Tag: money supply

–Recession redux: The EU bailouts. Digging the hole deeper. Lending to deadbeats.

The debt hawks are to economics as the creationists are to biology. They, who do not understand monetary sovereignty, do not understand economics. Cutting the federal deficit is the most ignorant and damaging step the federal government could take. It ranks ahead of the Hawley-Smoot Tariff.

Our recession was precipitated by the mortgage loan scandal. Too many banks lent too much money to people who had insufficient resources to service those loans. The banks should have known never to lend money to people who do not have the resources to pay it back. Simple?

Now compare that with the EU. Here are some excerpts from an article in the Telegraph, by By Bruno Waterfield:

“After a humiliating week of denying it needed help, the Dublin government succumbed to pressure from other euro zone countries and asked for a ‘very big’ loan.”

“On Monday Irish and euro zone governments will be watching the markets after Greece, which received a £94 billion bail-out in April, warned that the EU’s debt crisis was not finished yet.”

“Portugal has already warned that there is a “high risk” it might need economic help. If investors are unconvinced by the Irish rescue package, the euro could come under pressure while the cost of borrowing for the Dublin government could rise.”

“George Papaconstantinou, the Greek finance minister, warned that the Irish bailout would not be enough to plug the euro zone’s black hole of debt. ‘Even if Ireland is helped, it cannot prevent the debt crisis from continuing,’ he said ‘[It] will focus on other countries: Spain, Portugal.'”

Sound familiar? The EU, rather than using its own monetarily sovereign powers, and giving money to its monetarily non-sovereign members, it is lending money to these already insolvent countries, thereby adding to their inability to pay their debts — just like the U.S. banks did with their mortgage lending.

So now, the load falls on one of the few monetarily sovereign nations in the EU, the U.K. But wait. The U.K., which wisely did not adopt the euro, and so remained monetarily sovereign, doesn’t realize it’s monetarily sovereign, as witness this statement in the article:

“Douglas Carswell, the Conservative U.K. MP for Clacton, said that British involvement in the bail-out would anger eurosceptics who had voted Tory for a tougher line on Europe. ‘Yet again we see that the people we elected to run the country in May are powerless. All they can do is tell us how unhappy they are about it but they continue to hand out billions to Europe at a time of austerity for the country,’ he said.”

So Britain, which retained the unlimited ability to pay any bills of any size, now has opted instead for austerity, meaning money growth and economic growth will fall, leaving the U.K. headed for a second, easily preventable recession.

And finally,

“Negotiations have been tense as the EU and IMF impose tough conditions to force Ireland to cut public expenditure by £13billion (Â 15bn) and to increase taxation on the vast majority of people. Ireland’s last three budgets have already cut spending by £12billion. Trade unions are warning of ‘civil unrest’ on scale not seen for decades as leaks of the spending plan reveal that there will be sharp tax rises for the low paid and middle class families in order to increase state revenue.

Eamon Devoy, general secretary of the Technical Engineering and Electrical Union, said: ‘I think there is going to be huge civil unrest. When the draconian measures being proposed are heaped on top of cuts already implemented, life in Ireland will be unbearable.'”

Austerity. Civil unrest. Massive increases in unsupportable debt by monetarily non-sovereign governments. All unnecessary and all linked to two false beliefs: The belief that monetarily non-sovereign governments can continue indefinitely without financial support, and the belief that a monetarily sovereign nation needs to institute austerity.

In the U.S., the debt-hawks created such debt hysteria, that the only way to recover from a recession and grow the economy — i.e. with federal deficit spending — was partially blocked in the past, and now seems totally blocked. If the debt hawks have their way, we soon will be, like the EU monetarily non-sovereign nations, wallowing in poverty and civil unrest.

Please contact your Congresspeople and your local media, and tell them to educate themselves on the meanings and implications of monetary sovereignty, before it’s too late.

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

No nation can tax itself into prosperity. Those who say the stimulus “didn’t work” remind me of the guy whose house is on fire. A neighbor runs with a garden hose and starts spraying, but the fire continues. The neighbor wants to call the fire department, which would bring the big hoses, but the guy says, “Don’t call. As you can see, water doesn’t put out fires.”

–Ultimate irony: The debt-hawks create “death panels”

The debt hawks are to economics as the creationists are to biology. They, who do not understand monetary sovereignty, do not understand economics.

The debt-hawks are the right wing, “cut-federal-spending” folks, who also tended to be the people complaining about so-called “death panels” mentioned by Sarah Palin. Yet, these same people actually favor death panels:

By Rob Stein, Washington Post Staff Writer, Monday, November 8, 2010; 7:52 AM

“Federal officials are conducting an unusual review to determine whether the government should pay for an expensive new vaccine for treating prostate cancer, rekindling debate over whether some therapies are too costly.

“The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which dictate what treatments the massive federal health-insurance program for the elderly will cover, is running a ‘national coverage analysis’ of Provenge, the first vaccine approved for treating any cancer. The treatment costs $93,000 a patient and has been shown to extend patients’ lives by about four months.

“Although Medicare is not supposed to take cost into consideration when making such rulings,the decision to launch a formal examination has raised concerns among cancer experts, drug companies, lawmakers, prostate cancer patients and advocacy groups.

“Provenge, which was approved for advanced prostate cancer in April, is the latest in a series of new high-priced cancer treatments that appear to eke out only a few more months of life, prompting alarm about their cost.

“This absolutely is the opening salvo in the drive to save money in the health-care system,” said Skip Lockwood, who heads Zero – the Project to End Prostate Cancer, a Washington-based lobbying group. ‘If the cost wasn’t a consideration, this wouldn’t even be under discussion.’”

So there you have it. Sarah, speaking for the right-wing debt-hawks, complained mightily about “death panels.” Now we have a move toward death panels – by the Palinesque debt-hawks. The article goes on to say:

”Medicare officials, who are convening a panel of outside advisers to vet the issue at a public hearing Nov. 17, say Provenge’s price tag isn’t an issue. But Berwick and other officials declined to discuss the rationale for the review.
[. . . ]
“The review comes as the Food and Drug Administration considers withdrawing an approval for another expensive cancer treatment- Avastin for metastatic breast cancer – which triggered a similar debate even though the FDA too is not supposed to factor costs into its analyses.>/span>

[ . . . ]
“Some fear the move will discourage pharmaceutical companies from developing new cancer drugs.

“’It is extremely chilling if, after spending a huge sum of money, time and effort to get a drug through FDA approval, you’ll then have to go through it all again to see if CMS will pay for it,’ said Allen S. Lichter, head of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. “Firing a shot across the bow like this is not the way to have an intelligent and meaningful discussion about how we start to address the complex issue of drug costs.”

Then we have the non-economists telling us what America can and cannot afford:

“To charge $90,000 for four months, which comes out to $270,00 for a year of life, I think that’s too expensive,” said Tito Fojo of the National Cancer Institute. “A lot of people will say, ‘It’s my $100,000, and it’s my four months.’ Absolutely: A day is worth $1 million to some people. Unfortunately, we can’t afford it as a society.”

[ . . .]

“‘I’d like to think cost doesn’t need to come up when it’s a slam dunk,’ said H. Gilbert Welch of the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice. ‘But when it’s a close call like this, it certainly has to be a factor. That’s $100,000 Medicare can’t spend elsewhere.'”

Clearly, Fojo and Welch have no idea how a monetarily sovereign nation works. They either believe FICA pays for Medicare or that the federal government’s ability to pay for Medicare is limited – both wrong. Sadly, even a man who claims to be an economist doesn’t get it:

“’At some point, if we keep paying these very high prices for treatments that provide very limited benefit, we’re going to reach the point where we can no longer afford health care,’ said Alan Garber, a professor of medicine and economist at Stanford University. ‘Some say we’re living through that right now.’”

So in addition to denying America a recovery from the recession and so many of the other benefits of federal spending, the debt-hawks create the Palin death panels, and deny us health care – and all from ignorance.

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

No nation can tax itself into prosperity. Those who say the stimulus “didn’t work” remind me of the guy whose house is on fire. A neighbor runs with a garden hose and starts spraying, but the fire continues. The neighbor wants to call the fire department, which would bring the big hoses, but the guy says, “Don’t call. As you can see, water doesn’t put out fires.”

–What will the Fed’s $600 billion Treasury purchase accomplish?

The debt hawks are to economics as the creationists are to biology. They, who do not understand monetary sovereignty, do not understand economics.
==============================================================================================================================

Here’s how it works; you be the judge.

The first question is, if the Fed is buying, who is selling? Answer: The banks and the public. If the banks exchange their T-bonds for cash, will that stimulate the economy? Will that make banks more likely to lend? Are banks short of lending cash? The answers are, “No, no and no.”

Banks are not lending primarily because they can lend to the government, risk free, and make an easy 2% on their money. They are not short of lending funds. They don’t want the hassle of credit checking, defaults, collections, etc. Just borrow from the government at 0% and lend back at 2%. What could be easier?

The other reason banks haven’t lent is because business isn’t borrowing. Congress has made sure business has no idea what will happen, tomorrow. Taxes? Who knows? Interest rates? Unsure. A recovery? When? Expand my operations? Are you kidding? So with lenders and borrowers both unmotivated, lending is unlikely.

Well, what about the public? Do Fed bond purchases from the public stimulate the economy? When the Fed trades cash for T-bonds, this is tantamount to advancing the maturity date on those T-bonds. So what will the holder of T-bonds do when the government gives him cash for his bonds? He likes T-bonds, so if he can get a good price, he probably will buy more bonds – right back where he started.

But let’s say some people decide to invest those dollars in something other than T-bonds. Is that stimulative? Yes, but there is another problem. When the Fed buys bonds, the future interest on those bonds is not paid into the economy. The Fed’s purchase reduces future government interest payments, and that is anti-stimulative.

So my take on the $600 billion purchase is that it might have a very small and very temporary stimulative effect. Far better, and far more stimulative would be if the federal government cut taxes by $600 billion. But since our politicians don’t understand monetary sovereignty, that is unlikely to happen.

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

No nation can tax itself into prosperity. Those who say the stimulus “didn’t work” remind me of the guy whose house is on fire. A neighbor runs with a garden hose and starts spraying, but the fire continues. The neighbor wants to call the fire department, which would bring the big hoses, but the guy says, “Don’t call. As you can see, water doesn’t put out fires.”

–The Fed’s $500 billion bond purchase

The debt hawks are to economics as the creationists are to biology. Those, who do not understand monetary sovereignty, do not understand economics. Cutting the federal deficit is the most ignorant and damaging step the federal government could take. It ranks ahead of the Hawley-Smoot Tariff.
==========================================================================================================================================

Rumor has it the Fed soon will announce approximately $500 billion in Treasury bond purchases, with possibly more purchases in the future. The effect of the Fed buying government bonds will be to add dollars to the economy.

This is in recognition of two realities:

1. The economy has been starved for dollars by the economically suicidal, debt-hawk mantra of “lower federal deficits and less federal debt.” Bernanke and the Fed now will officially have acknowledged the economy needs more dollars and the federal government has to supply them.

2. Congress and the President either are ignorant of this economic fact or, more likely, are too afraid of the debt hawks to add dollars to the economy via deficit spending, and instead have passed that hot potato to the Fed.

The question now is whether adding $500 billion is sufficient to pull us out of this economic funk. I suspect it is not, and that something north of $1-2 trillion in actual spending will be needed.

Rather than relying on the indirect effect of bond purchases by the Fed, and hoping that somehow the dollars will find their way into the hands of business and consumers, Congress and the President should use a direct approach. They should reduce all tax rates and specifically eliminate FICA. That would provide both an immediate and long-lasting economic stimulus, resulting in stronger business and more jobs.

Yes, that would add to the dreaded and much maligned federal deficit and the debt, which is exactly what a growing economy needs. It also might bring the debt hawks to their senses, and finally we could stop, for instance, cutting Medicare payments to doctors and reducing Social Security benefits.

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

No nation can tax itself into prosperity. Those who say the stimulus “didn’t work” remind one of the guy whose house is on fire. A neighbor runs with a garden hose and starts spraying, but the fire continues. The neighbor wants to call the fire department, which would bring the big hoses, but the guy says, “Don’t call. As you can see, water doesn’t put out fires.”