–John Mauldin spreads the old myths

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

You may have heard of John Mauldin, self described “investment writer/analyst.” He distributes an E-letter in which he discusses economics. I assume he has many readers who believe what he tells them. More’s the pity, because Mr. Mauldin seems to know little-to-nothing about economics.

Recently I received one of his E-letters, this one titled, “The Dark Side of Deficits.” Here are some direct quotes: “The research of Reinhardt and Rogoff demonstrates that when the government debt-to-GDP level gets to about 90%, trend growth seems to drop by about 1%. They do not offer an explanation, just an observation. My speculation is that it might be government spending and debt crowding out private savings, not leaving enough for productive private investment.”

Perhaps neither Reinhardt nor Rogoff offers an explanation simply because there is none. As readers of this blog know, the federal debt/GDP ratio is totally meaningless. “Federal debt” is the total accumulation of all federal debt for every year since the beginning of this nation; GDP is a one-year measure. Anyone quoting this ratio should stop, immediately. It is a nonsensical apples/oranges statistic.

At last count, Japan’s debt/GDP ratio was 210%, and according to a June, 2010 Associated Press article, “Earlier in the month, Japan upgraded its economic growth in the January-March quarter to an annualized pace of 5 percent from 4.9 percent in a preliminary report.” That’s with a 210% for the phony debt/GDP ratio!

Further, there is no economic mechanism for “government spending and debt to crowd out private savings.” The exact opposite is true. Federal deficit spending, which adds money to the economy, increases savings. The “crowding out” myth is so outrageously wrong, I never know whether to laugh at the ignorance or cry at the result of such beliefs.

Further quoting Mr. Mauldin, “. . . if we do not get control of our deficit spending, we (in the US) risk putting our growth in jeopardy.” Deficit spending adds money to the economy, and this economy is starved for money, but Mr. Mauldin suggests reducing the amount of money coming into the economy. Talk about putting our growth in jeopardy!

And here is a hint about the fundamental cause of Mr. Mauldin’s confusion. He says, “There are those among us who are like teenagers, wanting to make the easy choice and avoid the pain today, not worrying about the consequences down the road.” He seems to adopt the puritanical belief that anything easy or painless inevitably will have dire consequences. So he opts for the most painful solution to our recession — presumably some combination of painful tax increases and painful reduced federal support for things like Medicare, Social Security, infrastructure, environment, defense and education. I assume he has his teeth filled without novocaine.

Note to Mr. Mauldin: When someone is starving, the easiest, least painful choice is to feed them, not to remove food as you suggest. Money is the food of our economy, and adding money to a starving economy is the only sensible act.

But, of all the foolish comments in Mr. Mauldin’s E-letter, perhaps the most frightening was this one, describing his travels: “. . . back to Dallas for a speech to the local Tiger 21 group. Then, starting September 11, I fly to Amsterdam for the International Broadcasting Conference, then to Malta, Zurich, Mallorca, Denmark (speech open to public), and London, home for one day, and then off for a speech to Cambridge Brokers on the 24th. Then I’m in Houston on October 1 for another public speech.”

Good heavens, the man is going to innoculate and indoctrinate all those people with nonsense, and those people will tell others, who will tell others, and soon a huge number will believe they know something about economics, when in fact, they know less than nothing. They know wrong.

If you read Mr. Mauldin’s writings, just for laughs, then enjoy. But if you read for his economic analyses and his market predictions, be cautious.

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

No nation can tax itself into prosperity

–How soon will Medicare run out of money?

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

Today (8/11/10), the Chicago Tribune editors asked, “How soon will Medicare run out of money?” The Tribune editors asked that question because payroll taxes, specifically collected for Medicare, are projected to be less than Medicare spending.

The Tribune editors did not ask, “How soon will the Pentagon run out of money?” Presumably, the Pentagon faces a worse “crisis” than does Medicare. After all, the Pentagon spends billions, with zero payroll taxes specifically collected for the Pentagon.

The editors also did not ask, “How soon will the Supreme Court, Congress and the White House run out of money?” Here again, zero taxes are collected for these three federal institutions, though they spend quite a bit.

The editors did not ask, “How soon will the following agencies run out of money money?”:

The Bureau of Prisons
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
The Coast Guard
The Department of Justice
The Department of State
The Department of Labor
The Department of Transportation
The Department of the Treasury
The Department of Health and Human Services

All of these federal agencies, and many more, have huge budgets, but none collects a singe penny in taxes. Surely, they must be teetering on the brink of bankruptcy! But the Tribune editors seem unconcerned.

Why do the Tribune editors focus on Medicare, and often on Social Security, both of which supposedly do collect taxes, when no other Federal agency collects any taxes at all?

I’ve never seen the editors ask, “When will the National Weather Service run out of money?” Nor have I seen any graphs purporting to show the exact year when OSHA will go broke. Nor have I heard dire predictions of imminent bankruptcy for the Army Corps of Engineers.

Have you?

I’ve asked the Tribune editors this question numerous times, and never have received an answer. Perhaps you’ll have better luck. You can contact the Tribune editors at: ctc-tribletter@tribune.com. Let me know what they tell you.

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

No nation can tax itself into prosperity

–Why Medicare and Social Security are not “adequately financed”

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

Soon you will read about this new report:

2010 Social Security Trustees Report, August 6, 2010: “. . . the Medicare HI Trust Fund is adequately financed until 2029, and the Social Security OASI and DI Trust Funds are adequately financed until 2040 and 2018, respectively. . . significant longer term financial imbalances of the programs still need to be addressed .”

By:
Timothy F. Geithner, Secretary of the Treasury, and Managing Trustee
Hilda L. Solis, Secretary of Labor, and Trustee
Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, and Trustee
Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security, and Trustee

For Mr. Geithner et al, “adequately financed,” means tax revenues will equal or exceed spending. When, spending exceeds taxes, Medicare and Social Security will be “inadequately financed,” i.e insolvent.

To put it gently, Mr. Geithner et al do not know what they are talking about.

Visualize a scenario where there are zero federal taxes. The federal government has no income, not even any money, yet sends you a check for $10 trillion dollars. You deposit the check in your bank. Will the check bounce? No. Your bank will send the check to the Treasury, which will credit your bank and debit its own balance sheets for $10 trillion. The bank now has $10 trillion, which it credits to your account, allowing you to buy a few thousand Rolls Royces or the State of Montana, whichever you prefer.

The government can send you checks endlessly, in any amount. With each check, the government merely debits its balance sheet and credits your bank account. The government balance sheet is just a score sheet, though it misleadingly is called “debt.” Whether that score sheet reads $10 trillion or $100 trillion makes no difference to the score sheet. The only limit is the artificial “debt limit,” on which Congress votes periodically. There is no functional limit on what any balance sheet can read. The government can write a check of any size, despite zero taxes, credit your account for any amount, and enter any amount into its score sheet.

Taxes may be levied for several social reasons (cigarette and liquor taxes are examples), but supplying the government with spending money is not one of them. The government creates money by spending. It does not use tax money. Therefore, all federal debt is sustainable, endlessly.

Because Social Security and Medicare are federal agencies, the government can support them endlessly, without any FICA taxes at all, merely by mailing checks. Sadly, the wrongheaded beliefs of Mr. Geithner et al have led to the deterioration of Social Security and Medicare benefits.

At one time, the “normal retirement age for Social Security benefits was 65. Today, it is age 67 for people born after 1969. Mr. Geithner’s kind of reasoning has cost Americans two years worth of benefits. Further, these benefits are subject to income tax. Thus, you pay tax on your FICA payments and pay tax again on your benefits – a double tax. Finally, despite paying FICA taxes for years, the day you die all benefits cease. You could pay FICA for 40 years, and if you die at age 60, your estate will receive nothing – all because of the false belief that taxes pay for federal spending.

Medicare payments also are so restricted many Americans purchase supplementary insurance to cover what Medicare does not – all because of the false belief that taxes pay for federal spending.

We pay penalties for believing taxes support federal spending. We pay penalties for believing Medicare and Social Security could go bankrupt unless FICA is increased or benefits reduced. We pay penalties for believing the federal deficits are “unsustainable.” We pay penalties for the misinformation coming from our leaders. We pay penalties for believing them.

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

No nation can tax itself into prosperity

–America, wake up

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

“Congress to Weigh Options for Reducing Federal Debt

Hard choices on Social Security, Medicare, defense and taxes can’t be avoided much longer. By Richard DeKaser, Contributing Economist, The Kiplinger Letter
July 30, 2010

Is Washington serious about tackling the federal debt? […] The key is Obama’s debt commission. Its short-term mission is to balance the budget by 2015 — not counting interest on the swelling national debt. That would slash the annual deficits by two-thirds, to about $500 billion. The long-term goal: Achieve fiscal sustainability, which is generally seen as holding debt at something under the equivalent of 65% of gross domestic product (GDP).”

Let’s get this straight. With a balanced budget, even minuscule inflation would reduce the amount of real money in the economy. Historically, recessions follow low deficit growth, and recoveries correspond with high deficit growth. So why aim for a balanced budget? No evidence, just anthropomorphic economics disease.

What makes fiscal sustainability 65% of GDP? No evidence. The DEBT/GDP ratio is meaningless – an apples/oranges comparison with zero significance. And where did 65% come from? Nowhere. Just popped into someone’s head. And that “pop” will cost you plenty.

The ignorant article continues:

“Recommendations in four areas are likely:

“Social Security. . . .Gradually raise the retirement age to 68, calculate benefits using the Consumer Price Index instead of wage inflation and shave a half point from annual cost-of-living increases would knock $548 billion off the deficit in 2040, for example. Another possibility is to raise the cap on earnings subject to payroll taxes, perhaps to 90% of earnings for everyone. That would juice up incoming revenue.”

If someone told you they would cut your Social Security payment, would you at least ask, “Why?” And if the answer were, “The government can’t afford it,” would you at least say, “Show me the evidence”? You never have seen any evidence except for unsubstantiated statements that the debt is too big. This is the same answer you have received since 1971. Wrong then; wrong now.

The ignorant article continues:

“Health care. . . apply a means test for Medicare and revise the recently passed health care law.” Yes, we’re going to cut your Medicare payments, reduce your doctors’ payments and require you to prove you need the money. Do you care? Naw. And don’t even bother to prove the government can’t afford the expense. I trust you. Just take my money and reduce the number of doctors. I love pain.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: