Tag: inflation

–The trade deficit myth

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

WASHINGTON (AFP) 10/14/10: The US trade deficit ballooned in August as the gap with China hit a fresh record, official data showed Thursday, suggesting further weakness in the economic recovery.

The Commerce Department said the August trade deficit rose nearly nine percent from July to 46.3 billion dollars. That was far worse than economists predictions of a 44.5 billion dollar gap. […] “The ongoing, American job-destroying leakage of national wealth to China confirms the House’s wisdom in passing the anti-currency manipulation bill last month,” said Alan Tonelson, a research fellow at the US Business and Industry Council.

“President Obama finally needs to wake up as well, urge Senate passage, and help American businesses and their employees fight foreign protectionism,” he said.

Look at the pejorative words used to describe the trade deficit: “Ballooned,” “weakness,” “far worse,” “job-destroying,” “leakage of national wealth,” “foreign protectionism.” Sounds like we are one step from financial disaster, and the trade deficit is pushing us there.

But what does “trade deficit” mean? Simple: It means foreign countries send fewer of our dollars to us, than we send to them. Where did the dollars we send to foreign countries come from? We created them out of thin air. And were did the dollars foreign countries send to us come from? We created them too, also out of thin air.

The U.S. is monetarily sovereign, meaning the U.S. federal government has the unlimited ability to create dollars – as many as it wants, whenever it wants. Given that unlimited ability, why would we care how many U.S. dollars foreign governments send us?

Further, our imports help supply us with the world’s best, cheapest, most convenient, most desirable goods and services, else we wouldn’t import them. We get the best of everything, and all we have to do is give the world our dollars, which we create at the touch of a computer key. So what’s the problem?

“But,” you say, “all this importing destroys American jobs.” Oh, really?

First, let’s be honest, it really isn’t jobs we want. We want money. Not that Americans are lazy, but for the vast majority of people in this world, jobs merely are a means to an end, and the end is acquisition ability.

So when we bemoan unemployment, we really bemoan lack of income. Unemployment and employment figures should be replaced with acquisition-ability figures. If domestic unemployment were 90%, but every man, woman and child had the financial ability to acquire everything he/she wanted, we would be a wealthy country. (Think of a nation with all the citizens living on generous, guaranteed pensions, and all the work being done by foreigners – something similar to an extreme Saudi Arabia.)

Today, the problem is not that the economy is starved for jobs. The problem is that the economy is starved for money. Ironic isn’t it, when you consider that our own government can create all the money we need.

Second, the main inhibition of job creation is not foreigners working for low wages and receiving “strong” money. The main problem is taxes. We want our businesses to be more competitive, so what do we do? We tax them.

We want businesses to hire more people, so we make them pay a FICA tax on every single hire. And we make them pay a tax on the profits they otherwise could use for expansion and hiring.

Then we tax the employees, so they have less to spend on goods and services. And we want more investment, so we tax the profits on investment. And when the federal government is finished taxing, the states levy more taxes, and the counties levy even more and the cities levy more, yet.

And when every American is taxed, taxed and taxed again, we blame foreigners for ruining our economy.

Rather than railing against foreign protectionism, our first step should be to cut taxes – especially since the federal government, the unlimited creator of dollars, neither needs nor uses tax money.

If the federal government immediately would eliminate FICA, and support Social Security and Medicare by deficit spending, the recession would end, today. And if the federal government would send each state a flat amount of money according to population – say $10,000 per person – we would have instant prosperity for all states, counties and cities.

Trade deficit merely means sending more dollars overseas than “overseas” sends to us. This leaves us “starved” for dollars, and all the while we are the sole creators of dollars. Does this make sense?

And oh yes, deficit spending has not caused inflation since we went off the gold standard in 1971. Not only are we a long way from inflation, but inflation easily is cured. So let’s not use phony fears of inflation as an excuse for keeping those economy destroyers called “taxes.”

Oh, you don’t believe me about inflation? Well consider this. The effect of exports is to bring dollars into the U.S. economy, which is identical with what federal deficit spending does. So if you like exports, you should like federal deficit spending, for exactly the same reason.

“The fault is not in our foreign neighbors, but in ourselves.”

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

No nation can tax itself into prosperity

 

–“How to Slash the State: 14 ways to dismantle a monstrous government, one program at a time”

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

The November 2010 issue of reason.com contains an article titled, “How to Slash the State: 14 ways to dismantle a monstrous government, one program at a time”

It’s a thoughtful article, but only if you believe the federal government should be smaller, the federal deficit should be lower and taxpayers pay for federal spending. Unfortunately, there is no evidence to support any of these three beliefs. In fact, all the evidence points to the need for ever increasing federal deficit spending, i.e. money creation. (A growing economy requires a growing supply of money.) Also, in a monetarily sovereign nation, taxes do not pay for federal spending (though taxes do pay for state and local spending, as the states, counties and cities are not monetarily sovereign).

Further, some of the “dismantling” they suggest is more like shifting, because some of the suggestions merely push expenses from the federal government (which has unlimited money) to state and local governments (which are having great difficulty paying their bills) – a terrible idea.

Nevertheless, here are the ideas, with my comments.

1. Overhaul Medicaid
“stop the matching grant funding process, in which states receive federal money for each Medicaid dollar they spend” or “scrap the program entirely in favor of a temporary assistance program that doesn’t create long-term dependency.”

The first part of the suggestion shifts more burden to the struggling states, which are not monetarily sovereign, and so cannot create unlimited money. The second part of the suggestion goes under the heading, “These Medicaid recipients aren’t really poor; they are lazy. If we stop giving them help, they’ll go to work.” That simply is nuts.

2. Bring the Troops Home
“. . . a swift and total deoccupation . . . probably would save “$50 billion to $70 billion in fiscal 2011 and perhaps $80 billion to $100 billion a year in 2012 and beyond.”

I’d like to see the troops come home, but not for financial reasons. I have no idea why we’re in Afghanistan, but saving money is a foolish way to manage a war. It kills soldiers.

3. Erase Federal Education Spending
“. . . the federal education budget is full of cuttable programs. If eliminating the entire Department of Education is politically impossible, then the programs with the most tenuous relationships to raising student achievement need to be the first to go.”

This falls under the “make government more efficient” heading. Sure, who can argue with that, but again, it’s not a money thing. It’s an effectiveness thing.

4. Slash State Budgets
“ . . . lawmakers have been living way beyond their means for far too long.”

Not sure what this has to do with the federal government, but I love it. Any specific ideas?

5. End Defined-Benefit Pensions
“ . . . public servants of the future should be put into 401(k) plans like the rest of us, with responsibility to contribute to and manage their own retirement nest eggs.”

This would mean federal employees would receive less money, which would be anti-growth. I agree however, for state and local government employees, as the state and local governments spend taxpayer money.

6. Declare Defeat in the Drug War
“To enforce drug prohibition, state and federal agencies spend more than $40 billion and make 1.7 million arrests every year. This effort wastes resources that could be used to fight predatory crime. . . While imprisoned (as half a million of them currently are), drug offenders cannot earn money or care for their families, which boosts child welfare costs.”

I agree, but again not for money reasons. Prohibition didn’t work in the 1920’s. I can’t imagine why the public and the politicians think it will work, today. Prohibition caused crime in the 1920’s. It causes crime, today. The war on drugs is a perfect example of how the government and the public are incapable of learning from experience.

7. Cancel the Federal Communications Commission
“. . . just about everything the FCC does is either onerous, constitutionally dubious, ineffective, or all three.. . . its role as broadcast censor . . . The best alternative is a world in which spectrum is freely tradable private property rather than a government-managed resource, interference is treated as a tort, and no one worries about whether their next on-air word will result in a seven-figure fine—in other words, a world with no FCC at all.”

The FCC’s role as public scold is useless – actually harmful. The Internet has eliminated the prohibition against swear words, as today one easily can find the most pornographic videos. Fining CBS for Janet Jackson’s 1 second breast reveal, while every sexual act imaginable is available on the Internet, is just plain silly. But, the limited public bandwidth has to be managed to prevent monopolies.

8. Uproot Agriculture Subsidies
“They distort markets and spark trade wars. They make food staples artificially expensive, while making high-fructose corn syrup—the bogeyman of crunchy parents, foodies, and obesity activists everywhere—artificially cheap. They give farmers incentives to tamper with land that would otherwise be forest or grassland. They encourage inefficient alternative energy programs by artificially lowering the price of corn ethanol compared to solar, wind, and other biomass options. School lunches are jammed full of agricultural surplus goods, interfering with efforts to improve the nutritional value (and simple appeal) of the meals devoured by the nation’s chubby public schoolers.”

I agree. Any time the federal government subsidizes an industry, it controls that industry. So you have bureaucrats determining what food is best. While those agriculture subsidies are stimulative, in that they add money to the economy, they distort the market.

9. Unplug the Department of Energy
“. . . more than half of the department’s $26 billion budget ($16 billion) was devoted to managing . . . facilities that make and dispose of materials used for nuclear weapons. . . If Congress and the White House must pursue the development of alternative energy via social engineering, a far more effective alternative to allowing DOE bureaucrats to pick technology “winners” would be a tax on conventional energy. The boost in energy prices would at least encourage inventors and entrepreneurs to get to work.”

All taxes hurt the economy. Taxing energy would tax us all, as we all use energy. The federal gasoline tax has accomplished nothing but take money out of the economy. It certainly has not reduced the consumption of gasoline. It has been an economic cost. This falls under the heading: “If something is harmful, do it again, only more so.” Once again, a failure to learn from experience.

10. Dismantle Davis-Bacon
“. . . which requires all workers on federal projects costing more than $2,000 to be paid the “prevailing wage,” which typically means the hourly rate set by local unions. . . . born as a racist reaction to the presence of Southern black construction workers on a Long Island, New York, veterans hospital project.”

I agree. See #8. It’s another example of the federal government distorting the market, this time the labor market.

11. Repeal the Stimulus
“. . . as of early September, 18 months after the stimulus was passed, an estimated $301 billion remained unspent. That money should be banked, not wasted . . . deficit spending has crowded out private investment.”

A demonstration of financial ignorance. There is no way federal money can be “banked.” And there is no way deficit spending can “crowd out” anything. This is a myth. Without deficit spending, we would be in the deepest depression one could imagine. Of all 14 suggestions, this is the most ignorant.

12. Spend Highway Funds on Highways
“ . . . just to maintain the Interstate Highway System at a decent level is $10 billion to $20 billion per year. . . . lesser highways should all be the states’ problem.”

In other words, transfer the cost from the federal government, which can afford it, to the state governments, which can’t. And how does this help the taxpayer?

13. Privatize Public Lands
“Letting the states manage this land instead would take up to $5 billion a year off the federal books. . .One Forest Service contractor in Arizona recently offered to take over six state parks targeted for closure amid budget cuts. The concessionaire would collect the same visitor fees the state charges today while taking the operations and maintenance costs off the state’s books entirely. Further, the company would pay the state an annual “rent” based on a percentage of the fees collected, turning parks into a revenue generator instead of a money eater.”

In the very few cases where a private company could do this, profitably and under federal supervision, it could be a good idea. Now let’s talk about the other 99% of the public lands. Get real.

14. End (or at Least Audit) the Fed

It’s not explained how auditing would cut federal spending. Bernanke warned that opening the Fed’s books would diminish the central bank’s political independence. I believe him. Imagine relying on Congress to make quick economic decisions. These people can’t decide to go to the bathroom without the threat of filibuster. Let’s face it. The most dysfunctional of all federal agencies is Congress.

In summary, most of these suggestions simply are foolish or would not save taxpayers anything. A couple have some value, not because they “save” money, but because they are good governing policy. All are based an the false assumption that federal spending should be reduced.

Think of the economy as a child and money is its food. Today, the child is starving. To make the child healthy, we must feed it. As the child grows, it will need an increasing amount of food. Yes, if you overfeed the child, it will become fat (inflate), but we are a long way from that. The debt hawks want to starve the child, and then always are surprised when it becomes ill.

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

No nation can tax itself into prosperity

–How the debt-hawks would “save” Social Security and Medicare

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

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget proposes the following steps to “save” Social Security and Medicare. The CRFB projects the indicated 10-year federal savings (more correctly, “increases in payments by you”). If the numbers are correct (big “IF”), here are the implications:

Medicare:

“Increase Cost-Sharing” Government pays $150 billion less. Americans will pay $150 billion more for our health insurance.

“Enact Medicare Malpractice Liability Reform” Government pays $60 billion less. Americans will be limited as to what we will receive in the event of serious negligence by a doctor or hospital.

“Limit Tax Exclusion on Employer-provided Health Care” Government receives $250 billion more from all employees. This is a $250 billion tax increase for working people.

“Increase Medicare Eligibility Age to 67” $60 “savings” for federal government. We will have to buy private insurance for two additional years – our older years when private insurance is most costly.

“Strengthen the Independent Payment Advisory Board ((PAB).” Government “saves” $30 billion. “Strengthen” is a euphemism. The purpose of PAB is to reduce federal payments for drugs and medical procedures. We Americans will pay $30 billion more.

Social Security:

“Use ‘more accurate’ measure of inflation to calculate cost-of-living adjustments.” Government pays $140 billion less. “More accurate” is a euphemism meaning, “more restrictive.” Result: We’ll receive lower benefits.

“Slow the growth of benefits for middle-and high income earners” Government pays $25 billion less. Remember how the Alternative Minimum Tax was only supposed to affect “rich” people? This proposal eventually would penalize nearly all Americans.

Raise the retirement age to 68, then increase it further, based on life expectancy. Government savings: $? Social Security already pays you nothing if you die before retirement, and not even a living wage if you live after retirement. Now they want to raise the retirement age, so we receive less, and receive it later.

Increase FICA by another 1% for anyone making more that $56,000 per year. Government savings: $? Since you pay 7.65% and your boss pays another 7.65%, that “little 1%” amounts to an 6.5% FICA tax increase.

Thus, does the mistaken belief that Social Security and Medicare will go bankrupt, erode our quality of life. The federal government is a monetarily sovereign nation, which means it cannot go bankrupt. It can produce unlimited money to pay debts of any size. Similarly, Social Security and Medicare never can go bankrupt, nor can the Department of Defense, Congress, the Supreme Court or any other federal agency. No agency of the federal government can go bankrupt.

Debt-hawks wrongly believe FICA pays for Social Security and Medicare. It does not. FICA could be eliminated, and this would not affect by even one penny, the federal government’s ability to support these federal agencies.

Even the most obtuse debt-hawk recognizes the ability of the federal government to create enough money to pay any bill of any size. So what is the concern? It all boils down to fear of inflation. But, since we went off the gold standard, inflation has not been related to federal deficits (See: INFLATION), and inflation easily is prevented and cured by interest rate control. So in brief, debt-hawks prefer the absolute surety of great harm to us today, because they have the unreasoned, unsubstantiated fear that maybe, possibly, perhaps we sort of might have some unknown degree of inflation at some unknown time in the theoretical future.

Organizations like the CRFB do great harm, by supporting unnecessary limitations on Social Security and Medicare. And that’s not all. Their grim calls for austerity, their unreasoned fear of inflation, has limited the government’s ability to cure this recession, costing millions of people their homes, their livelihoods and their happiness. Debt-hawks claim fiscal responsibility, when in fact they are the most irresponsible people imaginable, prescribing bitter snake-oil cures for real economic problems.

My only hope is that when these debt-hawks personally need help from Social Security and Medicare, the limitations they have supported make benefits unavailable to them. And I hope this recession causes them the great grief they have caused the rest of this nation. That would be justice.

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