt hawk agenda

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

This should be interesting.

Here are some quotes from The Economist:
“The budget, unveiled by George Osborne, the new chancellor of the exchequer, in June: To balance the books, he raised some taxes, notably VAT, but three-quarters of the savings will come from spending cuts. Most government departments will shrink by a quarter, though Mr Osborne excluded the National Health Service from his savagery. In the heated debate between Keynesian economists (who worry that a weak world economy needs more government spending) and fiscal hawks (who believe deficits must be tackled now to stave off Grecian disaster), Britain is the prime exhibit for tough love.”

“Mr Osborne plans to get the job essentially done by 2014-15. If all goes to plan, the deficit will fall from 11% of GDP in 2009-10 to 2.1% in 2014-15. The structural deficit, which strips out the effects of the economic cycle, will drop from 8.7% of GDP to 0.8%. On a similar basis, the government will by then be running a small surplus on the current budget, which excludes net investment (due to be slashed anyway over the next couple of years). This is a much faster retrenchment than the previous Labour government envisaged. It planned to return the cyclically-adjusted current budget to balance in 2016-17. Labour’s fiscal consolidation would have amounted to 4% of GDP by 2014-15; Mr Osborne is aiming at 6.3%.”

Never mind that Britain can’t have a “Grecian disaster.” Britain is monetarily sovereign. Greece is not. Completely different situations. Raise taxes; cut spending. Government runs a surplus. That is the debt hawk mantra. If Britain actually follows through on these steps (doubtful), it will suffer terribly.

All you debt hawks out there; what is your prediction?

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

No nation can tax itself into prosperity

–What the Wall Street Journal editors want

An alternative to popular faith

Today (6/26/10), in an editorial titled, “The Keynesian Dead End,” the Wall Street Journal editors said, “. . .$1 in (federal) spending has to come from somewhere, which means in taxes or borrowing from productive parts of the private economy.”

Wrong, wrong and wrong. Federal spending relies neither on taxes nor on borrowing. For today’s monetarily sovereign nations, federal spending neither is constrained nor facilitated by any form of income, either from taxes or borrowing. Federal spending is accommodated by the simple device of crediting bank accounts, which the government can do endlessly. If taxes and borrowing were reduced to $0, this would not affect by even one penny, the federal government’s ability to spend.

Further, “. . . borrowing from the productive parts of the private economy” implies that T-bill purchases somehow remove money from the private economy. In fact, T-bill purchases merely are an exchange of money within the private economy. When you buy a T-bill, your checking account at your local bank is debited and your savings account at the Federal Reserve Bank is credited. (Yes, by virtue of your T-bill purchase, you have a savings account at the Fed.)

No money is lost. It merely is moved from your checking to your savings account. Actually, money is gained, because when the T-bill matures, the money will be moved back to your checking account, plus interest.

The Journal editors also said, “Now the political and fiscal bills are coming due even as the U.S. and European economies are merely muddling along,” as a prelude to several references equating the U.S. with the EU. The editors do not know something so basic as the difference between monetarily sovereign nations and nations not monetarily sovereign. Without this knowledge, any understanding of economics is impossible.

The WSJ editors claim to favor lower taxes, less spending and lower deficits. At various times, the editors also have preached in favor of a stronger army, better schools, federal supervision of banks and other financial firms, better roads, defense of our borders, defense against terrorism, safer food, better retirement, better unemployment insurance, police, health care, rescue from hurricanes, oil spills and other disasters, more jobs, a better environment and a long list of other benefits. (One is reminded of the confused Tea Party platform).

The WSJ editors are like the person who says, I want to eat more, exercise less and lose weight. Let’s be clear. Under the current system, if you cut taxes you increase the deficit, unless you cut spending even more, which means you can’t have the stronger army, better roads et al. Of course, there is one solution, which the editors don’t even consider. If you eliminate borrowing, you can cut taxes without increasing the deficit. Without borrowing, there is no debt or deficit, and as we’ve shown many times previously, government spending does not require government income.

Finally, the WSJ editors said, “The Reagan and Clinton-Gingrich booms were fostered by a policy environment for most of that era of lower taxes, spending restraint and sound money.” Spending restraint?? Have the editors forgotten how Reagan began the largest debt growth in post WWII history, and how Clinton’s surplus introduced the 2001 recession?

I should commend the WSJ editors for one statement: “ . . . much of the U.S. stimulus went for transfer payments such as Medicaid and unemployment insurance . . . “ True, and a perfect reason why taxes ostensibly “for” Medicaid and unemployment insurance should be eliminated. Federal taxes do not pay for federal spending.

The balance of the editorial contained the usual fulmination about the size of the federal debt and deficits, with also, as usual, no facts showing how debt and deficits harm the economy. They end their editorial this way: “With the economy in recession in 2008 and 2009, we argued that some stimulus was justified and an increase in the deficit was understandable and inevitable.”

So, to summarize the WSJ position: Deficits were justified when times were bad; they are not justified when times are good. Today, times are bad and deficits are not justified.

Do you wonder why our politicians are confused?

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

No nation can tax itself into prosperity