(Originally published July 8th, 2013)
Trying to follow a Baby Boom with a Baby Bust creates Problems in Advanced Economies with Large Welfare States
In the late 1960s began a movement for zero population growth. It called for women to have only enough babies to replace the current population. Not to have too many babies that would increase the population. Nor have too few babies that the population declines. Something that women could easily do because of birth control. And, later, abortion. The drive behind this was to save the planet. By keeping large populations becoming like a plague of locusts that devour the earth’s resources and food until the planet can no longer sustain life.
China did these zero population growth people better. By promoting a negative population growth rate. Limiting parents to one child. They did this because during the days of Mao’s China the country set some world records for famine. Their communist state simply couldn’t provide for her people. So to help their communist system avoid future famines they tried to limit the number of mouths they had to feed. Of course, trying to follow a baby boom with a baby bust creates other problems. Especially in advanced economies with large welfare states.
China’s one-child policy and the preference for boys have led to a shortage of women to marry. Some Chinese men are even looking at ‘mail-order’ brides from surrounding countries. But China is going to have an even greater problem caring for her elderly. Just like Japan. Japanese couples are having less than 1.5 babies per couple. Meaning that each successive generation will be smaller than the preceding generation. As couples aren’t even having enough children to replace themselves when they die. Leaving the eldest generation the largest percentage of the overall population. Being paid and cared for by the smallest percentage of the overall population. The younger generation.
States with Aging Populations are Suffering Debt Crises because they Spend More than their Tax Revenue can Cover
As nations develop advanced economies people develop careers. Moving from one well-paid job to another. As they advance in their career. Creating a lot of income to tax. Allowing a large welfare state. Which is similar to a Ponzi scheme. Or pyramid scheme. As long as more people are entering the workforce than leaving it their income taxes can pay for the small group at the top of the pyramid that leaves the workforce and begins consuming pension and health care benefits in their retirement. And there is but one requirement of a successful pyramid scheme. The base of the pyramid must expand greater than the tip of the pyramid. The wider the base is relative to the top the more successive the pyramid scheme. As we can see here.
Generation 1 is at the top of the pyramid. It is the oldest generation. Which we approximate as a period of 20 years. In our example Generation 1 are people aged 78-98. They’re retired and collecting pension, health care and other benefits. Some combination of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, heating assistance, etc. All paid for by Generation 2 (58-78), Generation 3 (38-58) and Generation 4 (18-38). Each generation is assumed to bring 6 children into the world. So these couples are not only replacing themselves but adding an additional 4 children to further increase the size of the population. Which really makes running a pyramid scheme easy. For if we assume each member in Generation 1 on average consumes $35,000 annually in benefits that Generations 2 through 4 pay for that comes to $555.56 per person annually. Or $46.30 per person monthly. Or $10.68 per person weekly. Or $1.53 per person daily. Amounts so small that Generations 2 through 4 can easily pay for Generation 1′s retirement. Now let’s look at the impact of a declining birthrate with each successive generation.
When all couples in each generation were having on average 6 children this added 1.9 billion new taxpayers. Which greatly reduced each taxpayer’s share of Generation 1′s retirement costs. But thanks to birth control, abortion and the growing cost of living each successive generation has fewer babies. Generation 2 only has 3 children. Enough to replace themselves. And add one new taxpayer. Generation 3 has only 2 children. Only enough to replace the parents. Providing that zero population growth that was all the rage during the late 1960s and the 1970s. While Generation 4 only has 1 child. Not even enough to replace the parents when they die. Causing a negative population growth rate. Which is a big problem in an advanced economy with a large welfare state. For instead of adding 1.9 billion new taxpayers they only add 217.5 million new taxpayers. Greatly increasing each taxpayer’s share of Generation 1′s retirement costs. Instead of paying $555.56 per taxpayer they each have to pay $5,384.62 annually. Or $448.72 per taxpayer monthly. Or $103.55 per taxpayer weekly. Or $14.79 per taxpayer daily. Numbers that prove to be unsustainable. The state simply cannot tax people this much for Generation 1′s retirement. For if they did this and added it to the rest of government’s spending they’re taxing us to fund it would take away all of our income. This is why advanced economies with aging populations are suffering debt crises. Because their spending has grown so far beyond their ability to pay for it with tax revenue that they borrow massive amounts of money to finance it.
If you want a Generous Welfare State you need Parents to have More Children
If you carry this out two more generations so every generation only has one child the per taxpayer amount tops out at $14,736.84 annually. Or $1,228.07 per taxpayer monthly. Or $283.40 per taxpayer weekly. Or $40.49 per taxpayer daily. Amounts far too great for most taxpayers to pay. This is what an aging population does in a country with a large welfare state. It makes the population top-heavy in elderly people who no longer work (i.e., pay taxes) but consume the lion’s share of state benefits. When couples were having 6 children each across the generations there was a ratio of 84 taxpayers per retiree. When there was a declining replacement birthrate that ratio fell to 15 taxpayers per retiree. If we look at this graphically we can see the pyramid shape of this generational population.
With 84 taxpayers per retiree we can see a nice and wide base to the pyramid. While the tip of the pyramid is only a small sliver of the base (Generation 4). Making for a successful Ponzi scheme. Far more people pay into the scheme. While only a tiny few take money out of the scheme. This is why Social Security and Medicare didn’t have any solvency problems until after birth control and abortion. For these gave us a declining replacement birthrate over time. Greatly shrinking the base of the pyramid. Which made the tip no longer a small sliver of the base. But much closer in size to the base. That if it was an actual pyramid sitting on the ground it wouldn’t take much to push it over. Unlike the above pyramid. That we could never push over. Which is why the above Ponzi scheme would probably never fail. While the one below will definitely fail.
If you want a generous welfare state where the state provides pensions, health care, housing and food allowances, etc., you need parents to have more children. For the more children they have the more future taxpayers there will be. Or you at least need a constant replacement birthrate. But if that rate is below the rate of a prior baby boom the welfare state will be unsustainable UNLESS they slash spending. The United States has a replacement birthrate below the rate of a prior baby boom. While the Obama administration has exploded the size of welfare state. Especially with the addition of Obamacare. Making our Ponzi scheme more like the second chart. As we currently have approximately 1.75 taxpayers supporting each social security recipient. Meaning that it won’t take much pushing to topple our pyramid. We’re at the point where a slight breeze may do the trick. For it will topple. It’s just a matter of time.
Tags: abortion, advanced economies, babies, baby boom, baby bust, benefits, birth control, birthrate, children, China, debt crises, generation, Health Care, Japan, Medicare, pension, Ponzi scheme, population, population growth rate, pyramid, pyramid scheme, replacement birthrate, retirement, retirement costs, Social Security, tax revenue, taxpayer, welfare state, workforce, zero population growth
Manufacturers make a Point of not Killing their Customers because it’s just Bad for Business
There have been some costly recalls in the news lately. From yoga pants that were see-through. To cars with faulty ignition switches that can turn the engine off while driving. Disabling the power steering and airbags. Resulting in the loss of life. These recalls have cost these companies a lot of trouble. Including financial losses from the recalls and lawsuits. Being called to testify before Congress. And possible criminal charges.
No surprise, really. As those who distrust corporations would say. For they believe they constantly put their customers at risk to maximize their profits. Even if it results in the death of their customers. Which is why we need a vigilant government to keep these corporations honest. So they can’t sell shoddy and dangerous goods that can kill their unsuspecting customers. Which they will do if the government doesn’t have strong regulatory powers to stop them. Or so says the left.
Of course, there is one problem with this line of thinking. Dead customers can’t buy things. And when word spreads that a corporation is killing their customers people don’t want to be their customers. Because they don’t want to be killed. Manufacturers know this. And know the price they will pay if they kill their customers. So manufacturers make a point of not killing their customers. Because it’s just bad for business.
The Longer it takes to Recall a Defective Product the Greater the Company’s Losses
Manufacturing defects happen. Because nothing is perfect. And when they happen they are both costly and a public relations nightmare. As no manufacturer wants to lose money. And, worse, no manufacturer wants to lose the goodwill of their customers. Because it’s not easy earning that back. Which is why executive management wants to acknowledge and resolve these defects as soon as possible. To limit their financial losses. And limit the loss of their customers’ goodwill.
Let’s illustrate this with some numbers. Let’s assume a company manufactures 5 product lines ranging from low price to high price. The lowest priced product has the greatest unit sales. And the lowest margin. The highest priced product has the fewest unit sales. And the highest margin. The other three items fall in between. Rising in price. And falling in margin. Summarized here.
So each product line produces a sales revenue, a cost of sales and a gross margin (sales revenue less cost of sales). Adding these departmentalized numbers together we can get total sales, cost of sales and gross margin. And subtract from that overhead, interest expense and income taxes. Summarized here.
So on approximately $5.8 million in sales this company earns $312,414. A net profit of 5.4%. Fictitiously, of course. Not too bad. That’s when everything is working well. And they have nothing but satisfied customers. But that’s not always the case. Sometimes manufacturing defects happen. Which can turn profits into losses quickly. And the longer it takes to address the defects the greater those losses can be.
Losing the Goodwill of your Customers will end up Costing More than any Product Recall
Let’s say Product 3 suffers a manufacturing defect. By the time they identify the defect and halt production of the defective product they’ve produced 20% of the total of that product for the year. Which they must recall. Limiting their losses to 20% of the total of that product run. Which they will have to refund the sales revenue for. But they will have to eat the cost of sales for those defective units. And despite the company’s quick response to the defective product and providing a full refund to all customers their goodwill suffers from the bad press of the recall. Summarized here.
Refunding customers for the 20% of the line that was defective reduced net profits from 5.4% to 0.7%. And when they lose some customers to their defect-free competition they lose some customer goodwill. Resulting in a 15% drop in sales. Leaving manufactured product unsold that they have to sell with steep discounting. Bringing their sales revenue further down while their cost of sales remains the same. Turning that 0.7% annual profit into a 2.8% loss. But as time passes they recover the lost goodwill of their customers. Limiting these losses in this one year. Now let’s look at what would probably happen if the company had a ‘screw you’ attitude to their customers. Like many on the left fervently believe. Summarized here.
The company did not recall any of the defective products. As word spread that this company was selling a defective product sales of that product soon fell to nothing after selling about 50% of the annual production run. The other half sits unsold. Even steep discounting won’t sell a defective product. And seeing how they screwed their customers on the defective products sales fall on their other products (in this example by 30%). As they don’t want to suffer the same fate as those other customers. So what would have been only a $159,929 loss with a recall becomes a $1,494,344 loss. Over nine times worse than what it could have been without a large loss of customer goodwill. And this is why executive management moves fast to identify and resolve defects. Because losing the goodwill of their customers will end up costing more than any product recall. As it can take years to earn a customer’s trust again.
Tags: corporations, cost of sales, customer goodwill, customers, defects, discounting, goodwill, kill their customers, losses, manufacturers, manufacturing defect, margin, net profit, price, profit, recalls, revenue, sales, sales revenue
No One is going to get Rich by Buying and Selling only one Share of Stock
It takes money to make money. I’m sure we all heard that before. If you want to ‘flip’ a house you need money for a down payment to get a mortgage first. If you want to start a business you need to save up some money first. Or borrow it from a family member. And if you want to get rich by playing the stock market you need money. A lot of money. Because you only make money by selling stocks. And before you can sell them you have to buy them.
Stock prices may go up and down a lot. But over a period of time the average stock price may only increase a little bit. So if you bought one share of stock at, say, $35 and sold it later at, say, $37.50 that’s a gain of 7.14%. Which is pretty impressive. Just try to earn that with a savings account at a bank. Of course, you only made a whopping $2.50. So no one is going to get rich by buying and selling only one share of stock.
However, if you bought 10,000 shares of a stock at $35/share and then sold it later at $37.50 that’s a whole other story. Your initial stock purchase will cost you $350,000. And that stock will sell for $375,000 at $37.50/share. Giving you a gain of $25,000. Let’s say you make 6 buys and sells in a year like this with the same money. You buy some stock, hold it a month or so and then sell it. Then you use that money to buy some more stock, hold it for a month or so and then sell it. Assuming you replicate the same 7.14% stock gain through all of these transactions the total gain will come to $150,000. And if you used no more than your original investment of $350,000 during that year that $350,000 will have given you a return on investment of 42.9%. This is why the rich get richer. Because they have the money to make money. Of course, if stock prices move the other way investors can have losses as big as these gains.
Rich Investors benefit most from the Fed’s Quantitative Easing that gives us Near-Zero Interest Rates
Rich investors can make an even higher return on investment by borrowing from a brokerage house. He or she can open a margin account. Deposit something of value in it (money, stocks, option, etc.) and use that value as collateral. This isn’t exactly how it works but it will serve as an illustration. In our example an investor could open a margin account with a value of $175,000. So instead of spending $350,000 the investor can borrow $175,000 from the broker and add it to his or her $175,000. Bringing the total stock investment to $350,000. Earning that $25,000 by risking half of the previous amount. Bringing the return on investment to 116.7%. But these big returns come with even bigger risks. For if your stock loses value it can make your losses as big as those gains.
Some investors borrow money entirely to make money. Such as carry trades. Where an investor will borrow a currency from a low-interest rate country to invest in the currency of a higher-interest rate country. For example, they could borrow a foreign currency at a near zero interest rate (like the Japanese yen). Convert that money into U.S. dollars. And then use that money to buy an American treasury bond paying, say, 2%. So they basically borrow money for free to invest. Making a return on investment without using any of his or her money. However, these carry trades can be very risky. For if the yen gains value against the U.S. dollar the investor will have to pay back more yen than they borrowed. Wiping out any gain they made. Perhaps even turning that gain into a loss. And a small swing in the exchange rate can create a huge loss.
So there is big money to make in the stock market. Making money with money. And investors can make even more money when they borrow money. Making money with other people’s money. Something rich investors like doing. Something rich investors can do because they are rich. For having money means you don’t have to use your money to make money. Because having money gives you collateral. The ability to use other people’s money. At very attractive interest rates. In fact, it’s these rich investors that benefit most from the Fed’s quantitative easing that is giving us near-zero interest rates.
People on Wall Street are having the Time of their Lives during the Obama Administration
We are in the worst economic recovery since that following the Great Depression. Yet the stock market is doing very well. Investors are making a lot of money. At a time when businesses are not hiring. The labor force participation rate has fallen to levels not seen since the Seventies. People can’t find full-time jobs. Some are working a part-time job because that’s all they can find. Some are working 2 part-time jobs. Or more. Others have just given up trying to find a full-time job. People the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) no longer counts when calculating the unemployment rate.
This is the only reason why the unemployment rate has fallen. If you add the number of people who have left the labor force since President Obama took office to the number the BLS reports as unemployed it would bring the unemployment rate up to 13.7% ((10,459,000 + 10,854,000)/155,724,000) at the end of February. So the economy is still horrible. No secret to those struggling in it. And the median family who has seen their income fall. So why is the stock market doing so well when businesses are not? When profitable businesses operations typically drive the stock market? For when businesses do well they grow and hire more people. But businesses aren’t growing and hiring more people. So if it’s not profitable businesses operations raising stock prices what is? Just how are the rich getting richer when the economy as a whole is stuck in the worst economic recovery since that following the Great Depression?
Because of near zero interest rates. The Fed has lowered interest rates to near zero to purportedly stimulate the economy. Which it hasn’t. When they could lower interest rates no more they started their quantitative easing. Printing money to buy bonds on the open market. Flooding the economy with cheap money. But people aren’t borrowing it. Because the employment picture is so poor that they just aren’t spending money. Either because they don’t have a job. Only have a part time job. Or are terrified they may lose their job. And if they do lose their job the last thing they want when unemployed is a lot of debt they can’t service. And then there’s Obamacare. Forcing people to buy costly insurance. Leaving them less to spend on other things. And increasing the cost of doing business. Another reason not to hire people.
So the economy is going nowhere. And because of the bad economy businesses have no intentions of spending or expanding. So they don’t need any of that cheap money. So where is it going? Wall Street. The only people who are borrowing and spending money. They’re taking that super cheap money and they’re using it to buy and sell stocks. They’re buying and selling like never before. Making huge profits. Thanks to other people’s money. This is what is raising stock prices. Not profitable businesses operations. But investors bidding up stock prices with borrowed money. The people on Wall Street are having the time of their lives during the Obama administration. Because the Obama administration’s policies favor the rich on Wall Street. Whose only worry these days is if the Fed stops printing money. Which will raise interest rates. And end the drunken orgy on Wall Street. Which is why whenever it appears the Fed will taper (i.e., print less money each month) their quantitative easing because the economy is ‘showing signs of improvement’ investors panic and start selling. In a rush to lock in their earnings before the stock prices they inflated come crashing down to reality. For without that ‘free’ money from the Fed the orgy of buying will come to an end. And no one wants to be the one holding on to those inflated stocks when the bubble bursts. When there will be no more buyers. At least, when there will be no more buyers willing to buy at those inflated stock prices. Which is why investors today hate good economic news. For there is nothing worse for an investor in the Obama economy than a good economy.
Tags: borrow, borrowing, buy, carry trade, cheap money, collateral, economic recovery, Fed, full-time jobs, gain, interest rate, investment, investor, jobs, loss, making money with money, margin, margin account, money, near zero interest rate, Obama administration, part-time jobs, printing money, profitable businesses operations, profits, quantitative easing, return, return on investment, rich, rich get richer, rich investors, risk, sell, share, spending, stock, stock market, stock price, unemployment rate, Wall Street, worst economic recovery
New Complex and Confusing Regulatory Policies require Additional Accounting and Legal Fees to Comply
There have been demonstrations to raise the minimum wage. President Obama even called for Congress to raise the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. He also wants employers to pay salaried people overtime. There have been demands for paid family leave (paying people for not working). Unions want to organize businesses. To get employers to pay union wages. Provide union health care packages. And union pensions. Obamacare has made costly health insurance mandatory for all employees working 30 hours or more a week.
Environmental regulations have increased energy costs for businesses. Sexual harassment training, safety training, on-the-job training (even people leaving college have to be trained before they are useful to many employers), etc., raise costs for businesses. New financial reporting requirements require additional accounting fees to sort through. New complex and confusing regulatory policies require additional legal fees to sort through them and comply.
With each payroll an employer has to pay state unemployment tax. Federal unemployment tax. Social Security tax (half of it withheld from each employee’s paycheck and half out of their pocket). Medicare tax. And workers’ compensation insurance. Then there’s health insurance. Vehicle insurance. Sales tax. Use tax. Real property tax. Personal property tax. Licenses. Fees. Dues. Office supplies. Utilities. Postage. High speed Internet. Tech support to thwart Internet attacks. Coffee. Snow removal. Landscaping. Etc. And, of course, the labor, material, equipment and direct expenses used to produce sales.
The Problem with Guaranteed Work Hours is that there is no such thing as Guaranteed Sales
The worst economic recovery since that following the Great Depression has created a dearth of full-time jobs. In large part due to Obamacare. As some employers struggling in the worst economic recovery since that following the Great Depression can’t afford to offer their full-time employees health insurance. So they’re not hiring full-time employees. And are pushing full-time employees to part-time. Because they can’t afford to add anymore overhead costs. Which is hurting a lot of people who are having their own problems trying to make ends meet in the worst economic recovery since that following the Great Depression. Especially part-time workers.
Now there is a new push by those on the left to make employers give a 21-day notice for work schedules for part time and ‘on call’ workers. And to guarantee them at least 20 hours a week. Things that are just impossible to do in many small retail businesses. As anyone who has ever worked in a small retail business can attest to. You can schedule people to week 3 weeks in advance but what do you do when they don’t show up for work? Which happens. A lot. Especially when the weather is nice. Or on a Saturday or Sunday morning. As some people party so much on Friday and Saturday night that they are just too hung over to go to work. Normally you call someone else to take their shift. Then reschedule the rest of the week. So you don’t give too many hours to the person who filled in. In part to keep them under 30 hours to avoid the Obamacare penalty. But also because the other workers will get mad if that person gets more hours than they did.
The problem with guaranteed work hours is that there is no such thing as guaranteed sales. If you schedule 5 workers 3 weeks in advance and a blizzard paralyzes the city you may not have 5 workers worth of sales. Because people are staying home. And if no one is coming through your doors you’re not going to want to pay 5 people to stand around and do nothing. For with no sales where is the money going to come from to pay these workers? Either out of the business owner’s personal bank account. Or they will have to borrow money. It is easy to say we should guarantee workers a minimum number of work hours. But should a business owner have to lose money so they can? For contrary to popular belief, business owners are not all billionaires with money to burn. Instead, they are people losing sleep over something called cash flow.
Cash Flow is everything to a Small Business Owner because it takes Cash to pay all of their Bills
To understand cash flow imagine a large bucket full of holes. You pour water in it and it leaks right out. That water leaking out is expenses. The cost of doing business (see all of those costs above). A business owner has to keep that bucket from running out of water. And there is only one way to do it. By pouring new water into the bucket to replace the water leaking out. That new water is sales revenue. What customers pay them for their products and/or services. For a business to remain in business they must keep water in that bucket. For if it runs out of water they can’t pay all of their expenses. They’ll become insolvent. And may have no choice but to file bankruptcy. At which point they’ll have to get a job working for someone else.
Cash flow is everything to a small business owner. Because it takes cash to pay all of their bills. Payroll, insurance, taxes, etc. None of which they can NOT pay. For if they do NOT pay these bills their employees will quit. Their insurers will cancel their policies. And the taxman will pay them a visit. Which will be very, very unpleasant. So small business owners have to make sure that at least the same amount of water is going into the bucket that is draining out of the bucket to pay their bills. And they have to make sure more water is entering the bucket than is draining out of the bucket to pay themselves. And to grow their business.
This is why business owners don’t want to hire full-time people now. Because full-time people require a lot of cash (wages/salary, payroll taxes, insurances, training, etc.). They’re nervous. For they don’t know what next will come out of the Obama administration that will require additional cash. For every time they want to make life better for the workers (a higher minimum wage, overtime for salaried employees, guaranteed hours, etc.) it takes more cash. Which comes from sales. And if sales are down future cash flow into the business will also be down. Leaving less available for all of those holes in the bucket. So they guard their cash closely. And are very wary of incurring any new cash obligations. Lest they run out of cash. And have to file bankruptcy. Which is why they lose sleep over cash flow. Especially now during the worst economic recovery since that following the Great Depression.
Tags: Bankruptcy, Business, business owner, cash, cash flow, costs, economic recovery, employees, employers, expenses, full-time, Great Depression, insurance, jobs, minimum wage, Obamacare, overtime, part-time, payroll, regulations, retail, sales, small business, small business owner, tax, work hours, worst economic recovery
(Originally published July 30th, 2012)
Before we buy a Country’s Exports we have to Exchange our Currency First
What’s the first thing we do when traveling to a foreign country? Exchange our currency. Something we like to do at our own bank. Before leaving home. Where we can get a fair exchange rate. Instead of someplace in-country where they factor the convenience of location into the exchange rate. Places we go to only after we’ve run out of local currency. And need some of it fast. So we’ll pay the premium on the exchange rate. And get less foreign money in exchange for our own currency.
Why are we willing to accept less money in return for our money? Because when we run out of money in a foreign country we have no choice. If you want to eat at a McDonalds in Canada they expect you to pay with Canadian dollars. Which is why the money in the cash drawer is Canadian money. Because the cashier accepts payment and makes change in Canadian money. Just like they do with American money in the United States.
So currency exchange is very important for foreign purchases. Because foreign goods are priced in a foreign currency. And it’s just not people traveling across the border eating at nice restaurants and buying souvenirs to bring home. But people in their local stores buying goods made in other countries. Before we buy them with our American dollars someone else has to buy them first. Japanese manufacturers need yen to run their businesses. Chinese manufacturers need yuan to run their businesses. Indian manufacturers need rupees to run their businesses. So when they ship container ships full of their goods they expect to get yen, yuan and rupees in return. Which means that before anyone buys their exports someone has to exchange their currency first.
Goods flow One Way while Gold flows the Other until Price Inflation Reverses the Flow of Goods and Gold
We made some of our early coins out of gold. Because different nations used gold, too, it was relatively easy to exchange currencies. Based on the weight of gold in those coins. Imagine one nation using a gold coin the size of a quarter as their main unit of currency. And another nation uses a gold coin the size of a nickel. Let’s say the larger coin weighs twice as much as the smaller coin. Or has twice the amount of gold in it. Making the exchange easy. One big coin equals two small coins in gold value. So if I travel to the country of small coins with three large gold coins I exchange them for six of the local coins. And then go shopping.
The same principle follows in trade between these two countries. To buy a nation’s exports you have to first exchange your currency for theirs. This is how. You go to the exporter country with bags of your gold coins. You exchange them for the local currency. You then use this local currency to pay for the goods they will export to you. Then you go back to your country and wait for the ship to arrive with your goods. When it arrives your nation has a net increase in imported goods (i.e., a trade deficit). And a net decrease in gold. While the other nation has a net increase in exported goods (i.e., a trade surplus). And a net increase in gold.
The quantity theory of money tells us that as the amount of money in circulation increases it creates price inflation. Because there’s more of it in circulation it’s easy to get and worth less. Because the money is worth less it takes more of it to buy the same things it once did. So prices rise. As prices rise in a nation with a trade surplus. And fall in a nation with a trade deficit. Because less money in circulation makes it harder to get and worth more. Because the money is worth more it takes less of it to buy the same things it once did. So prices fall. This helps to make trade neutral (no deficit or surplus). As prices rise in the exporter nation people buy less of their more expensive exports. As prices fall in an importer nation people begin buying their less expensive exports. So as goods flow one way gold flows the other way. Until inflation rises in one country and eventually reverses the flow of goods and gold. We call this the price-specie flow mechanism.
In the Era of Floating Exchange Rates Governments don’t have to Act Responsibly Anymore
This made the gold standard an efficient medium of exchange for international trade. Whether we used gold. Or a currency backed by gold. Which added another element to the exchange rate. For trading paper bills backed by gold required a government to maintain their domestic money supply based on their foreign exchange rate. Meaning that they at times had to adjust the number of bills in circulation to maintain their exchange rate. So if a country wanted to lower their interest rates (to encourage borrowing to stimulate their economy) by increasing the money supply they couldn’t. Limiting what governments could do with their monetary policy. Especially in the age of Keynesian economics. Which was the driving force for abandoning the gold standard.
Most nations today use a floating exchange rate. Where countries treat currencies as commodities. With their own supply and demand determining exchange rates. Or a government’s capital controls (restricting the free flow of money) that overrule market forces. Which you can do when you don’t have to be responsible with your monetary policy. You can print money. You can keep foreign currency out of your county. And you can manipulate your official exchange rate to give you an advantage in international trade by keeping your currency weak. So when trading partners exchange their currency with you they get a lot of yours in exchange. Allowing them to buy more of your goods than they can buy from other nations with the same amount of money. Giving you an unfair trade advantage. Trade surpluses. And lots of foreign currency to invest in things like U.S. treasury bonds.
The gold standard gave us a fixed exchange rate and the free flow of capital. But it limited what a government could do with its monetary policy. An active monetary policy will allow the free flow of capital but not a fixed exchange rate. Capital controls prevent the free flow of capital but allows a fixed exchange rate and an active monetary policy. Governments have tried to do all three of these things. But could never do more than two. Which is why we call these three things the impossible trinity. Which has been a source of policy disputes within a nation. And between nations. Because countries wanted to abandoned the gold standard to adopt policies that favored their nation. And then complained about nations doing the same thing because it was unfair to their own nation. Whereas the gold standard made trade fair. By making governments act responsible. Something they never liked. And in the era of floating exchange rates they don’t have to act responsibly anymore.
Tags: capital controls, currency, currency exchange, exchange rate, exported goods, exports, fixed exchange rate, floating exchange rate, foreign currency, foreign goods, gold, gold standard, goods, inflation, international trade, monetary policy, price inflation, prices, trade deficit, trade surplus
(Originally published February 27th, 2012)
Because of the Unpredictable Human Element in all Economic Exchanges the Austrian School is more Laissez-Faire
Name some of the great inventions economists gave us. The computer? The Internet? The cell phone? The car? The jumbo jet? Television? Air conditioning? The automatic dishwasher? No. Amazingly, economists did not invent any of these brilliant inventions. And economists didn’t predict any of these inventions. Not a one. Despite how brilliant they are. Well, brilliant by their standard. In their particular field. For economists really aren’t that smart. Their ‘expertise’ is in the realm of the social sciences. The faux sciences where people try to quantify the unquantifiable. Using mathematical equations to explain and predict human behavior. Which is what economists do. Especially Keynesian economists. Who think they are smarter than people. And markets.
But there is a school of economic thought that doesn’t believe we can quantify human activity. The Austrian school. Where Austrian economics began. In Vienna. Where the great Austrian economists gathered. Carl Menger. Ludwig von Mises. And Friedrich Hayek. To name a few. Who understood that economics is the sum total of millions of people making individual human decisions. Human being key. And why we can’t reduce economics down to a set of mathematical equations. Because you can’t quantify human behavior. Contrary to what the Keynesians believe. Which is why these two schools are at odds with each other. With people even donning the personas of Keynes and Hayek to engage in economic debate.
Keynesian economics is more mainstream than the Austrian school. Because it calls for the government to interfere with market forces. To manipulate them. To make markets produce different results from those they would have if left alone. Something governments love to do. Especially if it calls for taxing and spending. Which Keynesian economics highly encourage. To fix market ‘failures’. And recessions. By contrast, because of the unpredictable human element in all economic exchanges, the Austrian school is more laissez-faire. They believe more in the separation of the government from things economic. Economic exchanges are best left to the invisible hand. What Adam Smith called the sum total of the millions of human decisions made by millions of people. Who are maximizing their own economic well being. And when we do we maximize the economic well being of the economy as a whole. For the Austrian economist does not believe he or she is smarter than people. Or markets. Which is why an economist never gave us any brilliant invention. Nor did their equations predict any inventor inventing a great invention. And why economists have day jobs. For if they were as brilliant and prophetic as they claim to be they could see into the future and know which stocks to buy to get rich so they could give up their day jobs. When they’re able to do that we should start listening to them. But not before.
Low Interest Rates cause Malinvestment and Speculation which puts Banks in Danger of Financial Collapse
Keynesian economics really took off with central banking. And fractional reserve banking. Monetary tools to control the money supply. That in the Keynesian world was supposed to end business cycles and recessions as we knew them. The Austrian school argues that using these monetary tools only distorts the business cycle. And makes recessions worse. Here’s how it works. The central bank lowers interest rates by increasing the money supply (via open market transactions, lowering reserve requirements in fractional reserve banking or by printing money). Lower interest rates encourage people to borrow money to buy houses, cars, kitchen appliances, home theater systems, etc. This new economic activity encourages businesses to hire new workers to meet the new demand. Ergo, recession over. Simple math, right? Only there’s a bit of a problem. Some of our worst recessions have come during the era of Keynesian economics. Including the worst recession of all time. The Great Depression. Which proves the Austrian point that the use of Keynesian policies to end recessions only makes recessions worse. (Economists debate the causes of the Great Depression to this day. Understanding the causes is not the point here. The point is that it happened. When recessions were supposed to be a thing of the past when using Keynesian policies.)
The problem is that these are not real economic expansions. They’re artificial ones. Created by cheap credit. Which the central bank creates by forcing interest rates below actual market interest rates. Which causes a whole host of problems. In particular corrupting the banking system. Banks offer interest rates to encourage people to save their money for future use (like retirement) instead of spending it in the here and now. This is where savings (or investment capital) come from. Banks pay depositors interest on their deposits. And then loan out this money to others who need investment capital to start businesses. To expand businesses. To buy businesses. Whatever. They borrow money to invest so they can expand economic activity. And make more profits.
But investment capital from savings is different from investment capital from an expansion of the money supply. Because businesses will act as if the trend has shifted from consumption (spending now) to investment (spending later). So they borrow to expand operations. All because of the false signal of the artificially low interest rates. They borrow money. Over-invest. And make bad investments. Even speculate. What Austrians call malinvestments. But there was no shift from consumption to investment. Savings haven’t increased. In fact, with all those new loans on the books the banks see a shift in the other direction. Because they have loaned out more money while the savings rate of their depositors did not change. Which produced on their books a reduction in the net savings rate. Leaving them more dangerously leveraged than before the credit expansion. Also, those lower interest rates also decrease the interest rate on savings accounts. Discouraging people from saving their money. Which further reduces the savings rate of depositors. Finally, those lower interest rates reduce the income stream on their loans. Leaving them even more dangerously leveraged. Putting them at risk of financial collapse should many of their loans go bad.
Keynesian Economics is more about Power whereas the Austrian School is more about Economics
These artificially low interest rates fuel malinvestment and speculation. Cheap credit has everyone, flush with borrowed funds, bidding up prices (real estate, construction, machinery, raw material, etc.). This alters the natural order of things. The automatic pricing mechanism of the free market. And reallocates resources to these higher prices. Away from where the market would have otherwise directed them. Creating great shortages and high prices in some areas. And great surpluses of stuff no one wants to buy at any price in other areas. Sort of like those Soviet stores full of stuff no one wanted to buy while people stood in lines for hours to buy toilet paper and soap. (But not quite that bad.) Then comes the day when all those investments don’t produce any returns. Which leaves these businesses, investors and speculators with a lot of debt with no income stream to pay for it. They drove up prices. Created great asset bubbles. Overbuilt their capacity. Bought assets at such high prices that they’ll never realize a gain from them. They know what’s coming next. And in some darkened office someone pours a glass of scotch and murmurs, “My God, what have we done?”
The central bank may try to delay this day of reckoning. By keeping interest rates low. But that only allows asset bubbles to get bigger. Making the inevitable correction more painful. But eventually the central bank has to step in and raise interest rates. Because all of that ‘bidding up of prices’ finally makes its way down to the consumer level. And sparks off some nasty inflation. So rates go up. Credit becomes more expensive. Often leaving businesses and speculators to try and refinance bad debt at higher rates. Debt that has no income stream to pay for it. Either forcing business to cut costs elsewhere. Or file bankruptcy. Which ripples through the banking system. Causing a lot of those highly leveraged banks to fail with them. Thus making the resulting recession far more painful and more long-lasting than necessary. Thanks to Keynesian economics. At least, according to the Austrian school. And much of the last century of history.
The Austrian school believes the market should determine interest rates. Not central bankers. They’re not big fans of fractional reserve banking, either. Which only empowers central bankers to cause all of their mischief. Which is why Keynesians don’t like Austrians. Because Keynesians, and politicians, like that power. For they believe that they are smarter than the people making economic exchanges. Smarter than the market. And they just love having control over all of that money. Which comes in pretty handy when playing politics. Which is ultimately the goal of Keynesian economics. Whereas the Austrian school is more about economics.
Tags: asset bubbles, Austrian economics, Austrian school, Austrian school of economics, bad debt, banking, banking system, business cycle, businesses, central banking, cheap credit, consumption, credit, debt, depositors, deposits, economic activity, economic exchanges, Economics, economists, fractional reserve banking, free market, Great Depression, Hayek, human behavior, income stream, inflation, interest rates, investment, investment capital, Keynes, Keynesian, Keynesian economists, loan, malinvestment, market forces, market interest rates, mathematical equations, monetary tools, money supply, predict human behavior, prices, quantify, recessions, savings, savings accounts, savings rate, speculation, unquantifiable, workers
Democrats will cut Defense but not Entitlements because fewer People in Defense vote Democrat
A cornerstone of the Obama presidency is social justice. Primarily through redistribution of wealth. Raising taxes to fund a growing welfare state. To help those not lucky enough to have won life’s lottery. Such as expanding the food stamp program (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program). Which has grown over 70% under President Obama.
Of course, this costs money. A lot of it. Added on top of an already costly welfare state. Driven by entitlement spending. Social Security. And Medicare. The biggest portions of federal spending. And it only keeps growing. Making the welfare state unsustainable without entitlement reform. But the politicians won’t touch entitlements. The third rail of politics. Because they’re afraid of losing votes in the next election. So they’d rather the country implode instead of reforming entitlements. And hope that implosion comes after they’re dead and buried. For as long as they get to enjoy their lives they could give a rat’s behind about future generations.
But they will touch defense spending. And often do when they are looking for more money for the welfare state. Even now. The Obama administration is proposing spending cuts in defense spending. That will shrink the size of the military. And cut pay and benefits for some of the lowest paid people in the country. The people who go in harm’s way for their country. They won’t touch entitlement spending because it may hurt people that typically vote Democrat. But they have no problem doing just that to those who wear a uniform to serve their country. Who don’t always vote Democrat. Just so they can have a generous welfare state like the European social democracies they so admire have. Who can have them because they don’t have large defense budgets. For the United States has been protecting them since World War II.
People can’t pay Taxes to fund a Welfare State without a Job that Provides an Income to Tax
If you watch television you’ve probably heard New York State’s commercials to attract new businesses to New York. Where the state is promising that businesses will be “100% tax-free for 10 years. No income tax, business, corporate, state or local taxes, sales and property taxes, or franchise fees.” Which is a clear admission from the state with the second highest tax burden in the country that high taxes hurt business.
The tax burden is so great in New York that some businesses have moved their operations out of state. And people with vacation homes in New York who only visit them a couple of weeks out of the year are selling them. As the state is taxing their incomes as if they are permanent New York residents. But despite these high taxes New York has suffered great budget deficits.
New York City is a Democrat city. Their high taxes pay for a large welfare state. A large public sector. And the enormous costs of their public sector benefits. In particular, health care and pension costs. But their high tax rates have shrunk the tax base. Because people can pack up and move out of state. Just as businesses can. Which is why they are doing a 180-degree turn on taxes. In a desperate attempt to get businesses to come to New York. For even if these businesses aren’t paying taxes their employees will. Income taxes. Sales taxes. Property taxes. Liquor taxes. Cigarette taxes. Etc. None of which they can pay if there are no jobs to give them an income the state can tax.
The Number of Abortions is having a Direct Impact on the Economy and Tax Revenue
New York City released its SUMMARY OF VITAL STATISTICS 2012 THE CITY OF NEW YORK PREGNANCY OUTCOMES this month. In it you can find why New York City, New York State and the federal government are having such a difficult time paying for their welfare states. It’s because of liberal Democrat policies. Not on the spending side of the equation. But on the revenue side of the equation.
In 2012 there were 73,815 abortions. Which are future taxpayers that weren’t allowed to be born. That’s right, before anyone pays the high tax rates of a welfare state they have to be born first. And when they are not born that’s future tax revenue the government cannot collect. If we look at a 20 year period (about a generation) and assume 73,815 abortions each of those 20 years that’s 1,476,300 people that never will pay taxes. If they earned on average $30,000 each that’s $44,289,000,000 of economic activity they never created. And at a New York State tax rate of 11.7% that’s $5,181,813,000 in lost tax revenue for the state.
But it gets worse. If you divide this number by two you get the total number of couples (a man and a woman) that could have started a family. If each couple had 3 children this lost generation could have brought in another 2,214,450 taxpayers into New York City. Adding them to their parent’s generation and assuming a median family income of $53,046 (an older generation established in their career earning more and a younger generation just starting their career earning less) brings the total lost economic activity for these two generations of possible New Yorkers to $195,779,524,500. And lost tax revenue for the state of $22,906,204,367. So the number of abortions is having a direct impact on the economy. And tax revenue. Making it necessary to cut guns to pay for more butter. Whereas if these taxpayers were born we could have both our guns and butter. And live in a world made safe by the most powerful military in the world. Peace through strength. The Ronald Reagan way. And not a world where our enemies are constantly testing our resolve. The Jimmy Carter and President Obama way.
Tags: abortion, butter, defense, defense spending, Democrat, entitlement, entitlement reform, federal, guns, Health Care, high tax rates, New York, New York City, New York State, Obama administration, pension, public sector, tax burden, tax rates, tax revenue, taxes, taxpayer, welfare state
The Unemployment Rate is 13.6% when you count all Unemployed Workers
The economy is getting better and better. There are more new jobs. And the unemployment rate continues to fall. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). But this is little succor for the 10,948,000 who have lost their job since President Obama began trying to make the economy better. No matter what the BLS says (see the Employment Situation Summary posted 2/7/2014 on the Bureau of Labor Statistics).
Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 113,000 in January, and the unemployment rate was little changed at 6.6 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Employment grew in construction, manufacturing, wholesale trade, and mining…
Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (6.2 percent), adult women (5.9 percent), teenagers (20.7 percent), whites (5.7 percent), blacks (12.1 percent),and Hispanics (8.4 percent) showed little change in January. The jobless rate for Asians was 4.8 percent (not seasonally adjusted), down by 1.7 percentage points over the year. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.).
The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more), at 3.6 million, declined by 232,000 in January. These individuals accounted for 35.8 percent of the unemployed. The number of long-term unemployed has declined by 1.1 million over the year. (See table A-12.)
Once again there are more new jobs and the unemployment rate fell. Further proof the Obama administration says that their policies are working. But the low unemployment rate is misleading. As there are 91,455,000 people who are no longer in the labor force (see Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age). An increase of 10,948,000 since President Obama entered office. The BLS doesn’t count these unemployed people as unemployed in their calculation of the official unemployment rate. If you did that would raise the unemployment rate to 13.6%. Which is a lot higher than the official 6.6%. And better reflects public sentiment on the economy.
Ironically, the people hurt most by the Obama economic policies—teenagers, blacks and Hispanics—are also the biggest supporters of the president. Which tells us they obviously support him for reasons other than the economy. And apparently put those reasons above having a job. At least based their respective unemployment rates.
If we count all Unemployed and Underemployed the Current Economic Recovery would take more than 20 Years
Of the people they actually count as unemployed about a third of them have been unemployed for 27 weeks or more. So a large percentage of the unemployed are not suffering from frictional unemployment. That brief period of unemployment between jobs. No. These people have lost their jobs. And can’t find new ones. While others can find only part-time jobs.
The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers) fell by 514,000 to 7.3 million in January. These individuals were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find full-time work. (See table A-8.)
In January, 2.6 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, little changed from a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.) These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. (See table A-16.)
If you add the people up who want a full-time job but can’t get one that’s 9,900,000 who can’t find a full-time job. If we only add 113,000 jobs a month it will take over 87 months to get these people the full-time jobs they want. Or more than 7 years. If we count the last 5 years of the Obama presidency it will take the economic recovery out to 12 years. If we add the people who have left the labor force to the underemployed (the part-time workers looking for a full-time job) that would extend the economic recovery to 244 months. Or more than 20 years. Which is longer than the length of the economic recovery following the Great Depression.
The Obama administration still blames George W. Bush for causing the Great Recession. But one thing they do say over and over is that it was the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression. So they are saying that the Great Depression was worse than the Great Recession. Yet the current economic recovery is on track to last longer than the economic recovery following the Great Depression.
President Obama’s Economic Recovery is on Course to be the Worst Economic Recovery in U.S. History
The Great Depression and the Great Recession share something in common. In both the government used Keynesian economics to try and pull the nation out of the economic crisis. With huge government stimulus spending. You can see evidence of the FDR spending today. Such as the Hoover Dam. But you can see little evidence from President Obama’s stimulus spending. For there are no Hoover Dams anywhere. Just a lot of empty buildings that housed failed green energy industries. With no new jobs to show for it. Such as those good-paying jobs in the green energy industry that President Obama promised his stimulus spending would produce. But, alas, it did not. In fact, that’s just one thing this administration is not good at. Creating jobs. Even the jobs they created appear suspect.
Employment in manufacturing increased in January (+21,000). Over the month, job gains occurred in machinery (+7,000), wood products (+5,000), and motor vehicles and parts (+5,000). Manufacturing added an average of 7,000 jobs per month in 2013.
In January, wholesale trade added 14,000 jobs, with most of the increase occurring in nondurable goods (+10,000).
Mining added 7,000 jobs in January, compared with an average monthly gain of 2,000 jobs in 2013…
Employment in other major industries, including transportation and warehousing, information, and financial activities, showed little or no change over the month.
These numbers don’t make sense. Much like Keynesian economics. The economy created jobs in manufacturing (machinery, wood products, motor vehicles and parts). Wholesale trade added jobs. Mining added jobs. But this new economic activity required no new financing. Which is odd. For it takes money to make money. Also, there were no new jobs in transportation and warehousing. Which begs the question. What did they do with all the stuff they made from all those new manufacturing jobs? Did it ever leave these factories? Or is there another explanation? Did the people who entered the labor force just replace people who left it? For no net change? Perhaps.
The manufacturing workweek declined by 0.2 hour to 40.7 hours, and factory overtime edged down by 0.1 hour to 3.4 hours.
Or perhaps this explains how they could add jobs in an industry that required no additional financing, transportation or warehousing. Hiring new workers while shortening the workweek and cutting back on overtime. Or a combination of this and people leaving the labor force to net out any economic gain from these new jobs. Whatever the explanation is one thing is certain. The economy is not improving. And President Obama’s economic recovery is on track to be the worst economic recovery in U.S. history. Despite the glowing jobs reports showing new job creation month after month. And a continuing falling unemployment. Things they can only show by not counting the 10 million or so who are no longer employed.
Tags: blacks, BLS, economic crisis, economic recovery, economy, employment, Employment Situation Summary, full time job, Great Depression, Great Recession, Hispanics, jobs, Keynesian, Keynesian economics, labor force, part-time job, President Obama, stimulus, stimulus spending, teenagers, underemployed, unemployed, unemployment, unemployment rate
(Originally published May 21st, 2013)
The DJIA and the Labor Force Participation Rate tell us how both Wall Street and Main Street are Doing
Rich people don’t need jobs. They can make money with money. Investing in the stock market. When you see the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) increasing you know rich people are getting richer. Whereas the middle class, the working people, aren’t getting rich. But they may be building a retirement nest egg. Which is good. So they benefit, too, from a rising DJIA. But that’s for later. What they need now is a job. Unlike rich people. The middle class typically lives from paycheck to paycheck. So more important to them is a growing job market. Not so much a growing stock market. For the middle class needs a day job to be able to invest in the stock market. Whereas rich people don’t. For a rich person’s money works enough for the both of them.
So the Dow Jones Industrial Average shows how well rich people are doing. And how well the working class’ retirement nest eggs are growing for their retirement. But it doesn’t really show how well the middle class is living. For they need a job to pay their bills. To put food on their tables. And to raise their families. So the DJIA doesn’t necessarily show how well the middle class is doing. But there is an economic indicator that does. The labor force participation rate. Which shows the percentage of people who could be working that are working. So if the labor force participation rate (LFPR) is increasing it means more people looking for a job can find a job. Allowing more people to be able to pay their bills, put food on their tables and raise their families.
These two economic indicators (the DJIA and the LFPR) can give us an idea of how both Wall Street and Main Street are doing. Ideally you’d want to see both increasing. A rising DJIA shows businesses are growing. Allowing Wall Street to profit from rising stock prices. While those growing businesses create jobs for Main Street. If we look at these economic indicators over time we can even see which ‘street’ an administration’s policies favor. Interestingly, it’s not the one you would think based on the political rhetoric.
Wall Street grew 75% Richer under Clinton than it did under Reagan while Main Street grew 65% Poorer
Those going through our public schools and universities are taught that capitalism is unfair. Corporations are evil. And government is good. The Democrats favor a growing welfare state. Funded by a highly progressive tax code. That taxes rich people at higher tax rates. While Republicans favor a limited government. A minimum of government spending and regulation. And lower tax rates. Therefore the Republicans are for rich people and evil corporations. While the Democrats are for the working man. Our schools and universities teach our kids this. The mainstream media reinforces this view. As does Hollywood, television and the music industry. But one thing doesn’t. The historical record (see Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate and Recessions 1950-Present and Dow Jones Industrial Average Index: Historical Data).
The Democrats hated Ronald Reagan. Because he believed in classical economics. Which is what made this country great. Before Keynesian economics came along in the early 20th Century. And ushered in the era of Big Government. Reagan reversed a lot of the damage the Keynesians caused. He tamed inflation. Cut taxes. Reduced regulation. And made a business-friendly environment. Where the government intervened little into the private sector economy. And during his 8 years in office we see that BOTH Wall Street (the Dow Jones Industrial Average) and Main Street (the labor force participation rate) did well. Contrary to everything the left says. The DJIA increased about 129%. And the LFPR increased about 3.4%. Indicating a huge increase of jobs for the working class. Showing that it wasn’t only the rich doing well under Reaganomics. The policies of his successor, though, changed that. As Wall Street did better under Bill Clinton than Main Street.
Despite the Democrats being for the working man and Bill Clinton’s numerous statements about going back to work to help the middle class (especially during his impeachment) Wall Street clearly did better than Main Street under Bill Clinton. During his 8 years in office the LFPR increased 1.2%. While the DJIA increased 226%. Which means Wall Street grew 75% richer under Clinton than it did under Reagan. While Main Street grew 65% poorer under Clinton than it did under Reagan. Which means the gap between the rich and the middle class grew greater under Clinton than it did under Reagan. Clearly showing that Reagan’s policies favored the Middle Class more than Clinton’s policies did. And that Clinton’s policies favored Wall Street more than Regan’s did. Which is the complete opposite of the Democrat narrative. But it gets worse.
The Historical Record shows the Rich do Better under Democrats and the Middle Class does Better under Republicans
The great economy of the Nineties the Democrats love to talk about was nothing more than a bubble. A bubble of irrational exuberance. As investors borrowed boatloads of cheap money thanks to artificially low interest rates. And poured it into dot-com companies that had nothing to sell. After these dot-coms spent that start-up capital they had no revenue to replace it. And went belly-up in droves. Giving George W. Bush a nasty recession at the beginning of his presidency. Compounded by the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
The LFPR fell throughout Bush’s first term as all those dot-com jobs went away in the dot-com crash. Made worse by the 9/11 attacks. As all the malinvestments of the Clinton presidency were wrung out of the economy things started to get better. The LFPR leveled off and the DJIA began to rise. But then the specter of Bill Clinton cast another pall over the Bush presidency. Clinton’s Policy Statement on Discrimination in Lending forced lenders to lower their lending standards to qualify more of the unqualified. Which they did under fear of the full force and fury of the federal government. Using the subprime mortgage to put the unqualified into homes they couldn’t afford. This policy also pressured Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy these toxic subprime mortgages from these lenders. Freeing them up to make more toxic loans. This house of cards came crashing down at the end of the Bush presidency. Which is why the DJIA fell 19.4%. And the LFPR fell 2.1%. Even though the economy tanked thanks to those artificially low interest rates that brought on the subprime mortgage crisis and Great Recession both Wall Street and Main Street took this rocky ride together. They fell together in his first term. Rose then fell together in his second term. Something that didn’t happen in the Obama presidency.
During the Obama presidency Wall Street has done better over time. Just as Main Street has done worse over time. This despite hearing nothing about how President Obama cares for the middle class. When it is clear he doesn’t. As his policies have clearly benefited rich people. Wall Street. While Main Street suffers the worst economic recovery since that following the Great Depression. So far during his presidency the LFPR has fallen 3.7%. While the DJIA has risen by 86%. Creating one of the largest gaps between the rich and the middle class. This despite President Obama being the champion of the middle class. Which he isn’t. In fact, one should always be suspect about anyone claiming to be the champion of the middle class. As the middle class always suffers more than the rich when these people come to power. Just look at Venezuela under Hugo Chaves. Where the rich got richer. And the middle class today can’t find any toilet paper to buy. This is what the historical record tells us. The rich do better under Democrats. And the middle class does better under Republicans. Despite what our schools and universities teach our kids. Or what they say in movies and television.
Tags: Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, bubble, Bush, Clinton, corporations, Democrats, DJIA, dot.com, Dow Jones Industrial Average, economic indicator, Great Recession, interest rates, jobs, Keynesian, labor force participation rate, LFPR, Main Street, middle class, Reagan, Republicans, rich people, Ronald Reagan, stock market, subprime mortgage, tax rates, Wall Street, working class, working man, working people
The Affordable Care Act greatly increased the Cost of Unskilled and Inexperienced Workers
The Affordable Care Act has changed the employment landscape. In particular it changed a lot of people from full-time employees to part-time employees. Especially at entry-level jobs. Or minimum wage jobs. Jobs that may be physically demanding but require minimum skill or experience. Making them ideal for unskilled and inexperienced teenagers entering the workforce.
Not everyone, though, is a teenager in these minimum wage, entry-level jobs. Some adults find themselves in them, too. Older adults. Single parents. Widows. Widowers. People whose circumstances have changed. And who don’t have the skills or experience for other employment. So they find themselves struggling to get by on their entry-level, minimum wage job.
Then the Affordable Care Act (i.e., Obamacare) made their struggle more difficult. For it required employers to offer health insurance to anyone working 30 hours or more per week. Greatly increasing the cost of unskilled and inexperienced teenagers. And their other entry-level, minimum wage workers. So they did the only logical thing. They cut their hours below 30 hours per week. Shrinking the paychecks of both teenager. And those who are struggling to live on their minimum wage paychecks.
The Unintended Consequences of Obamacare changed Full-Time Workers to Part-Time
We call it unintended consequences. When a government program to solve one problem creates another problem. In an attempt to give people with insufficient income to buy health insurance Obamacare forced their employers to provide health insurance for them. This caused employers to cut hours for these employees. To keep the cost of their entry-level, minimum wage workers from rising. Thus reducing their insufficient income even further.
The rollout of Obamacare did not go well. In the effort to give people affordable health insurance a lot of people actually lost the health insurance they liked and wanted to keep. Another unintended consequence. (Unless the Democrats designed the Affordable Care Act to destroy the private health insurance industry as many believe then things are going exactly as planned as people may soon start demanding that the government step in and provide national health care). Causing a bit of a problem for the political party that gave us Obamacare. The Democrats. In the upcoming midterm elections.
It’s one thing causing people with individual insurance policies to lose their health insurance that may or may not have voted for you. But to further impoverish the impoverished working those entry-level, minimum wage jobs was another. For thanks to endless class warfare the Democrats put the impoverished into the Democrat camp. So they needed to do something to replace the income they lost when Obamacare changed them from full-time to part-time employees. And chose further class warfare. By forcing those ‘rich’ employers to pay their entry-level, minimum wage workers a ‘living wage’. By increasing the federal minimum wage.
Obama wants to Raise the Minimum Wage to replace Earnings lost when Obamacare made Full-Time Workers Part-Time
In the State of the Union address President Obama said he wanted to raise the federal minimum wage to $10.10. But why $10.10? The current federal minimum wage is $7.25. And if you earned that working 40 hours each week for 50 weeks (assuming you take 2 weeks off over the year for personal reasons, holidays and vacations) that comes to $14,500 per year. Raising the minimum wage to $10.10 brings those annual earnings to $20,200. Or $5,700 more at the higher wage rate. It’s a lot of money. But probably not enough for someone to quit a second job. For if someone is working 20 hours a week at a second job that would come to an additional $7,250 a year. If they work 30 hours a week in a second job that would come to an additional $10,875 a year. And some people have to work 70 hours or more a week to approach a ‘living wage’ when they don’t have the skills or experience for a job that pays more than an entry-level, minimum wage job. So raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour probably won’t solve everyone’s financial woes. But it will do something else.
If people who were working 40 hours a week went to working only 29 hours a week after Obamacare they would lose 11 hours of pay. At the current minimum wage that comes to $79.75 less in their paycheck each week. A significant amount for someone struggling to make it on something less than a ‘living wage’. But look at what happens when we raise the minimum wage to $10.10 for those 29 hours. If we multiply the additional $2.85 per hour to those 29 hours that comes to an additional $82.65 a week. Which is a little more than the $79.75 they lost when Obamacare cut their hours. So it would appear that the new push to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 is to put the money the Obama administration took out of these workers’ paychecks back into their paychecks before the fall midterm elections. So they still won’t be angry and vote Republican because of what the Democrats and their Affordable Care Act did to their paychecks.
They want to sound compassionate to those with insufficient income by wanting to raise the minimum wage to replace what they took away from them with Obamacare. To give these people a ‘living wage’. For the current minimum wage is actually worth about 20% less than it was during the Reagan administration. When it was $3.35. Wait a minute, you say. How can $7.25 be worth less than $3.35? Because of the Democrats’ embrace of Keynesian economics. The government wants to print money to spend. To provide economic activity when the private sector is not. And when President Nixon decoupled the dollar from gold in 1971 they ramped up those printing presses. And have been depreciating the dollar ever since. Because they made the dollar worth less and less over the years the purchasing power of the federal minimum wage fell. Even when people were earning more dollars. And raising the minimum wage won’t address this problem. Only voting the Keynesians out of office will.
Tags: Affordable Care Act, class warfare, Democrats, employees, employers, entry level jobs, entry-level, experience, federal minimum wage, full-time, health insurance, inexperienced, Keynesian, living wage, minimum wage, minimum wage jobs, Obama, Obamacare, part-time, paycheck, second job, skill, teenagers, unintended consequences, unskilled, workers
« Previous Entries