Tag: neo-chartalism

–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

 

–Replace the euro

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

In a previous post, –The solution for France and the other Monetarily Non-Sovereign Governments (MNSGs) – I commented on France’s difficulty in resolving union pension demands with the European Union requirement of financial austerity. I suggested that as long as France remained monetarily non-sovereign, there would be no resolution to this dilemma, and France would face bankruptcy, along with it’s EU partners.

A reader, Tom Hickey agreed, while reminding me of Keynes WWII suggestion that the world adopt a quasi “super euro” called the “bancor.” Under the heading, “They never seem to learn,” the bancor was one in a long list of attempts to eliminate monetary sovereignty, with the ostensible goal of facilitating trade, but with the underlying goal of preventing inflation. It was yet another scheme to create one, uniform currency in a multi-nation world. It was a “standard,” and as such, it was similar to the gold and silver standards of yore, and to the current “euro standard” and the “dollar standard” (under which the U.S. states, counties and cities labor).

If there is one rule fundamental to the science of economics, it is this: A growing economy requires a growing supply of money. So, any time you create a standard, you also must create a method for each political entity to grow its money supply. The EU forgot this.

Subsequent to Keynes’s ill-conceived bancor idea, the U.S. dollar became the world’s “reserve” currency, without the baggage of being an official or fixed standard. Nations wisely retained the power to control the supply of their own currency and the exchange rate with the dollar, a reasonable process.

However, as always happens in economics, there was a perceived problem, and that perceived problem was called the “Triffin dilemma.” Going back to the fundamental rule of economics, a reserve currency must increase in availability, which the Triffin dilemma requires U.S. to run trade deficits fulfilling world demand for dollars. And trade deficits lead to the dreaded federal deficits – at least dreaded by debt hawks.

Although all money is debt, some economists and all politicians tell us that anything containing the words “debt,” “deficit” or “negative” – as in federal debt, federal deficit, trade deficit, negative balance of payments, current account deficit – are to be much feared, despite no rational reason for such fear. So, our saying the current world financial system requires America to run trade deficits, is tantamount to economic blasphemy, though trade deficits actually benefit America.

This is explained in more detail at Trade Deficit Myth, but briefly, trade deficits supply us with scarce goods and services in exchange for the dollars we create at the press of a computer key.

In short, the European nations would have been far wiser to support the U.S. dollar as their trading currency, while using their monetarily sovereign power to buy as many dollars as they wished – a system used by most other nations, worldwide. Instead, they voluntarily surrendered their monetary sovereignty for a mythical financial prudence. They made a pact with the devil, and now pay the price.

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

No nation can tax itself into prosperity


–Why the U.S. owns China

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

Despite all appearances, we own China. China has sold its soul to the U.S. By focusing on export, and accumulating dollars and T-securities, China has strengthened the dollar. Now, what can China do with its enormous cache of T-securities? If it stops “lending” to us, i.e. stops using its dollars to buy more T-securities, it simply will accumulate more dollars.

So, what else can China do with its dollars? Three bad choices: It can trade more dollars for other currencies. This would flood the market with dollars, weakening the dollar, and making export to the U.S. more difficult (while making our export easier). Or, it can increase its worldwide purchase of assets – real estate, hard and soft goods, etc. – which in addition to being politically risky, also would flood the world with dollars. Or it simply can keep more dollars in it’s checking account at the Federal Reserve Bank.

So aside from purchasing T-securities, which effectively locks up (actually destroys) dollars, China is stuck. If they wish to keep exporting to us, they are forced to keep accepting dollars, which in turn, forces them to purchase T-securities. All those pundits who worry about “What will happen if China stops lending us money?” do not understand that China cannot stop buying T-securities.

China does not lend us yuan; it cannot use yuan to buy T-securities. It lends us only dollars, the dollars we previously created. The U.S. does not need China to lend us dollars; we are a monetarily sovereign nation with the unlimited ability to create dollars. We don’t need China’s.

Previously, we discussed the China trade deficit myth, when we said:

”A trade deficit is an example of one country devoting great effort to creating scarce materials for another country in exchange for something that requires no effort by the other country. In that sense, China is our servant. They work, sweat and strain and use their valuable resources to create and ship to us the things we want, while we, hardly lifting a finger, ship dollars to them. Who has the better deal?”

“To satisfy our desires, China could ship us every yard of cloth and every ounce of steel in their country; they could burn all their coal and oil; they could employ every man, woman and child in dismal sweatshops; they could empty their nation of all physical resources, and still we would have plenty of dollars to send to them, simply by touching a computer key.”

So, we own China. By emphasizing export rather than internal money creation (aka deficit spending), China has dug a deep pit for itself. Yes, China has had strong economic growth, but at what price? It has received in return for its exports, an asset it cannot use – U.S. dollars. These dollars are unusable, not because they are worthless. On the contrary, dollars are quite valuable. The problem is that in using the dollars, China would depreciate their value, which would destroy China’s export-based economy.

Of course, China knows this. Sadly, U.S. pundits, who fret about our so-called “debt” to China, don’t understand it. And the debt-hawks, who believe exporting is more prudent than deficit spending, really don’t understand that for a monetarily sovereign nation, deficit spending is the most prudent, controllable way to grow an economy.

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