Why the Stock Market is so Good when the Economy is so Bad

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 31st, 2014

Economics 101

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.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

We are in the Worst Economic Recovery since that following the Great Depression because of Keynesian Economics

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 15th, 2014

Week in Review

We are in the worst economic recovery since that following the Great Depression.  Why?  Because of Democrats.  Who are all Keynesians.  And that’s a big problem as all of our worst economic times were given to us by those who adhere dogmatically to Keynesian economics.  That school of economics that gave us the Great Depression.  The stagflation of the Seventies.  The dot-com bubble.  The bursting of the dot-com bubble.  And the dot-com recession.  As well as the subprime mortgage crisis and the Great Recession.  In all of these events the Keynesians in power followed Keynesian economic policies to avoid recessions.  And then to pull us out of recessions when their avoidance didn’t work.  Then doubling down on the things that didn’t work previously.  In particular artificially low interest rates.  Which have been around zero for the last 5 years.  And massive federal spending to stimulate the economy when the private sector wasn’t spending.  Two pillars of Keynesian economics.  Neither of which have done anything to help improve the worst economic recovery since that following the Great Depression.

This is the problem with all the ‘noted’ economists the government likes to cite.  They embrace poor economic principles.  Proven wrong over and over again.  They can come up with some impressive looking charts and graphs but their analysis is all wrong.  And the fact that we’re in the worst economic recovery since that following the Great Depression proves it better than any chart and graph.  They’re wrong.  And continue to be wrong.  Yet they provide the economic policies for our country.  Some of the greatest nonsense you will ever hear.  Things you wouldn’t do in your business.  Or in your personal life (see Student Loans Are A Drag On The Economy And Society by Josh Freedman posted 2/11/2014 on Forbes).

While loans are intended to expand college access to a broader population, the nature of risk that they entail also produces the opposite result. Low- and middle-income students worried about the consequences of taking out a loan will be more likely to decide that college attendance is not worth the risk…

Studies have found that high debt levels not only deter access at the beginning, but can also drive students away from completing college once they have already started… students who start college but do not graduate are stuck with loan repayments and no college degree. They still have to repay their loans but do not have the economic boost of a college degree to help them have enough income to cover this cost.

First of all, why is it when it comes to a college education no one ever demands that we lower the cost.  Like we do with greedy oil executives who keep the price of gasoline high.  Why is it no one attacks the greedy people in higher education that keep education so costly?

The problem is too many people are going to college for the wrong reason.  There is a reason why there is a list of the best party colleges every year.  Because a lot of these kids want to go to these schools.  Which explains why colleges in Colorado are seeing a spike in out-of-state applications.  Because these kids want to go to a college where they can party with legal marijuana.  And to make that partying easier they’re majoring in easier degree programs that the college assured these kids would provide them a comfortable living after graduation.  So they can get that profitable tuition out of these kids.  Often times paid for by these kids’ student loan borrowings.  So the colleges are misleading a lot of these kids to make a buck.  Leaving them saddled with a lot of student loan debt if they quit.  Or even more student loan debt if they stay in until graduation.  While getting a degree that can’t get them a job.

A second issue with increasing levels of student loan debt is the effect on the economy… Individuals with more student loan debt were less likely than individuals without student loan debt to purchase homes or cars.

Yes, having too much debt is a bad thing.  It reduces your disposable income.  Preventing you from purchasing a house or a car.  Yet these same economic advisors have no problem with raising taxes and devaluing the currency (i.e., printing money) to pay for all of the government’s stimulus spending.  Higher taxes reduce our paychecks.  And devaluing the currency raises real prices.  Reducing what we can buy with our smaller paychecks.  No, a Keynesian has no problem with debt at the federal level that affects everyone.  But student loan debt is just a terrible thing for those kids who dropped out of college or who didn’t get a degree that an employer could use.

In the wake of the financial crash, households have been trying to deleverage, or pay down their debt so they can have a healthier financial outlook, reduce the amount of their income that they use to service their debt, and begin investing and consuming again…

A look at the data suggests that student loans have slowed down households in the process of paying down debt. Since 2008 — the peak level of household debt — households lowered their levels every type of debt except student loan debt. Student loans have continued to grow throughout this process of deleveraging.

Of course the one thing missing from this analysis is the horrible economy President Obama’s Keynesian policies have given us.  Since he became president he has destroyed some 10,948,000 jobs.  Based on the number that were out of the labor force in the January 2014 BLS jobs report (91,455,000) and how many were out of the labor force when he entered office (80,507,000).  This is why people are struggling with debt levels.  There are no jobs.  If there was a robust economy flush with jobs people wouldn’t worry about taking on debt to invest in the future.  As long as they got a useful college degree in a high-tech economy.  And not something useless like women’s studies or poetry.

But aren’t people facing poor job prospects just taking out more loans to avoid working as baristas at coffee shops that drip the coffee super slowly for no apparent reason? This does not appear to be the case from the debt data. Student loan debt has grown at almost exactly the same rate since the crash as it had been the previous five years — i.e. steadily and without fail.

Student loan credit level has been steadily rising because the cost of a college education has been steadily rising.  Again, where is the outrage at our greedy educators getting rich by loading up these kids with student loan debt for a degree they can’t use in a high-tech economy?

…the loan system allows colleges to raise prices, which causes more students to take out loans. States, facing budget pressures, have also pulled back on investment, putting even more risk on students and further increasing the need for loans.

Again, where is the outrage at our greedy educators who keep raising tuition, forcing these kids to take out more and more student loan debt?

The risk and burdens that come from forcing students to take out debt up front and pay it back later is problematic from head to toe (tassel to hem, one might say). To create a better system of higher education, we need to look at alternatives to the current debt-financed model.

So the solution is for the taxpayer to foot the bill for these useless college degrees at these party colleges?  How is that going to solve any problem?  All that will do is allow more people to go to a college in Denver where they can get high for 4 years.  And then go to work as a barista at a coffee shop that requires no 4-year degree.  How does that make anything better?  Other than get more young people to vote Democrat.  Then again, perhaps that is the only objective of Keynesian economics.  Which is why those on the left embrace these failed policies with a religious fervor.  Because it helps them win elections.  Even while they’re destroying the economy.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Women are having Fewer Babies and they’re having them Later in Life Guaranteeing Continued Financial Crises

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 4th, 2012

Week in Review

Aging populations are plaguing advanced economies.  In Japan.  The United States.  Britain.  France.  Spain.  Italy.  Greece.  And others.  All countries with large welfare states.  Large deficits.  And mountains of debt.  Fewer people are entering the workforce than are leaving it.  Resulting in a shrinking tax base.  Requiring higher taxes.  More borrowing.  And when all else fails, budget cuts.  Which is where the British are in trying to keep their NHS solvent.  Cutting 20% from the NHS budget.  While the US added Obamacare to a budget that is already causing record deficits.  Caused by fewer people entering the workforce than are leaving it.  So that’s how we got here.  Now how does the future look (see CDC: U.S. Birth Rate Hits All-Time Low; 40.7% of Babies Born to Unmarried Women by Terence P. Jeffrey posted 10/31/2012 on CNSNews)?

The birth rate in the United States hit an all-time low in 2011, according to a report released this month by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention…

While the overall birth rate declined to a record low, the birth rates for women in the 35-39 and 40-44 age groups actually increased from 2010 to 2011.

Pretty bleak.  Not only are women having fewer babies they’re waiting another 10-20 years before having them.  Which means when the full costs of Obamacare hit we’ll have perhaps an all-time low of new workers entering the workforce to pay the taxes to fund Obamacare.  And the rest of that swelling welfare state.

In about twenty years our spending obligations will grow too great for taxes and borrowing to pay.  Which means the US will have no choice but to follow the UK.  And make massive spending cuts in our health care.  Resulting in increased wait times.  Rationing.  And perhaps a little Greek-style protesting.  Unless we repeal Obamacare.  And make some serious reforms in our two most costly programs.  Medicare.  And Social Security.  If we do we can save them.  If we don’t we probably can’t save them.  This is the choice we have to make.  Forced onto us by a declining birthrate.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

It’s becoming Too Expensive to Raise a Family in Singapore so Fewer are Raising Families

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 7th, 2012

Week in Review

Raising a family is expensive.  Once upon a time you could do it on one income.  But now with huge welfare states requiring heavy taxation one income rarely cuts it anymore.  It takes two.  Childcare.  And more cooperative employers.  For without all of this young people just won’t be able to afford to raise a family (see Survey: 50% couples not have babies because ‘Money No Enough’ posted 10/6/2012 on TR Emeritus).

According to a recent survey conducted by voluntary welfare organisation ‘I Love Children’, about 1 in 2 couples (50%) said not having enough finances is the main reason for not having children…

‘I Love Children’ is a voluntary welfare organization set up in September 2005 with a purpose of keeping Singapore young — by advocating a higher priority to having children, and promoting a society where children are loved and mainstreamed. It hopes to inculcate the value and importance of parenthood and family among Singaporeans, as well as encourage a children-friendly environment in Singapore.

To keep Singapore young.  All nations would like to keep their nations young.  To have an expanding population growth rate.  So they have more young workers entering the workforce than older workers leaving the workforce.  Why?  To avoid the financial crises they’re having in Europe.  Japan.  The U.S.  And like they will probably soon have in China.  Where all of these nations have an aging population.  Where more people are leaving the workforce while fewer are entering it to replace them.  So the tax base is shrinking.  As is tax revenue.  And this at a time when government spending on pensions and health care for the elderly is rising.  Which means fewer and fewer people will have to support more elderly people in their retirement.  As the tax base dwindles governments replace that lost revenue with more and more borrowing.  Leading to those financial crises.

At the dialogue session, 26-year-old Ms Gillian Neo, said, “Currently, infant care in Singapore is still quite expensive. Even the more affordable ones, after government subsidies, is still $700 a month…”

During the the dialogue session, young parents also said that flexi-work arrangements are a major incentive as that will enable them to spend more time with their children…

However, there is still a lot of resistance in the mentality of some of the management of companies towards this mode of working.

“I was offered a full-time work from home arrangement with my previous employer… Six months into it, it really fell flat on the ground. One of the reasons was my immediate supervisor was really not supportive of the arrangement,” said Mandy Loh, a freelance writer…

She said, “In fact, there have been studies done by the employers federation, for instance, to show that for every dollar spent on flexi-work options, the return is S$1.68.”

Madam Halimah also suggested that flexi-work arrangements could be used to attract people to work for SMEs [small and medium-sized enterprise], which are currently facing a labour crunch.

The problem is not lack of affordable childcare.  The problem is that a high level of taxation (often to support an aging population) requires two incomes to raise a family.  Children are not supposed to be a nuisance that we dump off at childcare while we go to work.  They should be raised in a loving family with a full time stay-at-home parent.  A role typically filled by the mother.  The CEO of the house.  While the husband works full time to pay the bills.  Parenting is a team.  It takes two to raise a family.  A mother and a father.  Not a childcare facility.  And, no, this isn’t discriminatory to women because they can’t have a career and be a mother.  It’s what’s best for the children.

The working mom also comes with some baggage.  Especially if she is a key person on a project.  Because a snow day may pull her out of the office when they call an emergency meeting.  If a child falls ill she may be out of the office for a few critical days of the project.  If a meeting runs long because of a crisis she will still have to leave at 4:00 PM to pick up her kids from daycare.  If a project requires an emergency trip to another state she will not be able to go.  School holidays and half-days will take her out of the office, too.  These aren’t hypotheticals.  Many of us have probably experienced this in the workplace.  This is why employers are reluctant to hire single moms or single dads.  And a little reluctant to hire a married mom with young kids.  Because it is often the mother and not the father that will miss work for the kids.  As the father’s career will be more established because of less time missed for the birth of their children.  It’s not unfair.  Men and women are just different.  Women give birth.  Men don’t.

Emphasizing a woman’s career over her children has put more women into the workforce.  Which has allowed greater government spending.  This is why governments want state-provided childcare.  Because they want to get women back into the workforce as quickly as possible so they can resume paying taxes.  Which governments can never seem to collect enough of with an aging population.  Making it ever more difficult for young people to have the children governments want them to have.  To bring new taxpayers into the workforce.  So bringing women into the workforce probably hurts in the long run more than it helps.  For it allows the government to spend more.  But it also discourages young people from raising families.  Leading to fewer children.  An aging population.  And a shrinking tax base.  Which will probably be made up with more government borrowing.  As more nations join those in Europe, Japan, the U.S. and probably China who are suffering from the pressure of aging populations.  And the financial crises they cause.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Keynesian Contagion in the Eurozone is so Bad Investors are Paying People to hold their Money Elsewhere

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 11th, 2012

Week in Review

The Keynesian answer to everything is more spending.  By any means possible.  By taxes.  By borrowing.  Or by printing.  Despite Jimmy Carter’s stagflation of the Seventies.  Japan’s Lost Decade in the Nineties.  And the current sovereign debt crisis in Europe.  All Keynesian failures.  And the Keynesian answer to why they all failed.  Because they didn’t spend enough.  It’s amazing.  No matter how wrong they are they keep insisting that they are right.  And now things are so bad in the Eurozone that investors are paying people to hold their money until the current Keynesian contagion spreading through Europe dies out (see Negative interest rates spell final defeat for beleaguered savers by Jeremy Warner posted 8/6/2012 on The Telegraph).

Ignore, for the moment, what has happened to bond yields in the troubled eurozone periphery. That is an unnecessary tragedy unique to certain members of the euro. The bigger story is that across large parts of Europe, nominal interest rates are turning negative. Germany, the Netherlands, Finland, Denmark, Austria and Switzerland are already there, and now there is even some possibility of the UK joining them.

Last week, the yield on two-year gilts reached a record low, and though it has come back a bit since – boosted by the possibly mistaken belief that Mario Draghi, president of the European Central Bank, is about to come riding to the rescue in the eurozone debt crisis – it still hovers at an almost unbelievable 0.05pc. Real yields on index-linked gilts have been negative for some years now, but this is the first time that nominal yields have looked like joining them.

The way things are going, investors will soon be forced to pay to lend the Government their money, a topsy-turvy, Through the Looking Glass world where the lender pays the borrower a rate of interest, rather than the other way around. The profligacy of government is rewarded, the thrift of its citizens is punished. For long something of a mug’s game, saving for the future becomes completely pointless, while pension funds, forced into gilts by solvency regulation, are further crucified.

As governments lower interest rates to try and stimulate economic activity that isn’t there (and won’t appear even with these low rates as proven by the fact that these low rates haven’t stimulated economic activity yet) this also lowers the interest rate on savings accounts.  So as the government pursues reckless Keynesian policies (lowering interest rates to stimulate the economy) those who live responsibly and save for their retirement see their savings shrink instead of grow.  Though this destroys lives it doesn’t necessarily bother Keynesians.  Who hate people who save their money instead of spending it.  Because in the Keynesian view savings reduce economic activity by pulling cash out of the economy.  Of course savings have typically been the source of investment capital that actually generates economic activity.  But the Keynesians ignore this fact.  As well as the one about destroying people’s retirement.  Which is why their policies destroy economies.

Ultra-low bond yields are a sign not so much of international confidence in the UK’s credit worthiness, but of a seriously impaired economy…

In the meantime, fear of a disorderly break-up continues to drive investors into safe-haven assets, which, in practice, means any half-way credit-worthy alternative to the eurozone periphery…

When a country’s bond interest rate falls it is typically a sign of a strong and healthy economy.  Things are going so well that people have little fear in loaning money to them.  And therefore the country doesn’t have to pay high interest rates to attract buyers for their bonds.  This is not what is happening now, though.  Money is flowing to Britain and the United States not because their economies are strong and robust (they’re not) but because their economies aren’t as horrible as in other countries.  Especially in the Eurozone.  Where interest rates are high because of the high risk of default.  Which drives investors to countries not with better and more robust economies.  But where the risk of default is lower.  The investors are basically saying that, yes, the economies of Britain and the United States are bad.  But they are not ‘Eurozone’ bad.  So they will park their money there.  And even pay (with negative bond yields) these countries to hold their money until some better investing opportunity comes along.  You see, it’s not about earning profits now.  It’s about trying to save what money they have until this current Keynesian contagion dies out.

Banks struggle to fund themselves at the same low rates as the Government because investors fear that a eurozone break-up would further undermine their solvency. Even in Britain, banks are once again seen as fundamentally unsafe…

When the economy is growing strongly, money changes hands with high velocity, creating a consequent demand for cash. To satisfy this demand, money is withdrawn from bonds, causing interest rates to rise. But with conditions as they are now, the reverse takes place. Low economic activity causes cash to flow back the other way and into bonds, driving yields into negative territory.

In such circumstances the Bank of England has little option but to carry on with quantitative easing, even though this has become something of a circular process. The Bank buys gilts to pump prime the economy with cash and investors use the cash to buy still more gilts…

Eventually, the Bank will need to go rapidly into reverse to prevent more serious inflation, a la 1970s. The velocity of money will rise, and all that freshly minted cash will suddenly start chasing goods, wages, assets and commodities, instead of sitting in bonds.

Before there was a large government debt market rich people invested in businesses.  Small business with venture capital.  And large businesses with corporate stocks and bonds.  Rich people got richer by investing in businesses that created jobs.  Increasing economic activity throughout the country.  They made greater profits.  And took greater risks.  With a large government debt market, though, they have another alternative.  Rich people can buy government bonds instead.  They don’t make as much but they don’t take anywhere near the same risk.  Unless they’re investing in the Eurozone.  Which they appear not to be doing these days.  In fact, with these bargain basement interest rates some are even borrowing money to invest in higher interest bonds of other countries.  We call this trading on the interest.  Or carry trading.  Borrow at low interest rates.  And using that money to buy investments with high interest rates.

This is the price we pay with high government debt.  It pulls capital out of the private sector.  Provides a safer, non-job-creating option for rich investors.  And all of this extra money in the economy will sooner or later ignite inflation.  As well as threaten the solvency of the banking sector when some of these bets on carry trades go bad.  As a lot of these investors borrow money to make these trades leaving the banking sector exposed to huge risks when things go bad.  And they often do.

This is what Keynesian economics does.  Has done.  And always will do.  Yet governments still play their Keynesian games with interest rates.  And their interventions into the economy.  So why do governments keep going down this same destructive road?  Because they can.  And they just love spending other people’s money.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Ruins of Past Greek Overspending join the Ruins of their Glorious Past

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 22nd, 2012

Week in Review

Greece is at the heart of the Eurozone crisis.  Or, as some would say, the cause of the Eurozone crisis.  Their deficit spending threatens to bring an end to the Euro itself.  For the only way to save the Euro appears for other Eurozone members to assume Greece’s debt.  And make their taxpayers pay for it.  Something their taxpayers understandably don’t want to do.  But the Keynesians urge such a plan.  Along with some debt forgiveness.  So the Greeks can start spending some more.  To stimulate their economy to recovery.  As if their overspending ways of the past had never happened (see Greek athletes strive for London as Athens legacy fades by Mark Lowen posted 7/22/2012 on BBC News Europe).

Outside lie many of the venues from the Athens games, others dotted around the city. Most are idle, locked up and empty, simply rusting under a baking summer sun.

They mirror the decay now felt across the country – but also stand as monuments to Greece’s mistakes: the massive overspend of the past, without any plan for later use.

They’re seen as representative of the short-term vision that got Greece into its financial mess in the first place. The hoped-for privatisation of many of the sites has been thwarted by a mix of bureaucracy and mismanagement…

They came at the height of Greece’s borrowing boom: three years after the country joined the Euro, Athens was investing in grand infrastructure projects that it simply couldn’t afford: among them, the Olympics.

What the Keynesians fail to explain (at least with a straight face) is how more such spending will not saddle Greece with more debt that they will also not be able to service.  Putting them back exactly where they are now.  Or even in a worse financial position.

During the 20th century the European countries became social democracies.  Promising a cradle to the grave welfare state.  And large public sectors.  With large public spending.  All paid for by large tax rates on the taxpayers.  Only one problem.  All of Europe’s population is aging.  People are having fewer children.  Meaning there are fewer people entering the workforce to become new taxpayers.  While a greater number of people are leaving the workforce to go into retirement.  While enjoying their pensions and health care.  Paid for by a shrinking workforce.  Add that to grand infrastructure spending and you get unsustainable government spending obligations.  Ever more government borrowing.  And a Eurozone debt crisis.  Or in other words, Greece.

The Greek government did a great disservice to their people.  They spent so much that cutting back will be incredibly painful for their people.  But it’s the spending that’s the problem.  They have to cut it.  And if they don’t do it now it will only become more painful in the future.

Greece.  Home of Athens.  The cradle of Western Civilization.  Once the greatest place in the civilized world.  The nation that pushed back the mighty Persian Empire.  Now adds new ruins to their landscape among those of their glorious past.  But they can once again restore their glory.  If they just abandon Keynesian economics.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Great Housing Bubble and The Subprime Mortgage Crisis

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 27th, 2011

History 101

Putting People into Houses trumped Sound Monetary Policy, a Sound Currency and good Lending Practices

Housing has for a long time been the key to economic prosperity.  Because to build a house you need a lot of economic activity.  Industries produce lumber, concrete, sheetrock, brick, shingles, door frames, doors, windows, glass, flooring, plumbing pipes, plumbing fixtures, sump pumps, furnaces, heating ducts, insulation, air conditioners, electrical wiring and fixtures, carpeting, tile, linoleum, etc.  The bigger the house the more of this stuff there is.  Once built people have to buy them (stimulating the mortgage banking industry) and then furnish them.  This triggers a monsoon of economic activity.  Drapes, shades, blinds, paint, washers, dryers, stoves, refrigerators, freezers, microwave ovens, toasters, blenders, food processers, plates, dishes, knives, silverware, ceiling fans, televisions, home theaters, sound systems, computers, cable and internet services, utilities, shelving, furniture, beds, cribs, art, etc.  And, of course, the exterior of the house creates further economic activity.

This is why one of the most important economic indicators is new housing starts.  For each new house we build we create a whirlwind of economic activity.  So much that it boggles the mind trying to think about it.  That’s why governments do whatever they can to stimulate this particular economic activity.  They encourage borrowing by allowing us to deduct the interest we pay on our mortgages.  They use monetary policy to keep interest rates as low as possible.  They’ve created federal programs to help veterans.  To help low income people.  And to remove risk from lenders to encourage more risky lending (as in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac).  They’ve even used the power of government to force mortgage lenders to qualify the unqualified (Policy Statement on Discrimination in Lending).

You see, putting people into houses trumped everything else.  Sound monetary policy.  A sound currency.  Good lending practices.  Everything.  Because that was the key to a healthy economy.  A happy constituent.  And healthy tax revenue.  Not to mention you can score a lot of points with the poor and minorities by helping them into houses they can’t afford.  So this coordinated effort to put people into houses did two things.  Made money cheap and easy to borrow.  And created a boom in new housing starts.  Which resulted in a third thing.  A housing bubble.

Subprime Mortgages were for those who didn’t have Good Credit or Stable Employment with Reliable Income

Builders couldn’t build enough houses.  People were buying them faster than they built them.  And the houses they bought were getting bigger and bigger.  As they qualified for ever larger mortgages.  Poor people and people with bad credit could walk into a bank and get approved without documenting income.  House flippers could walk in day after day and get loans to buy houses.  Fix them up.  And put them back on the market.  Without using any of their own money. The market was soon flooded with new McMansions.  And refurbished smaller homes that people were moving out of.  Demand for homes was high.  And interest rates were low.  So the supply of homes swelled.  As did home prices.

Interest rates were low.  But they didn’t stay low.  All this coordinated effort to put as many people into homes as possible created a lot of artificial demand.  Heating up the economy.  Increasing prices higher than they had been.  Leading to inflationary worries.  So the Federal Reserve began to raise interest rates.  To temper that inflation.  Which didn’t sit well with those low income house owners.  Who got into their homes with the help of the Policy Statement on Discrimination in Lending.  Which forced lenders to get creative in qualifying the unqualified.  To avoid undo federal attention.  And legal actions against them.  So a lot of poor people had subprime mortgages.  As did all of those house flippers.  People who used little of their own money.  Who put little down.  And had little to lose.

What is a subprime mortgage?  In a word, risky.  It isn’t a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage at a good interest rate.  No, for those you need a good credit score and years of stable employment with reliable income.  And enough money saved up to put close to 20% down.  Subprime mortgages were for those who didn’t have a good credit score.  Years of stable employment with reliable income.  Or any savings.  These people didn’t get the ‘prime’ mortgages.  They got the expensive ones.  The ones with the higher interest rates.  And the higher monthly payments.  Why?  Because risk determined the interest rate.  And the higher the risk the higher the interest rate.

In their Effort to sustain Economic Activity the Government caused the Worst Recession since the Great Depression

But this posed a problem.  Because of the Policy Statement on Discrimination in Lending.  Making loans available to the unqualified was no good if the unqualified couldn’t afford them.  Enter the adjustable rate mortgage (ARM).  These mortgages had lower interest rates.  And lower monthly payments.  How you ask?  By making them adjustable.  A fixed-rate mortgage has to account for inflation.  And adjustable-rate mortgage doesn’t.  Because if there is inflation and the interest rates go up the ARM resets to a higher value.  Which is what happened right about the time housing prices peaked.

When the ARMs reset a lot of people couldn’t make their monthly payments anymore.  Having put little down and having made few monthly payments, these homeowners had little to lose by walking away from their homes.  And a lot of them did.  Including those house flippers.  And that was just the beginning.  With higher interest rates the new home market contracted.  Those artificially high house prices began to fall.  And when the ARMs reset they caused an avalanche of defaults and foreclosures.  The market was correcting.  There were far more houses for sale than there were buyers looking to buy.  Home values began to fall to reflect this real demand.  People who bought the biggest house they could afford because they thought real estate prices always went up soon discovered that wasn’t true.  People were making monthly payments on a mortgage that was greater than the value of their house.  Some walked away.  Some got out with short sales.  Where the lender agreed to eat the loss equity.

The housing market was imploding.  Thanks to a great real estate bubble created by the government.  In their quest to put as many people into houses as possible.  By making mortgages cheap and easy to get.  Relaxing lending standards.  And encouraging risky lending.  None of which would have happened had they left the housing market to market forces.  Where the market sets interest rates.  And housing prices.  The irony of the subprime mortgage crisis is that in their effort to sustain economic activity the government caused the worst recession since the Great Depression.  The Great Recession.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Raising the Debt Ceiling may be Worse than Default

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 30th, 2011

Despite U.S. Debt Crisis, U.S. still the World’s Safe Asset of Choice

As Congress debates over the debt ceiling…blah blah blah…Armageddon.  Funny thing is, the U.S. debt problem is not that bad.  When compared to the debt problem in Europe (see Err, over here by Schumpeter posted 7/29/2011 on The Economist).

AS THE August 2nd deadline for a resolution of America’s debt-ceiling row approaches, other news is being drowned out. America’s debt debacle provokes rubber-necking fascination but the euro crisis is still the bigger threat to financial stability.

The chances (admittedly diminishing with time) are that America will get its house in order and avoid default; and that a ratings downgrade will happen but not threaten the pre-eminence of Treasuries as the world’s safe asset of choice. In contrast, the euro area’s crisis is already in full swing and policymakers, as this week’s issue of The Economist makes plain, have not found a way to stop it.

Things are worse in the European Union.  Especially the Eurozone.  And though Armageddon is at hand in the U.S., we’re still the “world’s safe asset of choice.”  So the end of the world as we know it may not be at hand.  But the out of control government spending and debt is fast approaching European levels.  So if we don’t cut our spending and reduce our deficits, we will follow lockstep behind Europe into fiscal ruin.  And then, of course, Armageddon.  

Partisan Democrats decry Republican Partisanship

So this Republican partisanship needs to end.  They need to be bipartisan.  Like the Democrats.  That is, when they’re not being partisan themselves (see For Reid, Durbin, and Obama, a (very) partisan record on debt ceiling by Byron York posted 7/30/2011 on The Washington Examiner).

A look at Reid’s record, however, shows that in the last decade his own voting on the issue of the debt ceiling is not only partisan but perfectly partisan. According to “The Debt Limit: History and Recent Increases,” a January 2010 report by the Congressional Research Service, the Senate has passed ten increases to the debt limit since 2000.  Reid never voted to increase the debt ceiling when Republicans were in control of the Senate, and he always voted to increase the debt ceiling when Democrats were in control…

At look at Durbin’s record shows that he, too, has voted along absolutely partisan lines.  In the last decade, Durbin never voted to increase the debt ceiling when Republicans were in control and always voted to increase the debt ceiling when Democrats were in control.  As for Obama, there were four votes to raise the debt ceiling when he was in the Senate.  He missed two of them, voted no once when Republicans were in charge, and voted yes once when Democrats were in charge.

So the Democrats have a history of being just as partisan as the Republicans.  Even now, as they decry the Republican’s partisanship, they refuse to compromise at all on what they’ve always wanted.  More taxes.  And more borrowing.  So they can spend a lot more.

Democrats open to Compromise, as long as it’s the Republicans doing the Compromising

And they’ve drawn a line in the sand.  No meaningful cuts without new taxes (see Senate Kills Debt Bill, Bipartisan Talks on Hold by Steven T. Dennis posted 7/29/2011 on Roll Call).

“We’ve got a closet full of triggers,” he said. But, he added, “I came to the conclusion that we are negotiating with ourselves. The Republicans will not agree to any triggers that have any revenues in it.”

And Reid noted that Democrats have drawn a line in the sand against any cuts to entitlement programs without revenue.

The Republicans refuse to raise taxes because America is still wallowing in the Great Recession.  Democrats refuse to drop their request to raise taxes.  And flat out refuse to cut entitlements.  Like Social Security.  Medicare.  And the new Obamacare.  Because, though fiscally responsible, it’s not politically expedient.  Which is going to become a BIG problem soon.

Repeal Obamacare and all our Current Troubles go Away

Health care spending will take the U.S. to European levels of spending and debt (see CMS Projections Confirm Runaway Health Care Spending by Kathryn Nix posted 7/29/2011 on The Foundry).

As the economy recovers and the major provisions of Obamacare kick in, national health spending is projected to grow at quite a clip—increasing, on average, 5.8 percent each year. By 2020, the nation will spend $4.54 trillion on health care, or close to 20 percent of GDP. (For the sake of comparison: In 2010, federal tax revenue totaled 14.9 percent of GDP, and all federal spending combined amounted to 23.8 percent of GDP.)

Of course, every cloud has a silver lining.  An S&P report calls for real spending cuts of $4 trillion or more over 10 years to avoid the credit downgrade.  And look at this.  Obamacare will cost $4.54 trillion over some 10 years.  Imagine that.  Save the AAA bond rating.  Leave Social Security and Medicare intact.  And all you have to do is cut one program that no one is receiving any benefits from yet.  Repeal Obamacare.  And all our current troubles go away.

Or you can Devalue the Currency

Of course, that’s one way of solving the current crisis.  There appears to be another.  One that is a bit more destructive (see Answers to the 7 big “what-ifs” of debt default by Lauren Young posted 7/30/2011 on Reuters).

Traders say Asian central banks, among the world’s biggest dollar holders, have been steady buyers of alternatives to the dollar such as the Singapore dollar and other Asian currencies as well as the Canadian, Australian and New Zealand dollars. “Foreigners are at the vanguard of the drop in the dollar,” says Dan Dorrow, head of research at Faros Trading, a currency broker/dealer in Stamford, Connecticut. “I don’t think anyone expects a catastrophic U.S. default. But a downgrade will make them more aggressive in moving away from the dollar…”

The bottom line? It will be more expensive to travel overseas, drink French wine or buy Japanese cars.

A little trade war anyone?  A weak currency is like a tariff.  It makes imports so expensive that we stop buying them.  And buy American instead.  Thus increasing U.S. GDP.  And there is a corollary to this.  Can you guess what that is?  Here’s a hint.  It does something to our exports.  And our vacation market.

Fixing our Economy by Destroying other Economies

A weak currency not only makes your imports more expensive, it also makes your exports less expensive.  Which helps your export market.  And encourages people to vacation in your country because those stronger, foreign currencies can buy so much more (see U.S. Economy: Growth Trails Forecasts as Consumers Retrench by Shobhana Chandra posted 7/29/2011 on Bloomberg).

The improvement in the difference between imports and exports added another 0.6 point [of U.S. GDP].

Overseas sales will remain a backstop for factories. Dow Chemical Co. (DOW), the largest U.S. chemical maker, said demand is “strong” in markets abroad.

“We captured strong growth in Latin America, and the emerging geographies more broadly, while North America experienced moderate growth,” Andrew Liveris, chief executive officer, said on a July 27 conference call with analysts.

So perhaps this is the grand plan.  Increase spending to unsustainable levels.  Incur record debt.  This spending and debt triggers a downgrade of U.S. sovereign debt.  Which devalues the U.S. dollar.  Which places a de facto tariff on imports.  And provides a subsidy for our exports.  And it makes the U.S. a vacation destination.  Until our trading partners retaliate for fixing our economy by destroying their economies.  Like everyone is saying the Chinese are doing by keeping their own currency weak.

Repealing Obamacare would Please the Credit Rating Agencies

So the only bright spot in the U.S. economy is other economies.  Where they’re experiencing growth.  And can easily afford U.S. goods.  Which is about the only market buying them these days.  But for the world’s largest economy (for now) to rely solely on exports can be a bit risky.  Especially if it triggers a trade war.  Which, incidentally, helped trigger the Great Depression.

No, it would probably be more prudent to keep that AAA rating by cutting spending.  Before we spend ourselves to European ruin.  That’s the key to everything.  In particular cutting the fastest growing government expenditure.  Health care.  Which makes repealing Obamacare made to order.  No one is benefitting from it yet.  So no one will even notice this cut.  Other than the credit rating agencies.  Who will stand up and applaud this action. 

For just raising the debt ceiling doesn’t solve the real problem.  In fact, raising the debt ceiling without the $4 trillion in spending cuts will just push us closer to European ruin.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Obama’s Choice – Cut Spending or Downgrade U.S. Sovereign Debt

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 27th, 2011

The BIG Problem is the Excessive Spending, not the Debt Ceiling

I don’t know what’s more annoying in the budget debate to raise the debt limit.  The cries on the left for the Republicans to quit being partisan.  To instead propose a true bipartisan bill that has a chance of passing the Senate.  And by ‘bipartisan’ they mean one that gives the left everything they want.  Or is it the doom and gloom being bleated by the president, Congressional Democrats and the mainstream media if the debt ceiling isn’t raised (see Debt-ceiling threat has Wall Street scrambling by Nathaniel Popper and Jim Puzzanghera posted 7/27/2011 on the Los Angeles Times).

Without a deal, the most feared scenario is that the U.S. will miss payments on its bonds and default — which financial experts say would be disastrous. While still considered unlikely, the prospect is popping up more in conversations…

No.  This can’t happen.  There’s enough money to pay interest on the debt.  And to issue Social Security checks.  But they will have to make cuts elsewhere in some nonessential areas.  Like in some cabinet departments (Education, Energy, EPA, etc.).  This is all fear peddling by the Obama administration to do one thing.  Raise the debt ceiling.  So they can keep spending.  And this is the BIG problem.

The more likely scenario that investors are preparing for is that a temporary deal is struck to lift the debt ceiling. But such a makeshift plan is unlikely to allow the U.S. to maintain its AAA grade with bond rating companies. Citigroup analysts say the odds are 50-50 that the U.S. will be demoted to an AA rating for the first time ever.

Such a downgrade could lead to a temporary market panic. In the longer term it could push interest rates up for everyone from bankers down to ordinary people taking out car loans, and weaken the dollar’s position as the world’s reserve currency.

Even if they raise the debt limit in time there is a far greater problem.  And yet few are talking about THIS problem.  The excessive spending that will ultimately cause the credit downgrade.

To Avoid Credit Downgrade will Require $4 Trillion in REAL Spending Cuts

And it’s no secret.  S&P was very explicit in their report of what would cause a credit downgrade.  Unrestrained government spending (see The Real S&P Warning: A $4 Trillion Deal or a Downgrade by Veronique de Rugy posted 7/19/2011 on National Review).

As the debt-ceiling showdown heads into its final stages, the political maneuvering has intensified. Yet I fear that we are losing sight of the only reason why the fight over the debt ceiling matters: It forces a discussion of the country’s real problem — unrestrained government spending and the tremendous fiscal imbalances that jeopardize our financial safety.

This is the real message in the July 14 S&P report.

First, S&P writes that unless there’s a credible $4 trillion deal within the next three months, they will downgrade us. By “credible,” S&P explains, they mean a plan that will actually be put into place (i.e., not one where the tax increases happen but not the spending cuts). Not $2 trillion, not $1 trillion,  but $4 trillion. And it has to be credible.

That means REAL spending cuts.  Not those ‘future’ kind that never happen.  Those that Democrats have promised time and again only to renege on those promises.  Or the base-line budgeting type of ‘cuts’ that still increase spending.  The onus is all on Obama and the Democrats.  Because they are the ones steadfast in their opposition to any real spending cuts.

The Electric Car – Typical Wasteful Government Spending

To get an idea of their voracious appetite to spend, consider the electric car.  What the economy of the future is based on.  Green energy.  The thing that’s going to make America rich and prosperous again (see California dials back its electric car credits by Eric Evarts posted 7/26/2011 on Consumer Reports).

In large part, EV appeal was greater in California due to a $5,000 state rebate that came on top of the $7,500 federal tax credit. With the tax credits, the price of an all-electric Nissan Leaf could be as low as $21,000, making it cheaper than a Toyota Prius and putting it on par with other small cars. (The Chevrolet Volt was not eligible for the state credit, although it does receive the $7,500 federal tax credit…)

While the price of electric cars is going up for California drivers, other factors still make the Golden State more attractive than most for electric cars: California uses no coal to generate electricity; its major electric utility companies have time-of-use rates and special power rates for electric cars, effectively lowering their energy costs; and perhaps most importantly, pure electric cars are still eligible to use carpool lanes on the state’s notoriously congested freeways with just a driver onboard. In addition, public charging infrastructure is on a faster track than it is elsewhere in the nation.

So that’s $5,000 from the state.  $7,500 from Washington.  That’s a discount of $12,500 (37.3%).  And yet the price of the Nissan Leaf is still $21,000.  But that still isn’t enough to make this car sell.  They need a subsidized electrical rate as well.  Government at all levels is paying a lot of our tax dollars to make a car no one wants to buy.  And this is the kind of spending that they just can’t cut.  Wasteful.  And this is only one example from the multitude.

Repeal Obamacare – Save Money, Please the People

Cutting $4 trillion over 10 years will not be easy.  But we can halve this number with one stroke of a pen (See By a Margin of 21 Points, Americans Favor Repeal by Jeffrey H. Anderson posted 7/27/2011 on the Weekly Standard).

While President Obama’s notion of a “balanced approach” to deficit reduction isn’t written down anywhere, it’s quite clear that it doesn’t involve repealing Obamacare (despite the fact that the health care overhaul would cost over $2 trillion in its real first decade, from 2014 to 2023). Polling, however, strongly suggests that it should. The latest Rasmussen poll of likely voters shows that, by a margin of 21 points (57 to 36 percent), Americans support the repeal of the centerpiece legislation of the Obama presidency.

Repealing Obamacare would be a step in the right direction.  It will save $2 trillion in spending that is pushing the U.S. toward a credit downgrade.  And the people don’t want it by a margin of 21 points.  Save money.  Please the people.  It’s a no-brainer for responsible government.  If only government was responsible.

The Choice – Cut Spending or Downgrade U.S. Sovereign Debt

The president said we need to live within our means.  And he’s right about that.  But living within our means doesn’t mean taxing and borrowing more to pay for out of control government spending.  Living within our means starts by NOT spending money we don’t have.  Not to spend first and figure out how to pay later. 

And just because other presidents raised the debt limit doesn’t mean we have to raise the debt limit.  You don’t justify bad behavior with bad behavior.  We’ve borrowed too much.  The credit rating agencies have spoken.  We need to cut spending.  And not get all professorial and lecture the American people that we need to be ‘responsible’ and raise taxes to pay for the government’s irresponsible spending binge.

We either cut spending.  Or Obama and his Democrats will downgrade U.S. sovereign debt for the first time in history.  Those are the choices.  And a good place to start would be to repeal Obamacare.  Because that’s all future spending.  All $2 trillion.  Not like Social Security or Medicare.  You can cut Obamacare.  And no one will miss it.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Only Obama can make the U.S. Default on its Debt Obligations

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 15th, 2011

$172.4 Billion is a lot of Money

Still no closer to a budget agreement to raise the debt limit.  Obama wants more taxes and more borrowing.  The Republicans want a little fiscal sanity.  Because something is definitely wrong in Washington when $172.4 billion a month isn’t enough (see August Invoices Show U.S. Treasury’s Limited Choices by David Rapp posted 7/12/2011 on Bloomberg Government).

The U.S. government, whose legal authority to borrow money expires on or about Aug. 2, expects to take in $172.4 billion next month — enough to cover little more than half of its bills due then, according to a study for the Bipartisan Policy Center, a research organization.

The U.S. may not have to default on outstanding debts or withhold interest payments for that month; it may be able to cover $29 billion in anticipated interest due on Treasury securities with its cash receipts…

Jay Powell, undersecretary of the Treasury for Finance under President George H.W. Bush, calculated for the policy center that $306.7 billion in bills will come due after Aug. 2. They include Social Security benefits, defense vendor payments and military active duty pay, along with federal pay for every department and agency, in addition to the interest payments.

I think we’re missing the bigger picture here.  The government collects $172.4 billion but spends $306.7 billion.  That is, for every dollar it collects it spends $1.78.  In other words, the government’s spending is 78% over their cash budget.  Managers in the corporate world get fired for performances like this. 

That is either a big spending problem.  Or a big revenue problem.  So are taxes too low?  I don’t think so.  I mean, $172,400,000,000 is a lot of money.  How much?  It’ll buy 542 of the new Boeing 747-8 jetliners.  Or 149 Dallas Cowboys Stadiums.  Or 27 nuclear powered aircraft carriers.  It’ll even pay for the Apollo moon program with $41.3 billion left over.  $172.4 billion is an enormous amount of money.  You couldn’t spend this much money if you tried.  Even if you bought the best houses, cars, jewelry, clothes, island, etc.  And if you had the mother of all drug addictions.  It’s just a staggering amount of money.  And if you’re collecting in taxes more money than the cost of the Apollo moon program each month, guess what?  You don’t have a revenue problem.  You have a spending problem.

Bloomberg has a nifty little calculator on their website.  You can put checks on the things you want to pay.  And leave the things you don’t unchecked.  It’s an interesting list of bills coming due this month.  There’s a lot of stuff we can cut easily to save $47.1 billion.  Federal salaries & benefits ($14.2 billion).  Small Business Administration ($0.3 billion).  Education Department ($20.2 billion).  Department of Housing and Urban Development ($6.7 billion).  Energy Department ($3.5 billion).  Labor Department ($1.3 billion).  Environmental Protection Agency ($0.9 billion).  What taxpayer would miss any of these?  Cuts to Social Security and Medicare, on the other hand, will be a little more difficult.  For they actually do something.  And people will miss them.

Incidentally, interest on the debt is $29 billion.  Though a lot of money, it’s not too high for the $172.4 billion to cover.  So if the Obama administration doesn’t pay this and causes a downgrade in our credit rating, President Obama will have some ‘splaining to do.

Monthly Spending Equivalent to 1.3 Apollo Programs should be Enough

The president has no intention of cutting spending.  Their goal is to make Republicans look bad.  And to better position themselves for the 2012 election.  So the president will lie and spin misinformation in hopes that this stuff is just too complicated for the layperson to follow.  And that they only remember one thing.  That Republicans stopped Social Security checks going out because they’d rather give tax breaks to the rich.  And that they miss the fact that Obama and his Democrats gave us this crisis to begin with.  With the greatest spending orgy of any peacetime president.  So he threatens that if the Republicans don’t pay for his reckless spending, he’s going to tell everyone it’s their fault that the country defaulted (see Obama: Chance for ‘something big’ to calm economy by Jim Kuhnhenn, Associated Press, posted 7/15/2011 on Yahoo! News).

Obama urged Republican lawmakers to make tough calls, too. He attempted to turn their opposition to any tax increases back against them, warning that a government default caused by failure to raise the debt ceiling would increase interest rates, “effectively a tax increase for everybody.”

No, a failure to raise the debt ceiling won’t cause a government default.  Barack Obama will.  If and when he decides to pay something he thinks is more important than the interest on the debt.

Obama sternly rejected any plan of that size that did not include increases in tax revenue.

Apparently spending the equivalent of 1.3 Apollo programs a month just isn’t enough.  Obama gives new meaning to tax and spend liberal.  Pity Ted Kennedy didn’t live long enough to work with his kind of liberal in the White House.  Or see his pet cause, national health care, signed into law.  Then they both could have seen their policies destroy this country.  Don’t believe me?

Spending/Debt so bad it’s bringing back the Gold Standard

Then ask the Chinese communists.  Though their economy is rife with cronyism and will no doubt collapse as the Japanese economy did in the Nineties, they know too much debt when they see it (see Return of the Gold Standard as world order unravels by James Quinn and Ambrose Evans-Pritchard posted 7/16/2011 on The Telegraph).

Xia Bin, an adviser to China’s central bank, said in June that the country’s reserve strategy needs an “urgent” overhaul. Instead of buying paper IOU’s from a prostrate West, China should invest in strategic assets and accumulate gold by “buying the dips”.

Step by step, the world is edging towards a revived Gold Standard as it becomes clearer that Japan and the West have reached debt saturation. World Bank chief Robert Zoellick said it was time to “consider employing gold as an international reference point.” The Swiss parliament is to hold hearings on a parallel “Gold Franc”. Utah has recognised gold as legal tender for tax payments.

A new Gold Standard would probably be based on a variant of the ‘Bancor’ proposed by Keynes in the late 1940s. This was a basket of 30 commodities intended to be less deflationary than pure gold, which had compounded in the Great Depression. The idea was revived by China’s central bank chief Zhou Xiaochuan two years ago as a way of curbing the “credit-based” excess.

So the Chinese, the World Bank, the Swiss, Utahans and a dead John Maynard Keynes agree that the U.S. has a spending problem.  A spending problem that is racking up debt to saturation.  So bad that the once invincible U.S. dollar should no longer serve as the world’s reserve currency.  A sad development indeed.  And painful to hear.  Especially coming from a commie.

Tax Hikes First, then Broken Spending Cuts Promises

And yet the president is in denial.  He doesn’t see a spending/debt problem.  He sees a revenue problem.  Because high taxes and high debt are okay in his world.  As long as they pay for liberal government spending.  That’s why he’s dead set against spending cuts only.  He wants those tax hikes.  He needs those tax hikes.  And will promise almost anything to get those tax hikes.  Because once he does, and mark these words well, he will break every spending cuts promise he made to get them.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

« Previous Entries