Tag: money

–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

–The “unsustainable” federal debt lie.

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

You’ll read and hear a great deal now, before the November elections, about how to stimulate the economy. Nearly all of what you will read and hear is nonsense. I’ll quote from a typical article, this by David Kocieniewski, published in the New York Times on September 10, 2010:

“. . . economic research suggests that tax cuts, though difficult for politicians to resist in election season, have limited ability to bolster the flagging economy because they are essentially a supply-side remedy for a problem caused by lack of demand.”

Taxes remove money from the economy. Therefore, tax cuts prevent removal of money from the economy. Functionally, there is no difference between a tax cut and a spending increase. “Supply side” vs. “lack of demand” is economic gibberish.

“The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office . . . (said) tax cuts for high earners would have the smallest ‘bang for the buck,’ because wealthy Americans were more likely to save their money than spend it.”

This is the “first use” myth – the belief that dollars stop after their first use. What do wealthy Americans (or any Americans) do with money they save? They bank it and invest it. The money instantly goes to such investments as bank accounts, stocks, bonds, real estate, CDs, etc. In short, the money goes to other people and businesses, which borrow from those banks and own those stocks, bonds, real estate, CD, etc.

Then those people instantly either spend, invest or save the money, and it moves into other hands. With every step, a fraction of the money is spent. In one year, an individual dollar may pass through hundreds of hands, which adds up to a great deal of spending. Money never stops moving from hand to hand, a fact the politicians never seem to grasp.

“. . . direct payments to the unemployed and Social Security recipients or reducing the payroll taxes of workers . . . are considered politically untenable with many elected officials reluctant to even utter the word “stimulus” after the $787 billion stimulus.”

Why is “stimulus” a bad word? Because the recession was not completely cured by the stimuli used. Imagine your house is burning. The fire fighters pour water on it. The fire goes down, but not completely out. So the fire fighters stop. “Water” has become a bad word., because the fire still is smoldering. This is the logic that now rules our economy, while your house continues to burn.

“’. . . firms don’t hire based on tax breaks; they hire based on demand,’ said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. “So a lot of the tax breaks are likely to be rewarding people and companies for that they were going to do anyway.”

Mr. Williams, it’s not a matter of “rewarding people.” It’s a matter of not removing money from the economy. Personal taxes, business taxes, taxing the rich, taxing the poor – all taxes remove money from the economy. One dollar in taxes removes exactly one dollar from the economy, no matter who is taxed.

“(Predicted) surpluses have now become crushing deficits . . .”

Exactly, what is “crushing” about federal deficits? Has anyone noticed any federal difficulty servicing its debts? Today, we are talking about tax cuts, so who exactly is being crushed? This is classic debt-hawk mythology.

“The specter of a ballooning national debt has led even some of the early supporters of the cuts, including the former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, to advocate letting them expire.”

Does this man still retain any credibility? Isn’t he the guy who thought interest rate cuts would prevent the recession?

“‘We don’t think taxes ought to be increased in the middle of a recession for anyone,” (said) Senator Mitch McConnell. . .”

Exactly right.

“The Obama administration dismisses that argument, saying that nearly a third of the cost of the cuts — more than $700 billion during the next decade — would go to the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans.”

Are they ignorant or just playing politics – or both? They want to remove $700 billion from the economy, simply because the first people to touch it would be rich?? What about the second, third and fourth people to touch it?

“One curious omission in the Obama plan is the tax cut proposal that many, including the Congressional Budget Office, believe would do the most to spur hiring: a payroll tax holiday. According to various news reports, Obama economic advisers passed on the idea because they feared it would be too expensive or would deprive Social Security and Medicare of crucial revenue. Administration officials declined to discuss their decision.”

Page 149 of my book, FREE MONEY, asks the question, “Which taxes should be eliminated first.” The answer given: “Eliminate Social Security and Medicare taxes.” I discuss this further at “Ten Reasons to Eliminate FICA”

“Edward D. Kleinbard, former chief of staff of the bipartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, said the reliance on tax expenditures had distorted the budget process because it induced the public to overlook the fact that — unless they are accompanied by spending reductions — tax cuts have the same effect on the deficit as additional spending. . . . The debate has become so unrealistic it makes you want to scream.”

No, what really makes you want to scream is the ridiculous, unsubstantiated, totally wrong belief that deficits are a bad thing – so bad in fact, they are worse than recessions and slow economic recovery. So long as politicians do not learn that not only is deficit spending necessary, but an increasing rate of deficit spending is necessary, we will continue to have a recession on average, every five years.

Heaven save us from them.

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

No nation can tax itself into prosperity

–A solution for unemployment

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

The single most contentious subject in our economy is unemployment. Everyone is against it, but there is scant agreement about how to reduce it. Most of the suggested efforts involve federal spending of some sort, but there is widespread agreement among politicians, economists and the media, that the federal deficits and debt should not be increased.

So countless hours have been spent trying to find just the right combination of targeted spending and tax increases, that would reduce unemployment in a “revenue neutral” way, the belief being that some government spending and some tax cuts reduce unemployment while other spending and tax cuts do not.

As to which does which is not known by anyone, though ample, strong opinions are rife. So we offer this graph:

The above graph shows one of the more remarkable correspondences you will find in economics. Most of the time, when deficit growth goes up, unemployment tends to go down, and vice versa. Though one may argue that correspondence does not equal cause/effect, it certainly is suggestive. And what it suggests is this: Increases in federal deficit growth help prevent and cure unemployment, while decreases in federal deficit growth help cause and increase unemployment.

Yes, there are yearly exceptions. Unemployment is complex and there are no perfect correlations in economics, but the tendency is clear. The two lines are almost mirror images, save for recessions, when unemployment rises and federal debt rises to cure the recession.

Importantly, the graph doesn’t differentiate among different causes of deficit growth, nor does it identify where money is spent, nor whether tax decreases (if any) played a role. It merely shows that deficit increases — any deficit increases –reduce unemployment. This tells me that all the conversation about “revenue neutral,” or which taxes can be cut, or where money should be spent are not germane to unemployment, and merely reflect blue sky speculation by self-anointed experts.

In short, the graph seems to say: “Increase federal spending — any federal spending — and decrease federal taxes — any taxes, and stop all the mindless debate about things you know not.” Although I personally favor the immediate end to FICA taxes for Ten Reasons , I would accept seeing personal taxes reduced or eliminated.

And while I favor a simple stimulus in which a total of $1 trillion or more is sent to each state according to its population, I’ll settle for any equally ample spending idea. In short, deficits cure unemployment, so let’s have the deficits, now.

In 1971, we went made ourselves a monetarily sovereign nation, let’s not waste the opportunity this effort gave us.

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

No nation can tax itself into prosperity

–Which is more serious: Inflation or deflation?

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

Which do you feel is more serious – inflation or deflation? The term “more serious” can refer to frequency of occurrence. Or it can refer to difficulty in prevention or cure. Or it can refer to its affect on the economy.

Stated simply, deflation is the opposite of inflation. As with inflation, deflation is expressed as a comparison of demand vs. supply. It is a reduction in the demand for, vs. the supply of, goods and services compared with the demand vs. supply of money.

Supply is a self evident concept. Demand is based on risk and reward. When applied to goods and services, the risk is further deflation. The reward is the inherent reward for obtaining the goods or services. When applied to money, the risk is inflation and the reward for owning money is interest.

In brief summary, deflation can occur when:
1. Money is perceived as becoming more valuable: The supply of money goes down and/or interest rates (reward) go up, while the perceived risk (of inflation or non-payment) goes down. The more likely combination is reduced money supply together with increased interest rates.

2. Goods and services are perceived as becoming less valuable: The supply of goods and services goes up, while the reward (quality) goes down, and or/the perceived risk (of deflation) goes up.

Put all these possibilities together and the most likely, deflation-causing combination is excess supply of goods and services compared with reduced money supply.

Inflation is fundamentally the opposite of inflation, so most of the causes of each tend to be opposites. The key difference relates to the supply of goods and services. In this world economy, it virtually is impossible for a broad number of goods and services to be in worldwide short supply, if money is available to buy them. For that reason, inflation rarely is the oft-mentioned, “Too much money chasing too few goods” – with one exception. Energy. Because energy costs and availability impact nearly every product and service, there is a modern historical relationship between oil prices and CPI.

All of the above leads to one interesting conclusion: While deflation can be caused by a shortage of money, inflation rarely is caused by an over-abundance of money.

If, in comparing seriousness, we mean frequency of occurrence, clearly inflation would be considered more serious. Deflations are rare, having occurred perhaps three times in U.S. history. Inflation is an annual occurrence.

If, in comparing seriousness, we mean difficulty in prevention or cure, I believe deflation is more serious. Inflation easily can be prevented and cured by raising interest rates, which increases the demand for money. There is no limit to how high interest rates can be raised.

By contrast, trying to use interest rates to prevent deflation runs into the obstacle of zero rates. Though negative rates may mathematically be possible, it is difficult to imagine many borrowers accepting negative rates. Thus, the sole prevention for deflation is increasing the money supply, which the debt hawks have made difficult.

If, in comparing seriousness, we mean affect on the economy, I believe deflation is far more serious. Modest inflation can be stimulative, in that it encourages consumers to buy today, rather than waiting for tomorrow. Deflation encourages delaying purchases, which negatively impacts the economy, and can cause a feedback loop of lower and lower prices, longer and longer delay.

All of the above considered, I suggest deflation is far more serious than inflation.

Interestingly, debt hawk commentators, who are fixated on easily-prevented, easily-cured inflation, seldom mention deflation as a threat. The reason may be that there is no debt-hawk prevention or solution for deflation, as the sole solution (increased federal spending) is considered out of the question. Yet here we are, struggling against deflation, while Congress and the media preach against the one action that can prevent it.

Next time I’ll discuss stagflation, every mainstream economist’s nightmare.

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

No nation can tax itself into prosperity