Tag: recessions

-When is a recession?


An alternative to popular faith

        Readers of this blog and of the summary are familiar with the fact that all six depressions in U.S. history immediately were preceded by extreme reductions in federal deficits (aka “surpluses”):

1817-1821: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 29%. Depression began 1819.
1823-1836: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 99%. Depression began 1837.
1852-1857: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 59%. Depression began 1857.
1867-1873: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 27%. Depression began 1873.
1880-1893: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 57%. Depression began 1893.
1920-1930: U. S. Federal Debt reduced 36%. Depression began 1929.

        You also are familiar with the following graph showing that the last nine recessions began with reductions in federal debt growth and were cured with increases in federal debt growth.
Fed debt private investors 50-09

Note how debt growth declines before recessions and increases to cure recessions

In 1996, the prelude to Free Money, titled “The Ultimate America” predicted future recessions would follow decreases in debt growth. Since then it happened again, twice.

        Six depressions and nine recessions — a total of fifteen out of fifteen times at which federal debt growth declined and the economy fell — is an amazing, almost unheard of, correlation in a complex science like economics.
        Even more startling, the first edition of Free Money was published in 1996, and it predicted future recessions would be precipitated by decreases in debt growth. This would be akin to finding it has rained all day in Chicago every June 1st, following sunshine all day every May 30th, for the past fifteen years, and accurately predicting it would happen, again — twice more.
        A sharp-eyed reader, who may be associated with the Concord Coalition, (the group claiming federal debt must be reduced, but which never provides evidence) pointed out two recessions, in 1981 and in 1991, where federal debt growth seemed to move up in advance.
        While even thirteen out of fifteen is a remarkable correlation in a science that seldom sees such correlations, the reader’s concern was understandable.
        As you can see on close inspection, federal debt growth did decline in advance of the 1981 recession – not terribly significant, but a decline nonetheless. (The 1981 recession should be considered a continuation of the recession twelve months earlier — caused by the Iranian Revolution which took place in 1979, with its increased oil prices — from which we didn’t fully recover.)

Debt growth declines in advance of 1981 recession

        With regard to the 1991 recession, we come up against the definition of the word “recession.” The media arbitrarily say a recession is a decline in the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for two or more consecutive quarters, which means you can’t identify a recession until it is more than six months along . Look at the following graph:

        GDP growth (blue line) turned down in 1989, while debt growth was falling. Why did the government say the recession began in 1991? Hard to say. Perhaps it was due to the very slight bump at the end of 1989.
        This graph indicates the increase in federal debt growth was beginning to cure the 1989 recession, and the momentum of continuing increased debt growth finally cured the recession in 1991.
        A strong correlation between federal debt growth and GDP growth seems to exist.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
http://www.rodgermitchell.com
P.S. You might try this experiment. Ask Diane Lim Rogers (drogers@concordcoalition.org), the Concord Coalition economist, for evidence to support her claim the debt is too large. I predict she either will not answer you, or she will tell you the debt is too large and “everyone knows” it should be reduced. “Everyone knows” is what passes for evidence at Concord.

-Another reason deficits are necessary

An alternative to popular faith

Here is one of the many reasons federal deficit spending is absolutely necessary — even more so, now — and why trying to reduce the deficit is dangerous and imprudent.

Note how debt growth declines before recessions and increases to cure recessions

Source: Joe Weisenthal and Kamelia Angelova, Clusterstock – Business Insider, September 9, 2009

Economic growth requires spending by consumers, businesses, local governments and the federal government. When consumers aren’t spending, businesses also spend less. The federal government must spend even more to take up the slack.

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

-The debt ceiling illusion

An alternative to popular faith

      Sometime in October, the federal debt will touch the legal ceiling of $12.1 trillion, and Congress will decide whether or not to raise it. Surely, the debt ceiling law is among the nation’s silliest.
      Visualize this: All year, you recklessly spend more than you earn, and at the end of the year you announce that you will not pay your bills because you are frugal.        That’s Congress.
      Congress authorizes federal spending and federal taxing. So Congress already has control over the federal debt. It is Congress that has created the $12 trillion debt. Now, Congress will decide whether to pay for what Congress has authorized.
If Congress doesn’t increase the debt, several bad things could happen. The U.S. could default on its debts, thereby removing forever the trust other nations and our own citizens have in our money. Borrowing would become much more difficult and the world would begin to dump its T-securities – a financial calamity. Would Congress be that stupid? Well, it’s Congress.
      Or, the recovery from this recession could end, and we could plunge into a depression of unprecedented magnitude. Would Congress be that stupid? Well, it’s Congress.
      Or, the Treasury could implement some accounting tricks like redeeming government employee retirement funds, now invested in T-securities. Or the Treasury could stop paying interest on government trust funds. Both actions are internal devices without substance, merely delaying the inevitable, as does the vote on the debt ceiling.
      No responsible person, who cares about America, would vote against raising the debt ceiling, but we’re talking about Congress, a group that often embraces style over substance. The debt ceiling has two results. First, it is a shameful admission by members of Congress they know or care little about the bills they vote for, and focus on the individual, pork-barrel amendments they can sneak in. Generally, Congress is a “You-vote-for-mine-and-I’ll-vote-for-yours” club.
      Second, the debt ceiling gives members of Congress political cover — the ability to vote for spending for their constituencies, while voting against spending as a whole, thus to demonstrate how frugal and disciplined they are.
      There should not be a debt ceiling. If Congress wishes to be frugal, it should do so when authorizing, not when paying, its debts. Any Congressperson who speaks against raising the debt ceiling is a phony. Or is that statement a tautology?

Oh, and by the way. Limiting the creation of debt limits economic growth, but that is a subject discussed in many posts on this blog.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
For more information, see http://www.rodgermitchell.com

-Do you believe President Obama is gay ??


An alternative to popular faith

       If a reporter were to come to his editor with a proposed article titled, “President Obama is gay,” the editor would demand supporting evidence, before that article ever saw daylight.
      However, if the same reporter submitted an article titled, “Federal deficit is too high,” history says the editor would ask for no supporting evidence, nor would the article contain any. The media merely assume, as a matter of faith, that revenue neutrality is more prudent than deficits.

      Economics is rare, perhaps unique, among sciences, most of which demand evidence for their hypotheses. Only in economics can intuition and popular faith obviate facts or even the desire for facts. Thus, I have had editors, columnists and reporters tell me it is “obvious” that large deficits are unsustainable, crowd out lending funds, lead to recessions, depressions, inflations and hyper-inflations. When I ask for evidence to support these views, I seldom hear from them again, probably because they feel scientific evidence is unnecessary in a science, but more importantly, they don’t have any.
      Even the Concord Coalition, an organization that for seventeen years, has collected vast amounts of money to preach for federal deficit reduction, unashamedly offers no evidence to support its views. Check its website, http://www.concordcoalition.org, or write to them and you will see they neither offer, nor have, evidence.
      Because our leaders parrot the economic beliefs promoted by the media, lack of evidence has contributed heavily to the government actions that yield repeated recessions. Until the media learn to ask, “What is your evidence?” we will continue to suffer periodic, economic traumas. These traumas may seem inevitable and unavoidable, but in reality they are caused by beliefs lacking evidence.
      If you don’t believe President Obama is gay, unless you see solid evidence, don’t believe the federal deficit is too high, unless you see solid evidence.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
For more information, see http://www.rodgermitchell.com