Victimization + Demonization + Emotion = Democrat Votes

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 6th, 2014

Politics 101

Politicians Lie because they will Lose Elections if they Tell the Truth

Politicians lie.  Why?  Simple.  Politicians lie when telling the truth won’t help them win an election.

When President Obama lied the Lie of the Year he lied for a reason.  People didn’t like the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare).  They did not want national health care.  And they believed that Obamacare would put them onto the path to national health care.  To allay their concerns President Obama said, “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it.  Period.”  The statement that became the Lie of the Year.  Because a lot of people lost the health care they had and wanted to keep.  In fact, they wrote the Affordable Care Act to make sure that would happen.  As they need to herd as many of the young and healthy into Obamacare as possible to make the thing work.  People who would pay into the program while not collecting any benefits.  So they could subsidize the old and sick.

Had the president told the people that they would lose the health care plan that they liked and wanted to keep there would have been a lot more opposition to the Affordable Care Act.  With constituents pressuring their representatives to vote against it or they would vote against them in the next election.  This is why politicians lie when they do things against the will of the people.  Because they will lose elections if they tell the truth.

Having Victims is No Good unless you have someone to Blame for their Victimization

Democrats lie a lot.  Because their policies have a long history of failure.  Especially their economic policies.  And that’s because Democrats embrace Keynesian economics with a religious fervor.  Despite Keynesian economics giving us the Great Depression, the stagflation of the Seventies, the dot-com bubble recession and the Great Recession.  No, these Keynesian disasters don’t give Democrats any reason to doubt their faith.   Because at the heart of Keynesian economics is an activist government in the private sector economy.

Democrats like to fault capitalism.  Saying unfettered capitalism is unfair.  Unfeeling.  Cruel.  And just plain mean.  So they involve themselves in the private sector economy to even the playing field.  To unrig the rigged game.  To remove the unfair, unfeeling, cruel and mean elements of unfettered capitalism.  By fettering capitalism.  And the first thing they do is identify victims of capitalism.  A secretary who pays a higher tax rate than her boss.  Warren Buffet.  Minimum wage workers who can’t earn a living wage.  And, of course, people who live in fear of losing everything because they don’t have health insurance.

Of course having victims is no good unless you have someone to blame for their victimization.  Such as the 1% who are extremely wealthy but don’t pay their ‘fair share’ of taxes.  Even though they pay over a third of all federal income taxes while totaling only 1% of the population.  Greedy business owners who’d rather pocket millions while depriving their workers from earning a living wage.  Even though most business owners are not millionaires and probably could earn more by working for someone else.  And evil corporations who force people to work against their will or lose their health insurance and other benefits.  Even though people tend to work where they receive the best pay and benefit package their skill and experience can get.  And will leave one job in a heartbeat for a job with a better pay and benefit package elsewhere.

The Affordable Care Act is an Economic Model that cannot deliver on its Promise

Once they have their victims and their villains all they need to do is pull on the heartstrings.  To generate sympathy for the victims.  While getting these same people angry at the villains.  Which they do by avoiding facts.  Instead, they tune in to people’s emotions.   Victims are sad.  And we should do something to help them from their victimization.  Villains are bad.  And we should do something to punish them.  So they demonize these villains.  Getting the people to believe that punishing them, say, with higher taxes will somehow improve their lives.  Which it won’t.  In fact, they could take all the wealth away from the 1% and imprison them but it won’t make a difference in the lives of the 99%.  For if the 1% are no longer creating wealth they would be unable to pay over a third of all federal income taxes anymore.  Requiring higher taxes on the 99%.  Or a drastic cutting of government benefits.

If people understood sound economic principles (and not the Keynesian nonsense our power-hungry politicians favor) they would not be so emotionally manipulated.  In fact, if people had a solid understanding of history they would never vote for anyone attacking capitalism.  As unfettered capitalism is the only economic system that allows people without privilege to be as successful as anyone else in the country.  Whereas the most anti-capitalistic countries have had the greatest poverty and human rights abuses.  Such as the former Soviet Union, the People’s Republic of China, the former Eastern Bloc countries, North Korea, Cambodia, Cuba, etc.  So for emotional manipulation to work they need a not so educated public. Which is why the Democrats control public education and our universities.  And champion pre-K.  To get control of our kids as soon as possible.  To dumb them down.  And program them into good Democrat voters.

This is the formula the Democrats use to win elections.  Victimization + Demonization + Emotion = Democrat Votes.  For they can’t win by telling the truth.  Or having informed voters.  So they use their control of our educational system to make more emotionally pliable voters.  Ones that are easier to lie to.  And that they can sway with fiery rhetoric.  Which is why we have Obamacare today.  Because the Affordable Care Act is an economic model that cannot deliver on its promise.  To provide a higher quality health care to more people while costing less.  Which is impossible.  Just as it is impossible to draw a square circle.  It’s either a square.  Or a circle.  It cannot be both.  Ditto for the promise of Obamacare.  Which is why to get people to believe that it was possible to give them more for less required telling a lie so big that it was voted the Lie of the Year.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Trend Analysis – Liquidity

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 7th, 2013

Economics 101

Liquidity can be More Important than Profitability to a Small Business Owner

Small business owners lose a lot of sleep worrying if they will have enough cash for tomorrow.  For next week.  For next month.  You can increase sales and add new customers but unless this creates cash those new sales and new customers may cause more problems than they help.  For a lot of businesses fail because they run out of cash.  Often times learning they have a cash problem only when they don’t have the cash to pay their bills.  So savvy business owners study their financial statements each quarter.  Even each month.  Looking for signs of trouble BEFORE they don’t have the cash to pay their bills.

Investors poor over corporations’ financial statements to make wise investment decisions.  Crunching a lot of numbers.  Analyzing a myriad of financial ratios.  Gleaning a lot of useful information buried in the raw numbers on the financial statements.  Small business owners analyze their financial statements, too.  But not quite to the extent of these investors.  They may look at some key numbers.  Focusing more on liquidity than profitability.  For profits are nice.  But profits aren’t cash.  As a lot of things have to happen before those profits turn into cash.  If they turn into cash.  The following are some balance sheet and income statement accounts.  Following these accounts are some calculations based on the values of these accounts.  With four quarters of data shown.

So what do these numbers say about this year of business activity?  Well, the business was profitable in all four quarters.  And rather profitable at that.  Which is good.  But what about that all important cash?  With each successive quarter the business had a lower cash balance.  That’s not as good as those profitability numbers.  And what about accounts receivable and inventory?  There seems to be some large changes in these accounts.  Are these changes good or bad?  What about accounts payable?  Accrued expenses?  Current portion of long-term debt?  These all went up.  What does this mean in the grand scheme of things?  Looking at these numbers individually doesn’t provide much information.  But when you do a little math with them you can get a little more information out of them.

In Trend Analysis a Downward sloping Current Ratio indicates a Potential Liquidity Problem

Current assets are cash or things that a business can convert into cash within the next 12 months.  Current liabilities are things a business has to pay within the next 12 months.  Current assets, then, are the resources you have to pay your current liabilities.  The relationship between current assets and current liabilities is a very important one.  Dividing current assets by current liabilities gives you the current ratio.  If it’s greater than one you are solvent.  You can meet your current financial obligations.  If it’s less than one you will simply run out of current resources before you met all of your current liabilities.  In our example this business has been solvent for all 4 quarters of the year.

Days’ sales in receivables is one way to see how your customers are paying their credit purchases.  The smaller this number the faster they are paying their bills.  The larger the number the slower they are paying their bills.  And the slower they pay their bills the longer it takes to convert your sales into cash.  Days’ sales in inventory tells you how many days of inventory you have based on your inventory balance and the cost of that inventory.  The smaller this number the faster things are moving out of inventory in new sales.  The larger this number is the slower things are moving out of inventory to reflect a decline in sales.  These individual numbers by themselves don’t provide a lot of information for the small business owner.  Big corporations can compare these numbers with similar businesses to see how they stack up against the competition.  Something not really available to small businesses.  But they can look at the trend of these numbers in their own business and gain very valuable information.

The above chart shows the 4-quarter trend in three important liquidity numbers.  Days’ sales in receivables increased after the second quarter upward for two consecutive quarters.  Indicating customers have paid their bills slower in each of the last two quarters.  Days’ sales in inventory showed a similar uptick in the last two quarters.  Indicating a slowdown in sales.  Both of these trends are concerning.  For it means accounts receivable are bringing in less cash to the business.  And inventory is consuming more of what cash there is.  Which are both red flags that a business may soon run short of cash.  Something the three quarters of falling current ratio confirm.  This business is in trouble.  Despite the good profitability numbers.  The downward sloping current ratio indicates a potential liquidity problem.  If things continue as they are now in another 2 quarters or so the business will become insolvent.  So a business owner knows to start taking action now to conserve cash before he or she runs out of it in another 2 quarters.

Keynesian Stimulus Spending can give a Business a Current Ratio trending towards Insolvency

In fact, this business was already having cash problems.  The outstanding balance in accounts payable increased over 100% in these four quarters.  Not having the cash to pay the bills the business paid their bills slower and the balance in outstanding accounts payable rose.  Substantially.  As the cash balance fell the business owner began borrowing money.  As indicated by the increasing amounts under current portion of long-term debt and interest expense.  Which would suggest substantial borrowings.  Putting all of these things together and you can get a picture of what happened at this business over the past year.  Which started out well.  Then experienced a burst of growth.  But that growth disappeared by the 3rd quarter.  When sales revenue began a 2-quarter decline.

Something happened to cause a surge in sales in the second quarter.  Something the owner apparently thought would last and made investments to increase production to meet that increased demand.  Perhaps hiring new people.  And/or buying new production equipment.  Explaining all of that borrowing.  And that inventory buildup.  But whatever caused that surge in sales did not last.  Leaving this business owner with excess production filling his or her inventory with unsold goods.  And the rise in days’ sales in receivables indicates that this business is not the only business dealing with a decline in sales.  Suggesting an economic recession as everyone is paying their bills slower.

So what could explain this?  A Keynesian stimulus.  Such as those checks sent out by George W. Bush to stimulate economic activity.  Which they did.  Explaining this sales surge.  But a Keynesian stimulus is only temporary.  Once that money is spent things go right back to where they were before the stimulus.  Unfortunately, this business owner thought the stimulus resulted in real economic activity and invested to expand the business.  Leaving this owner with excess production, bulging inventories, aging accounts receivable and a disappearing cash balance.  And a current ratio trending towards insolvency.  Which is why Keynesian stimulus spending does not work.  Most businesses know it is temporary and don’t hire or expand during this economic ‘pump priming’.  While those that do risk insolvency.  And bankruptcy.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Statement of Cash Flows

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 18th, 2012

Economics 101

No Business will be able to Repay any Loan unless their Business Operations can Generate Cash

In business cash is king.  As it is in life.  We need cash to buy food to survive.  Just as a business needs cash to pay its bills to survive.  Cash is so important to a business that there is a special financial statement to summarize cash flows in a business.  It looks something like this.

The above are made up numbers that could be similar to any statement of cash flows.  It shows the three sources of cash for a business.  Operating activities.  Investing activities.  And financing activities.  Every last dollar a business has came from one of these three sources.  And we can determine the health of the business just by seeing where its cash came from.

Not all business owners use a statement of cash flows.  Most small business owners probably don’t.  Having some other method to see where their cash is coming from.  And going to.  But if they plan on borrowing money from a bank they’re going to need one.  As bankers want to see a business’ ability to generate cash from their business operations.  For no business will be able to repay any loan unless their business operations can generate cash.

An Increase in Accounts Receivable indicates a Business’ Customers are Paying them Slower

A business generates cash from operating activities.  Which comes from sales.  Of course business have to spend a lot of money to create those sales.  So the net cash generated is basically net income with a few adjustments.  In accrual accounting we expense a portion of what we spent on an asset as a depreciation expense each accounting period.  Because although we pay for an asset in one year we may use that asset for the next 5 years.  Or more.   So we expense a portion of that asset each accounting period.  But we don’t have to write a check to pay for depreciation.  It is a non-cash transaction.  So to adjust net income to show net cash generated we have to add back this depreciation expense.

An increase in accounts payable indicates a business is paying their bills slower.  And when you pay your bills slower you free up cash for other things.  Becoming a source of cash.  With each payroll a business has to withhold taxes from their employees’ paychecks.    Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, the employee’s federal and state withholding taxes.  With each payroll these liabilities accrue and are payable to the various government agencies.  You  can free up some cash by paying these taxes late.  But it is not recommended.  For the penalties for doing so can be severe.

An increase in accounts receivable indicates their customers are paying them slower.  An increase in inventory indicates they’re buying more into inventory than they’re selling from inventory.  Prepayments will conserve cash in the future by paying for things now.  But they will leave you with less cash now.  A decrease in accrued liabilities indicates they’re catching up on paying some of their accrued expenses.  Like those payroll taxes.  (In the ideal world if you add up the increase and decrease in accrued liabilities they should net out. Indicating you’re paying your accrued expenses on time.  In this example the business has a balance of $3,000 they’re paying late.)  Increases in all of these items consume cash, leaving the business with less cash for other things.

When the Owner has to put in More of their Own Cash into the Business Things are not going Well

Cash flows from investing activities can include financial investments a business buys and sells with the excess cash they have.  In this example the only investment activities is the buying and selling of some plant assets.  Perhaps selling some old equipment that is costly to maintain and replacing it with new equipment.  Even replacing a vital piece of production equipment that breaks down.  Putting a business out of business.  Thus requiring a cash purchase to replace it as quickly as possible.  Short-term borrowing may be advances on their credit line while the settlement on short-term debt may be the repaying of some of those advances.  Proceeds from long-term debt may be a new bank loan.  While payments to settle long-term debt may be repaying a previous loan.  Finally, paid-in capital is money from the business owner.  Such as cashing in a 401(k) or getting a second mortgage on their house so they can put it into their business to make up for a cash shortage.

So what does all of this mean?  Is this business doing well?  Or are they having problems?  Well, the good news is that they are meeting their cash needs.  The bad news is that it’s not because of their operating activities.  They’re meeting their cash needs by paying their vendors slower.  In fact, if they didn’t they may have had a net loss of cash for the year.  Which means had they not paid their bills late they may have gone bankrupt.  And their cash problems are evident elsewhere.   For not only are they paying their vendors slower their customers are paying them slower.  Making them wait longer to get the cash from their sales.  And with more money going into inventory than coming out of inventory it indicates that sales are down.  Leaving them with less revenue to convert into cash.  And what’s particularly troubling is that increase in accrued liabilities.  Which could mean they’re paying their payroll taxes slower.  Accessing their credit line also indicates a cash problem.  Also, having to borrow $50,000 to help repay a $100,000 loan coming due is another sign of cash problems.  Finally, when the owner has to put in more of their own cash into the business things are not going well.

These are things a business owner has to deal with.  And things a loan officer will note when reviewing the statement of cash flows.  Some people may think a net increase in cash of $18,000 is a good thing.  But it’s not that good.  Considering they had to get that cash by paying their vendors slower, paying the government slower, borrowing money as well as investing more of their personal savings into the business.  Worse, despite having all of these cash problems the government is taxing away of lot of their cash.  Because their net income passing through to their personal income tax return is $235,000.  Putting them in the top 5% of income earners.  And into the crosshairs of those looking to raise tax rates on those who can afford to pay a little more.  To make sure they pay their ‘fair’ share.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Labor Costs

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 19th, 2012

Economics 101

Small Business Owners may have Nicer Homes but Chances are they are Mortgaged to the Hilt

A lot of people think business owners are cheapskates.  Greedy bastards.  Who hate their employees.  And try to pay them as little as possible.  Not for any business reasons.  But just because they are so greedy.  And hateful.  During bad economic times when the employer has to make some cuts labor leaders will tell the rank and file don’t believe the employer.  “Just look at the house the boss lives in.  And the house you live in.  Whose is better?  Bigger?  That’s right.  The boss’ house is.  Always remember that.”

Yes, bosses may have nicer homes.  But chances are they are mortgaged to the hilt.  Not to mention the fact that these bosses may be working an 80-hour week.  Which is not uncommon for a small business owner.  Especially during bad economic times.  As they may be negotiating with creditors, their banker, their vendors, keeping their customers happy and trying to find new customers.  While the rank and file work their 40 hours, collect their paychecks and enjoy their free time.

So it’s not easy being the boss.  That’s why so few people want to be the boss.  For it’s easier being an employee.  You work.  You get paid.  And you leave work at work.  Even if you think you’re not being paid as much as you deserve to be.  Something most employees feel.  That they’re overworked.  And underpaid.  But they never look at things through their employer’s eyes.  And see what they really cost their boss.

Most Businesses have gone from a Defined Benefit Pension Plan to a Defined Contribution 401(k)

What an employee gets paid and what an employer pays for that employee are two different things.  To begin with an employer pays for more hours of an employee’s time than he or she actually works.  When you factor in vacation time, holidays and sick days an employer may pay for 2,080 hours while the employee only works 1,896 hours.  If an employee makes $35 an hour those nonworking hours can add up to $6,440.  Which an employee gets for doing nothing.  We call them fringe benefits.  Just an employer’s way of saying, “Hey, I don’t hate you.  Here’s some money for doing nothing.”

Why do they pay this?  Because of free market capitalism.  If they don’t pay it someone else may.  And attract their good workers away from them.  Because if there is something employees will do is jump ship the moment they get a better offer.  Which is a good thing.  This is supply and demand.  And despite workers feeling overworked and underpaid this free market dynamic makes sure employees get paid as much as they can while helping employers pay as little as they can.  That equilibrium point where employees will keep working.  While leaving employers still competitive.  Though that’s getting harder and harder to do these days.  As the cost of doing business has never been higher.

In addition to these fringe benefits there are also health insurance, life insurance and retirement contributions.  With health care often being the greatest single employee cost to a small business owner.  Which is why most now make employees pay a small portion of their health care these days.  Retirement contributions have also gotten very costly.  Few people still have a defined benefit pension plan these days.  Typically an owner will offer a defined contribution 401(k) for the employee to contribute to.  And if times are good the employer may match their contribution up to a certain amount.  But employers will call this a discretionary contribution.  And it will be one of the first things to go when they are having cash flow problems in a bad economy.

The Last Thing a Business Owner needs while trying to Deal with Soaring Labor Costs are more Costs and Taxes

In addition to fringe benefits there are payroll taxes and insurances.  Such as Social Security.  Which the employer and employee split.  At least in theory.  The employer currently pays 6.2% on the first $110,100 in an employee’s earnings.  The employee kicks in 4.2% (which may go up another 2 points after the fiscal cliff, as that tax cut expires).  In reality the employee doesn’t pay any of this.  They get their check and go on their way while the employer has to find the cash to pay the 10.4% due.  For an employee earning $66,360 that Social Security tax payable comes to $7,571.  Another big check the owner has to write is for state unemployment.  Which can be anywhere around $4,000.  The following chart summarizes these and additional labor costs (note: the retirement contribution is probably between a 401(k) matching contribution and a defined benefit pension contribution).

An employee with a pay rate of $35/hour will gross $66,360.  Deductions will lower actual take-home pay.  But the employer’s total cost for this employee in this example is $108,252.  Or an additional $41,892 than the employee grosses.  Which comes out to another $17.04 an hour.  Something the employee never sees.  This is why labor is so costly.  And why employers want to hire as few people as possible.  For each additional employee they hire (in this example) they have to pay an additional 22.2% in payroll taxes/insurances.  And an additional 41% in fringe benefits.  Or a combined 63.1%.  In addition to what they’re paying the employees for their actual work.

And this is why employers want to offload health care (especially for their retirees).  And their pension liabilities.  As they can add an additional 30% (or more) to their labor costs.  What started out as fringe benefits to attract some of the best workers is now bankrupting many companies.  People are living so long into their retirement that these cost are growing faster and larger than any other cost a business has.  And it’s also why small business owners are very worried about new regulations and taxes.  For the last thing they need while trying to deal with these soaring labor costs are more costs.  Or taxes.  Which doesn’t make them cheap or greedy.  It just makes them very cautious business owners who are trying to keep their businesses afloat in an ever more difficult business environment.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

The Occupy Wall Street Protesters don’t want Fairness, They want Privilege

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 9th, 2011

People who hate Capitalism hate America

Those on the Left keep trying to paint these Wall Street protesters as the Left’s version of the Tea Party.  Only better because they are standing up to corporate greed.  But when you step back and look at the broader picture you see some interesting things.  For one, our enemies abroad hate the Tea Party.  And love these Wall Street protestors (see Iran calls Wall Street protests ‘American Spring’ posted 10/9/2011 on The Associated Press).

An Iranian military commander said Sunday that the protests spreading from New York’s Wall Street to other U.S. cities are the beginning of an “American Spring,” likening them to the uprisings that toppled Arab autocrats in the Middle East.

Gen. Masoud Jazayeri of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard said the protests against corporate greed and the gap between rich and poor are a revolution in the making that will topple what he called the Western capitalist system.

So the Occupy Wall Street people have the support of Nancy Pelosi, Hugo Chavez and this guy.  This Iranian general.  Who hates America.  And would love nothing better than to see its collapse.  There’s a lesson here.  People who hate capitalism hate America.

What strange bedfellows.  Pelosi.  Chavez.  And this Iranian general.

Class Warfare Works because Gullible People are Fed with Misinformation to Produce a Withering, Festering Hate

But they don’t see that.  These Occupy Wall Street people.  All they keep hearing is how the rich are screwing them.  And business owners are getting rich by underpaying them.  Because many of them think gross sales are also net profits.  They’re not.  And have no idea of what it costs to run a business (see Small Business, Occupy Wall Street Is Aimed at You! by T. Scott Gross posted 10/9/2011 on Forbes).

Small business owners, this protest is about money—yours. And if you want to bring a semblance of sanity to the discussion, you had better start showing the money…

So I say you had better show them the money. Gather your employees. Take a handful of coins that add up to a dollar. Swipe away your cost of goods. Take out payroll and then payroll taxes. Follow with utilities, cost of capital, training, advertising, maintenance, insurance, and the rest until you have accounted for all the overhead, leaving those few lonesome pennies of profit that you have risked everything to make.

Been there.  Done that.  The problem is they won’t believe you.  Because they’ve been so brainwashed to believe you are lying when it comes to the money.  Say all you want but someone is telling them, “Sure, they say that, but look at the car your boss drives.  The house your boss lives in.  Are they better than yours?  You bet they are.  And you know why?  Because they’re screwing you.  That’s why.”

This is why class warfare works so well.  You have people who don’t know any better.  Being fed with misinformation to produce a withering, festering hate.  Which is how people like Nancy Pelosi, Hugo Chavez and this Iranian general rise to power.  By exploiting the gullible masses.

The Obama Administration wants us to Hate People Making $250,000 or More

This kind of hate makes it easy to tax the rich.  Which is a very popular sentiment these days.  Because everyone hates the rich.  Especially those who don’t make the rich cut (see Democrats aim to tax the rich — but who are they? by Kathleen Hennessey posted 10/8/2011 on the Los Angeles Times).

President Obama and Democrats in Congress have aligned on a populist, “tax the rich” strategy for the 2012 campaign. Now they have to figure out exactly who that is…

Obama and his fellow Democrats for years have described the wealthy as couples making more than $250,000 and individuals making more than $200,000 — 3% of U.S. households. By shifting away from that number in hopes of benefiting from the sound-bite punch of a millionaires tax, the administration may find it difficult to return to casting the broader net…

Obama’s threshold was based on broad principles, including the desire to leave the middle class untouched by higher taxes while collecting “enough” tax revenue, Bernstein said, although even he quibbles with the president’s cutoff and suggests that a broader tax increase may be needed in the future.

Going in the other direction — aiming for incomes of $1-million-plus — would yield far too little revenue to fund “a recognizable government,” Bernstein said. While the Democrats’ surtax proposal may make sense to pay for a jobs bill, “it’s actually quite important that $1 million does not become the new $250,000 when it comes to the permanent tax base,” he added.

Well, that complicates things.  Who’s rich?  People earning $1 million or more?  Or people making more $250,000 or more?  Who exactly are we to hate?

The Obama administration wants us to hate people making $250,000 or more.  Because there are a lot more of them than millionaires.  So that’s a lot more money they can spend.  But it’s also a lot of people to piss off by raising their taxes.  And with an election year coming up that’s the last thing those up for reelection in Congress want to do.

But if they only settle for $1 million now will that mean it will be harder to hate those making between $250,000 and $1 million later?  Oh me oh my.  Just who to hate?  As you can see this is quite the quandary for the hate monger.

Stimulus is Temporary whereas Tax Cuts and Deregulation are Forever

But there is a bigger issue at play.  You see, the problem with hating those earning between $250,000 and $1 million is that this income range includes our small business owners.  The job creators.  Who tend to not create jobs when things bother them.  Such as people waving their pitchforks at them crying, “Tax!  Tax!  Tax!” (see Poor Sales by Russ Roberts posted 10/9/2011 on Cafe Hayek).

Finally, I would note that while the survey that Invictus cites does indeed list “Poor Sales” as the single most important problem (25% in the September survey (scroll down to “Single Most Important Problem), taxes are listed as the single most important problem by 18% and government regulations and red tape is listed by 19%. So the two combine to 37%. They also happen to be two factors that government can actually control.

The Keynesians look at this and say we need more stimulus.   But if they’re saying this after that $800 billion stimulus in 2009 you can have but one conclusion.  Stimulus doesn’t work.  A big reason for this is that stimulus is temporary.  Like pain.  Whereas tax cuts and deregulation are like pride.  They’re forever.

Sales are complicated.  A lot of things influence people before they depart with their hard-earned money.  And there’s not a lot government can do about that.  But there’s a lot they can do about taxes and regulations.  And they do.  Unfortunately, they always choose to do the wrong thing.

The Occupy Wall Street People are Angry at Capitalism because they weren’t Born into Privilege

There are a few kinds of people in the world.  The informed.  Such as Tea Party People.  Who cite law and tradition in at their Tea Party events.  And the uninformed.  Such as the Occupy Wall Street People.  Who are an angry mob.  Angry at capitalism because they weren’t born into privilege.

And then you have people who love America.  And those who hate America.  Such as Iran.  And Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.  Enemies of freedom.  And democracy.  Who have come out to support the Wall Street protestors.  There’s another lesson here.   Actually, it’s the same lesson as before.  People who hate capitalism hate America.

Here’s a solution to solve their unhappiness.  Let’s ask these protesters which country is better than America.  Whatever nation that is we’ll generously pay for their one way airfare there.  Problem solved.  Everyone happy.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Keynesian Tax and Spend Monetary Policy will Never Overcome Ruinous Fiscal and Regulatory Policy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 23rd, 2011

No Theory is Sacrosanct in the Scientific Method, Even if it’s Albert Einstein’s Theory

Albert Einstein‘s Theory of Relativity has held in the scientific community for some 106 years.  It hasn’t been accepted as a matter of faith, though.  It has been tested thousands of times in attempts to debunk it.  Right up to today.  Where it now appears we may be close to debunking it (see “Faster than light” particles may be physics revolution by Robert Evans posted 9/23/2011 on Reuters).

“It is premature to comment on this,” Professor Stephen Hawking, the world’s most well-known physicist, told Reuters. “Further experiments and clarifications are needed…”

“When an experiment finds an apparently unbelievable result and can find no artifact of the measurement to account for it, it is normal to invite broader scrutiny….it is good scientific practice,” he said…

Einstein’s theory has been tested thousands of times over the past 106 years and only recently have there been just slight hints that the behavior of some elementary particles of matter might not fit into it…

Ereditato, a physicist who also works at the Einstein Institute in the University of Berne, said the potential impact on science “is too large to draw any immediate conclusions or attempt physics interpretations…”

“Only when the dust finally settles should we dare draw any firm conclusions,” said Professor Forshaw. “It is in the nature of science that for every new and important discovery there will be hundreds of false alarms.”

This is the scientific method.  No theory is sacrosanct.  Even one by the great Albert Einstein.  Even if it’s been around for 106 years.

Quite the contrast to the theory of global warming.  Accepted by government scientists as indisputable fact.  Even though it has never been given serious scientific scrutiny like that given to one of the world’s greatest scientist.  Albert Einstein.

Considering the Economics, Only a Fool would Bet Against the Chinese in the area of Solar Panels

But Al Gore is smarter than Albert Einstein.  For he says that global warming is a scientific fact.  Even though we still call Einstein’s Theory of Relativity a theory after 106 years.  But not the theory of global warming.  No.  That theory is not a theory.  It’s fact.  So certain a fact that world governments have been killing economic activity everywhere to stop the ravishes of global warming.  Even investing in companies that promise to give us renewable green energy of the future.  Like that one that just ripped off the American taxpayer to the tune of half a billion dollars (see Solyndra haunts other government-backed solar firms by Steve Hargreaves posted 9/23/2011 on CNN Money).

At least three other government-backed solar firms face the same challenging market conditions that brought down Solyndra, the now bankrupt solar panel maker that could cost taxpayers over $500 million…

The company’s downfall is generally thought to have been caused by the declining price of silicon.

Solyndra didn’t use silicon. But many of its competitors did — traditional solar firms like Sunpower (SPWRA), Trina Solar (TSL), Yingli (YGE) and Jinkosolar (JKS). Solyndra was banking that high silicon prices would give it a competitive advantage…

Are they also doomed? Experts say that if they can further develop their technology they may have a fighting chance but market conditions in the near-term are working against them…

An Energy Department spokesman said the agency was not worried about these companies failing, saying it conducts rigorous reviews of all the ventures it funds.

Of course.  There’s nothing to worry about these other companies failing.  Because the Energy Department conducts a rigorous review of all the ventures they fund.  Except Solyndra apparently.  Or they did review them rigorously.  And the Energy Department just sucks at its job.

China’s investment in silicon as well as its huge investments in solar panel makers, combined with weaker demand worldwide as subsidies expire in Europe, caused the price of traditional solar panels to plummet.

In the last year alone they fell some 40%.

All across the globe, solar panel makers, especially ones that were developing more advanced technology, are finding it hard to compete with the Chinese as the price of solar panels drops.

I guess the Energy Department just sucks at its job.  I mean, imagine you’re an investor for a moment.  And you want to invest in a store that sells home improvement stuff.  Do you invest in the Home Depot?  Or the mom and pop hardware store?  The Home Depot is much bigger.  Has a greater variety of stuff.  And sells that stuff for 40% less than Mom and Pop.  Which store would you invest in?  Of course, you would invest in the Home Depot.  But the Energy Department, the geniuses that they are, would invest in Mom and Pop.  And then act shocked when they go belly up in the face of that fierce competition.

Considering the economics, only a fool would bet against the Chinese in the area of solar panels.  Then again, no one in Washington seems to understand economics in the least.

Cheaper panels mean more people will switch to the clean technology. Work has been booming for solar installers, project developers, and financiers. Just this week the industry said solar power capacity in the United States jumped 69% in the second quarter compared to the same time last year.

The Energy Department, as part of its plan to fund R&D and commercialization of renewable and clean energy technology, has backed or is considering backing loans to 42 firms across the sector totaling $39 billion in funding.

The manufacturers are taking it on the chin.  But the installers are installing these cheap Chinese solar panels like there’s no tomorrow.  You’d think the Energy Department would be happy that these silly things are being installed and get out of the investment business.  But no.  They’re going to piss away another $39 billion to fund firms that won’t be able to compete against the Chinese either.

By a show of hands who wants the Republican president to abolish the Energy Department in 2013?

One Gets the Feeling that Government Likes Wasteful Spending as it Adds to the Deficit

We really need to cut the government off.  They just aren’t responsible with our money.  If it ain’t throwing money away on solar panels, they’re throwing it away on dead people (see Gov’t paid $600 million in benefits to dead people by Sam Hananel posted 9/23/2011 on the Associated Press).

The federal government has doled out more than $600 million in benefit payments to dead people over the past five years, a watchdog report says.

Such payments are meant for retired or disabled federal workers…

In one case, the son of a beneficiary continued receiving payments for 37 years after his father’s death in 1971. The payments – totaling more than $515,000 – were only discovered when the son died in 2008.

If you owe a dollar in taxes you can bet the IRS will find you wherever you are.  But when it comes to spending our money it’s a different story.  As they are probably afraid of any close scrutiny that might show other mishandled funds.

Last year, government investigators found that more than 89,000 stimulus payments of $250 each from the massive economic recovery package went to people who were either dead or in prison.

There’s another $22 million pissed away by Uncle Sam.  $22 million here.  $600 million there.  And $16 muffins.  Where does it stop?  They are so ruthless when it comes to taxing us.  But once they get our money they apparently don’t give a damn about what happens to it then.

One gets the feeling that they like this waste.  As it adds to the deficit.  And the greater the deficit is the greater the need for new revenue.  Higher tax rates.  And getting the rich to pay their fair share.  I say let’s raise the tax rates on those doing such a poor job handling our money.  If they have such a cavalier attitude about taxpayers’ money, let them belly up to the bar and pay for their waste with their own damn money.

If You Want Real Stimulus Repeal Dodd-Frank.  That Alone will Create 30,000 Jobs at One Bank.

So the government is horrible at picking investment winners.  And is about as responsible as a teenager with money.  But Obama is looking to spend another $450 billion in stimulus.  To create jobs.  Unlike that $800 billion stimulus that failed to create jobs.  So they don’t know how to create jobs either.  Worse, they only thing they seem to be good at is destroying jobs (see The Dodd-Frank Layoffs posted 9/13/2011 on The Wall Street Journal).

Bank of America appears to have provided part of the answer by announcing yesterday that the nation’s largest bank will cut 30,000 jobs between now and 2014…

The Fed dutifully ordered banks to cut their fees almost in half. Bank of America disclosed in its most recent quarterly report that this change will reduce the bank’s debit-card revenues by $475 million in just the fourth quarter of this year. The new rules take effect on October 1, so BofA seems to have sensible timing as it begins to shed workers from a consumer business that has become suddenly less profitable by federal edict…

But given the real-world results for bank employees, politicians should not be allowed to pretend that there are no consequences when they deliberately reduce the profitability of employers. Mr. Obama proposed last week to spend some $450 billion more in outlays or tax credits to create more jobs, but it would have cost a lot less to save these 30,000.

If they want real stimulus they should repeal Dodd-Frank.  That alone will create 30,000 jobs.  At one bank.  If this happens at other banks you’re looking at hundreds of thousands of jobs.  Now that’s stimulus.

If they really want to create jobs they ought to go big.  Abolish the EPA.  And the Energy Department.  For a start.  With that kind of uncertainty removed just think of the explosion in economic activity.  Creating jobs galore.  Hundreds of thousands.  Perhaps millions.  The oil and coal industries alone would probable wrest this country from recession.

The Economy is not Just Monetary Policy.  It’s Fiscal and Regulatory Policy, too.

So it’s clear the government doesn’t know the first thing about stimulating economic activity.  They just can’t figure that out.  But what they can do is destroy jobs.  They’re real good at that.  And the reason for all of this is that they’re Keynesians.  They worship at the altar of Keynesian Economics.  Despite its horrendous track record.  Almost three years and counting for the current administration.  But they refuse to lose faith.  Instead, when they fail, they just choose to fail again.  By pursuing more of the same failed policies (see Markets tumble after Fed says it will buy longer-term bonds to try to boost economy by Neil Irwin posted 9/23/2011 on The Washington Post).

The announcement that the Fed would buy $400 billion in long-term Treasury bonds immediately achieved its intended effect, pushing rates on these securities and other investments to their lowest level in decades.

But the stock market rendered a sharply negative verdict. The Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index tumbled almost 3 percent on the Fed’s discouraging statement that its leaders see “significant downside risks” for the economy. Asian markets closed down between 2 and 4.85 percent, and key European indexes were trading more than 4 percent lower at midday.

No one wants to borrow money.  Businesses.  Or consumers.  Because there is just too much economic uncertainty with the Obama administration.  Everybody is hunkering down.  Deleveraging.  And hoarding cash.  Until better economic times.  Times with less uncertainty.  Probably starting sometime after 2012.  When there’ll be a new Republican president.  And hopefully a Republican House and Senate.  To undo those things causing all of this uncertainty.  Dodd-Frank.  Obamacare.  Etc.

The Fed action, which capped a two-day meeting, is focused squarely on lowering mortgage rates in an effort to strengthen the ailing housing market and lighten the load of the tremendous debt weighing on consumers. The move could also make it cheaper for businesses to borrow money for investments and push more dollars into the stock market.

The housing bubble create a surplus of houses that’ll be around for a long, long time.  The country is dotted with empty homes that banks have foreclosed on.  And the banks own a whole bunch more that will be hitting the market soon.  It’s a buyer’s market out there.  But it sure sucks to be a seller.  Especially if your mortgage is under water.  Homes have lost so much value after that bubble burst that anyone selling now will lose tens of thousands of dollars.  So they’re not selling.  Or buying.  No matter how cheap mortgage rates are.

The bond-buying program that ended in the summer, though massive in scale, failed to keep economic growth from sputtering. The disappointing result showed the limits of what the Fed can accomplish at a time when consumers are struggling with enormous debts and the U.S. banking system remains traumatized. The new initiative could face the same constraints.

Quantitative easing 2 failed.  And there’s no reason to think that quantitative easing 3 won’t fail as well.  So why do it?  Because they’re Keynesians.  And their scripture says that’s what you do.  Weak demand?  Why you fix that with cheap money.  But they don’t understand that the economy is not just monetary policy.  It’s fiscal policy, too.  And their fiscal policy is killing the economy.  And what their fiscal policy doesn’t kill their regulatory policy will.

The Only Way to Fix this Economy is to Get Rid of Keynesian Policies

Tax and spend Keynesian policies are strangling the economy.  Stimulus spending doesn’t work.  If it did the economy would be reaching record heights due to that record spending.  But it’s not.  The tax and spend Keynesians explanation for this record of dismal failure?  They didn’t spend enough.

The economic malaise has a lot more to do with uncertainty than weak demand.  It’s that out of control spending.  You eventually have to pay for it.  And every business owner knows that ultimately you pay for spending with taxes.  And they see the Obama administration is hell-bent on raising taxes on anyone earning more than $200,000 a year.  Which will be a tax hike on most small business as their earnings pass through to their personal tax return.

And while they’re waiting for punitive taxes to come down the pike they’re being hammered by regulatory compliance costs.  The big one scaring the bejesus out of them is Obamacare.  And Dodd-Frank is not just for Wall Street bankers.  Not to mention the EPA’s enormous impact on business operations.  They’re being bitch-slapped left and right by these regulations.  And they are terrified by what’s next from this administration.

You see, Big Government Keynesian politicians don’t understand economics.  Or business.  They see business as cash piñatas.  That they can whack at their pleasure.  They have no idea how they make money.  But they assume that they will go on making money no matter what they do in Washington.  And being the Keynesians they are, they believe that businesses make money for government first.  And then, after government takes what they want, what they deem fair, then and only then can they use whatever they earn for their own selfish wants and pleasures.  The selfish rich bastards they are.  Those contemptible business owners.

This is how Big Government Keynesians think.  And this is why they fail miserably at creating jobs.  And economic activity.  The only way to fix this economy, then, is to get rid of Keynesian policies.  And the only way to do that is to get rid of the Keynesians.  At the voting booth.  By voting conservative.  And in our two-party system, that means voting Republican.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Obama’s Millionaire Tax won’t Provide Serious Deficit Reduction

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 18th, 2011

Deficit Reduction is Important Enough to Raise Taxes but not Important Enough to Cut Spending

Hmmm, a Democrat deficit reduction package.  I wonder what that could mean. Spending cuts?  Or tax hikes?  Well liberal Democrats like to tax and spend.  And Barack Obama is a liberal Democrat.  So it must be tax hikes (see Obama to offer his own debt reduction package by Jim Kuhnhenn, Associated Press, posted 9/18/2011 on Yahoo! News).

Administration officials see the task of attending to deficits as necessary but not necessarily urgent, compared with the need to revive the economy and increase employment.

What do you know about that?  It’s tax hikes.  What a surprise.

Translation?  It’s important enough to raise taxes to cut the deficit.  But not important enough to cut spending.  In other words, it will be government as usual.  More Keynesian ‘stimulus’ spending.  Which is code for rewarding political friends and allies.  With taxpayer money.  And more class warfare.  Blaming the Obama recession on Republican tactics.  Namely, responsible governance.

The White House signaled its approach Saturday by highlighting a proposal in the president’s plan that would set a minimum tax rate for taxpayers earning more than $1 million.

The measure — Obama is going to call it the “Buffett Rule” for billionaire investor Warren Buffett — is designed to prevent millionaires from using tax-avoidance schemes to pay lower rates than middle-income taxpayers. Buffett has complained that he and other wealthy people have been “coddled long enough” and shouldn’t be paying a smaller share of their income in federal taxes than middle-class taxpayers.

Coddled?  You tell me if we’re coddling these people.

Compare the numbers.  A $60,000 middle class salary pays a current top marginal tax rate of 25%.  That’s somewhere around $11,000 in federal income taxes.  One of these coddled ‘Warren Buffet‘ millionaires may earn $40 million on a half billion dollar investment portfolio.  Taxed at 15% that’s a capital gains tax of $6 million dollars.  So one ‘coddled’ millionaire pays the equivalent of 3,636 middle class taxpayers.

If you look at it this way, rationally, without your head up your keister, you can only arrive at one conclusion.  You don’t want to raise tax rates on the wealthy.  You want to breed them.  With tax policy that encourages the making of more Warren Buffet-class millionaires.

For each new ‘coddled’ millionaire that’s another 3,636 middle class people that could receive significant tax relief.  How?  Lower tax rates across the board.  The middle class pay less.  And more millionaires pay more tax dollars.  The ultimate goal of tax policy.  If you’re not a liberal Democrat, that is.  Whose ultimate goal is, of course, class warfare.  So you can advance policy that is detrimental to the economy.  But beneficial to growing government.  And rewards political friends and allies.  With taxpayer money.

Business Owners Understand their Businesses and Fiscal Policy and are Tiring of being Cash Piñatas

If you’re of the older persuasion you’ve no doubt heard these arguments before.  And after hearing them all these years they don’t fool you anymore.  If you ever were in the first place.  Still, it doesn’t stop them from trying (see Sorry, But The Republican Arguments Against A “Millionaire’s Tax” Are Just Preposterous by Henry Blodget posted 9/18/2011 on Business Insider).

The rest of the Republican counter-arguments are just silly, self-serving, or obstructionist. Let’s take them one by one, ending with the one that seems most persuasive to reasonable people.

“Taxes are a form of theft.”  This is just ridiculous. It’s like arguing that paper money is illegal.

Government is a necessary evil.  Government takes money earned by others.  To pay for public goods.  Everyone understands this.  What people don’t understand is the bastardization of the meaning of public goods.

A public good is a thing that an individual can’t buy.  An individual can’t buy an army and navy to protect himself.  Or herself.  A private individual can’t buy a fresh water and sewage system for himself.  Or herself.  These are public goods.  We pay for these things with taxes.  Everyone pays a little to enjoy the benefits of these massive and costly things.

But we can feed ourselves.  Provide for our own retirement.  Pay for our own healthcare.  We can do these things.  It may be harder for some than others.  But it can be done.  So these things are not public goods.  But government today treats them as public goods.  Taxing us far more than they should.  So they can curry favor with voting groups.

So buying votes with tax dollars may be legal in the strictest sense.  But it is closer to theft than legitimate tax policy.  And printing paper money to fund even more of this spending is generational theft.  A millionaire tax just facilitates more government spending for things government shouldn’t be paying for.

Here is a list of the arguments Blodget says are typically made against raising taxes on millionaires.  Which he goes on to repute.  But I think the arguments speak for themselves.

  • Raising taxes on millionaires will kill their ambition and discourage them from working
  • Raising taxes on millionaires will punish successful people for being successful
  • Raising taxes is always a terrible idea–the problem is spending
  • Taxes are a form of theft: The government has no right to take our money away
  • Raising taxes in a weak economy will further weaken the economy

These are all true.  People like to point to that top marginal tax rate of 1950s when the economy was booming.  But no one paid it.  People hid their earnings in tax shelters to avoid that 90% rate.  Contrary to popular belief on the Left, they didn’t whistle a happy tune and pay it.  They fought it.  And won.  It was a joke.

High taxes do influence rich people.  They will redirect their wealth from income producing.  To wealth preservation.  When tax rates are high.  Just like middle class people do with their 401(k)s.  When they approach retirement.

If a small business earns $1+ million a year, and the owner “passes through” all this income and pays taxes on it, Obama’s “millionaire’s tax” will encourage this owner to do the following:

  • Pay him or herself less
  • Hire more people or otherwise reinvest the money in the business (so it won’t be taxed)

These moves, in turn, should do two things:

  • Help create new jobs (which will help the overall economy)
  • Help grow the owner’s business, thus increasing his or her net worth

Yeah, it could work out like that.  Or it could go another way.  The small business owner can look at this tax policy as a sign that government has no intention of cutting their irresponsible spending.  Which means deficits will only continue to grow.  Which means there will be more taxes in the future.  As there will have to be if they don’t cut spending.  And baseline budgeting keeps increasing that spending every year.  Not to mention all those off-budget spending obligations.

Now business owners live in the real world.  They have to pay payroll taxes with every payroll.  And deal with other taxes and regulatory costs on a daily basis.  They don’t have the luxury of sitting back and prognosticating how tax policy should make business owners behave.  Instead, they’re acting ahead of policy.  They’re listening to this debate and preparing for the worst.  Even before tax policy changes.  Because if they don’t it may be too late when it does.

So this kind of talk is already keeping them from hiring new people.  They are deleveraging left and right.  Because they, unlike government, understand their businesses.  And fiscal policy.  They see what they are to government.  Big, fat cash piñatas.  And they’re tired of being whacked.

They Need to Tax Millionaires because They’re Making Spending Commitments no Amount of Taxation can Sustain

A millionaire tax.  That’s where it starts.  But it’s not where it will end.

People need to understand why government ‘needs’ to tax millionaires.  It’s not because they haven’t been paying their fair share.  It’s because of record deficits.  And record debt.  Caused by record spending.  Just look at the numbers.

Adjusted for inflation, Ronald Reagan‘s largest deficit was $442.614 billion.  George W. Bush‘s largest deficit was $462.56 billion.  In Obama’s first year in office his deficit was $1,416 billion.  In his second year it was $1,294 billion.  They project it to be $1,650 billion in 2011.  And one thing we know about Barack Obama is that he’s not going into the history books as a tax cutter.  So these deficits aren’t from tax cuts.  They’re from spending.

Because of baseline budgeting this spending stays on the books.  And it will only grow.  And all those off-budget spending obligations are growing right along with it.  Such as the trillions the government owes to the Medicare and Social Security trust Funds.  And on top of all of that is Obamacare just waiting to add to our fiscal woes.  This is why they ‘need’ to tax millionaires.  Because the government is making spending commitments no amount of taxation can sustain.  So they will start with millionaires.  Work their way through the middle class.  Then they’ll have no choice but to start rationing benefits.  Followed by austerity.  Then the anarchy comes.  Like in Greece.

This is why we should not add a millionaire tax.  It will not address the spending problem.  And will only facilitate more spending.  Delaying the inevitable day of reckoning.  And making it ever more painful.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Demand-Side Slump or Government caused Supply-Side Recession?

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 4th, 2011

The Arrogance and Condescension of Liberal Elite Academics

The problem with liberal academics running the country is that they think like liberal academics.  They have no business experience.  But they know how to run businesses better than business owners who’ve been running businesses for years.  It’s the height of arrogance and condescension.  But these liberal elite academics don’t see people.  They see charts and grafts.  Which are religious icons to them.  Holy.  They accept them on faith.  They never question them.  And always make excuses for them when the policies they beget fail.  While pointing at successful policies with successful track records and calling them failures.  Because these policies are heretical.  And conservative.

Here is a liberal academic talking down to the American people with all-knowing condescension.  And if you want to know how the current administration thinks, all you have to do is read this arrogance and condescension (see Fatal Fatalism by Paul Krugman posted 6/4/2011 on The New York Times).

We are not, after all, suffering from supply-side problems…This is a demand-side slump; all we need to do is create more demand.

So why is this slump, like most slumps following financial crises, so protracted? Because the usual tools for pumping up demand have reached their limits. Normally we respond to demand-side slumps by cutting short-term nominal interest rates, which the Fed can move through open-market operations. But we now have severely depressed private demand thanks to the housing bust and the overhang of consumer debt, so even a zero rate isn’t low enough…

The answer seems obvious. We should be using fiscal stimulus; we should be using unconventional monetary policy, including raising the inflation target; we should be pursuing aggressive measures to reduce mortgage debt. Not doing these things means accepting huge waste and hardship.

But, say the serious people, there are risks to doing any of these things. Well, life is full of risks. But it’s simply crazy to put a higher weight on the possibility that the invisible bond vigilantes might manifest themselves, or the inflation monster emerge from its secret cave, over the continuing reality of enormous human and economic damage from doing nothing.

The housing bubble was created by too much unconventional monetary policy.  Money was dirt cheap to borrow.  And people borrowed.  To buy houses they couldn’t afford.  With subprime mortgages.  That they defaulted on when interest rates went up.  Causing the subprime mortgage crisis.  Which happens when you stimulate demand beyond normal market demand.  Why?  Because you don’t create healthy economic growth with easy money.  You create bubbles.

The Fed has done too much.  All their easy monetary policy to stimulate the economy has only devalued the dollar.  Making an important and scarce commodity more costly.  Because the world prices this most important of all commodities in U.S. dollars.  Oil.  Which makes diesel and gasoline.  The energy we use to bring food to market.  Which is why prices are up.  Across the board.  Especially food and energy.  That hit consumers the hardest.  Because of inflation.  Caused by monetary policy.  Which has failed to produce jobs.  Lower the misery index.  Or end the recession.

Their answer?  More of the same.  It’s always more of the same.  Jimmy Carter‘s ‘more of the same’ did not end the malaise of his stagflationRonald Reagan‘s economic policies did.  His conservative, supply-side economic policies.  That created real economic growth.  And doubled tax receipts to boot.  But his policies were heretical.  They went against everything liberals hold sacred.  Their Keynesian charts and graphs.  That look at business activity as an aggregate thing.  And not as people.  So liberals attack the success of Reaganomics.  Despite its soaring success.

You see, Reaganomics created jobs.  It made a favorable business climate.  So business people could do what they know how to do.  Create business. Expand business.  Make more things.  And create jobs.  Which drives all consumer spending.  Which makes up over 70% of the economy.  Because a consumer needs a job to spend.  And this kind of spending will sustain itself.  Unlike Keynesian tweaking.  Which is by definition only temporary.  To fill the gap until the private market restores itself.  Which makes Keynesian economics itself a paradox.  Using policies that hinder the private market to stimulate the private market.

The Inflation Monster is out and Squeezing Consumers

And while some will mock conservatives about letting loose the inflation monster from its secret cave, the inflation monster is already out.  And wreaking consumer havoc (see Tightening our belts: Americans lower income expectations by John Melloy, CNBC, posted 6/4/2011 on USA Today).

With consumers squeezed on both sides by stagnant wages and rising prices, the number who believe they will bring home more money one year from now is at its lowest in 25 years, according to analysis of survey data by Goldman Sachs.

The inflation monster has devalued the dollar.  And when you devalue the dollar you need more of them to buy the same amount of things you did before.  Because, thanks to inflation, those things have higher prices.  Consumers have to pay these higher prices.  Leaving them less money to spend.  And their employers have to pay them.  Leaving them less money to spend on wages.  So few people think they will bring more money home next year.  Because things are so bad this year.

A typical recovery pattern goes like this: stock market bottoms, economic growth bottoms and then hiring and wage increases return. What’s unique and scary about this recovery is that the last piece of the recovery is not there.

For a simple reason.  Intervention.  It’s all that Keynesian tweaking.  Like that trillion dollar stimulus bill.  If it wasn’t for all that government spending the economy may have actually recovered by now.  Now we have recession and inflation.  Thanks, liberal elite academics.

In the 2001 recession, the country lost 2 percent of jobs from peak employment and then made that back in a 48- month cycle, according to data from money management firm Trutina Financial. In 1990, the jobs lost during the recession were recovered in 30 months.

Right now, about 38 months from peak employment during the housing boom, there are still six percent fewer jobs out there. Making up that amount of jobs in 10 months or less would be unprecedented, if not impossible.

“The crawl out of this economic ditch is going to be long and slow,” said Patty Edwards, chief investment officer at Trutina. “Even if they’re employed, many consumers aren’t earnings what they were two years ago, either because they’re in lower-paying jobs or not getting as many hours.”

Jobs are everything.  And to create jobs you have to understand people.  Not look at sacred charts and graphs.  You have to understand what motivates the individual.  Not hypothesize about what will move aggregate curves on a graph.  Of course, liberal elite academics chose not to do this.  Because they are gods.  Infallible.  Who live in a world where paradoxes exist.  And can deny reality at will.

Small Business sees the Government as Adversarial

If jobs are everything, then why won’t there just be more jobs?  You’d think the gods could make them.  And no doubt are wrathful and miffed that their policies haven’t made them.  All because of those dirty, greedy, little business owners.  Heretics.  Sitting on cash instead of using it to hire people. 

Of course, the greatest job creators out there are small business owners.  Who don’t have big legal staffs or legions of tax accountants.  And these Keynesian polices are just overwhelming them.  As related in a conversation on a plane with a Yale law professor.  Who asked point blank why this small business owner didn’t hire more people (see Carter: Economic Stagnation Explained, at 30,000 Feet by Stephen L. Carter posted 5/26/2011 on Bloomberg).

“Because I don’t know how much it will cost,” he explains. “How can I hire new workers today, when I don’t know how much they will cost me tomorrow?”

He’s referring not to wages, but to regulation: He has no way of telling what new rules will go into effect when. His business, although it covers several states, operates on low margins. He can’t afford to take the chance of losing what little profit there is to the next round of regulatory changes. And so he’s hiring nobody until he has some certainty about cost.

It’s interesting listening to a person.  Because you learn something different than you do from moving a curve on a graph.

“I don’t understand why Washington does this to us,” he resumes. By “us,” he means people who run businesses of less- than-Fortune-500 size. He tells me that it doesn’t much matter which party is in office. Every change of power means a whole new set of rules to which he and those like him must respond. ‘‘I don’t understand,” he continues, “why Washington won’t just get out of our way and let us hire.”

Get out of our way?  And let us hire?  You mean they would be hiring more people if it wasn’t for all the policies encouraging them to hire more people?  Interesting.  So what should government do?  How should they be in this business-government relationship?

“Invisible,” he says. “I know there are things the government has to do. But they need to find a way to do them without people like me having to bump into a new regulation every time we turn a corner.” He reflects for a moment, then finds the analogy he seeks. “Government should act like my assistant, not my boss.”

In other words, government shouldn’t tell business owners how to better run their businesses.  Because few in government have ever run a business.  They need to stop acting as the authority on something when those they try to help know more than they do.  This conversation gave this Yale law professor some food for thought.

On the way to my connection, I ponder. As an academic with an interest in policy, I tend to see businesses as abstractions, fitting into a theory or a data set. Most policy makers do the same. We rarely encounter the simple human face of the less- than-giant businesses we constantly extol. And when they refuse to hire, we would often rather go on television and call them greedy than sit and talk to them about their challenges.

Recessions have complex causes, but, as the man on the aisle reminded me, we do nothing to make things better when the companies on which we rely see Washington as adversary rather than partner.

And there it is.  Small business sees the government as adversarial.  And there is only one reason why they do.  Because it’s true.

Fiscal Stimulus is the Problem

This is not a demand-side slump.  It’s a supply-side problem.  Caused by the adversarial relationship between business and government.  Otherwise a trillion dollar in stimulus spending would have done something.  Other than give us inflation. 

Fiscal stimulus isn’t the solution.  It’s the problem.  And we need to stop trying to fix this problem with what gave us the problem.  Because they aren’t gods.  And we are individuals.  Not an aggregate to hypothesize about for fun and games.    

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

LESSONS LEARNED #52: “The political right is usually right.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 10th, 2011

The Right Knows Business.  The Left Doesn’t.

Creating jobs is important.  Without jobs no one has any money.  No one can buy anything.  And the government can’t tax what we don’t have.  So jobs are important.  To those on the right.  As well as on the left.

Now critics of the Right claim that those on the right only care about profits.  Not people.  Whereas those on the left claim they care about people.  Not profits.  In some sense this is true.  Those on the right tend to understand business.  They know a business can only survive by making a profit.  And only a business that stays in business can create jobs.  The Right understands this.

Those on the left, on the other hand, don’t really understand business.  They don’t understand incentive.  Only duty.  And sacrifice.  For others, that is.  Not them.  They don’t think a business should make a profit.  That they should give any excess revenue to their workers.  Or to the government.  In other words, business owners, they feel, should serve others.  They should work and sacrifice so others may live better.  Workers shouldn’t have to work hard or sacrifice.  But owners should.

Protecting an Industry only Delays the Inevitable

Some great entrepreneurs created some great businesses.  Made life better for all of us.  Provided good, inexpensive clothing.  Made high quality steel cheaper and more plentiful than any other nation.  Built cars than the average working man could afford.  These titans of industry built this nation.  Because of them we surpassed all other nations and became the most powerful economic engine of the world.  Life was good.  There were lots of jobs.  Lots of stuff.  And lots of homes filled with the most modern stuff available.  America was the place to be.  People waited in line to immigrate to our shores.

Unfortunately, big piles of money attract a lot of people.  And not just workers begging to get a job in these new industries.  No.  It was people looking out for the workers.  Labor unions organized workers.  To get a ‘decent’ wage.  And better working conditions.  Cost of labor went up.  Which made the price of what they sold go up.  Imports started to look more attractive.  So government stepped in and slapped tariffs on those.  To force Americans to pay the higher price for our domestic goods.  Then they legislated ways to further ‘protect’ these American industries.  And how did that all work?

Well, take a look at the American textile, steel and automobile industries.  The Left overreached.  And killed these industries.  They’re no longer the dominate industries they once were.  We have no textile industry to speak of anymore.  The once big steel towns look more like ghost towns.  And the government had to bail out 2 of the Big Three auto makers.  Those generous union contracts added thousands to the price of a car.  Allowing Toyota to take over the top auto manufacturer spot from GM.  By providing the same or better quality for less.

Bad Jobs Today may have been Good Jobs Yesterday

That’s what happens when you protect an industry.  That industry has no incentive to innovate.  To be better.  To be more efficient.  To be more productive.  To give the consumer what they want.  Because when the consumer doesn’t have a choice, where else is the consumer going to go?  So protected industries rest on their laurels.  While others innovate.  And became better.

Combine that with union wages and benefits that keep getting higher and higher and what do you get?  Inferior products that cost more than the higher quality imports.  The Big Three sold crap during the Seventies.  Opened the door to the Japanese.  And a few decades later they took over the top spot from GM.  No matter how much we tried to protect our domestic automotive industry.

Say what you want about life before labor unions but the fact remains that we had more jobs.  And as dangerous or as dirty as those jobs were, people still came to this country by the thousands to get those jobs.  People were falling off the Golden Gate Bridge during construction.  Did that dissuade people from wanting to work on that bridge?  No.  There was a shanty town with people waiting for others to fall and die so they could get their job.  Sure, by today’s standards, these were some pretty nasty jobs.  But not then.  In fact, they were pretty damn good jobs.  Compared to what else was out there.  How can we say this?  Because they chose those jobs over the other jobs out there.

The Greed of the Left Killed the Golden Goose. 

Henry Ford had a bold idea.  He was going to mass produce a car so he could sell it at a price that the working man could afford.  To get the best people in his plants he offered $5 per day.  Twice what other manufacturing jobs were offering.  No union made him do this.  The market did.  He got the best mechanics and the lowest turnover rates.  Other businesses had to follow suit to retain their best people.  And working conditions improved.  Because of the greed of these business owners.

Contrast that to today where union contracts force high wage and benefit packages onto a manufacturer.  And contractual obligations that make it near impossible to get rid of excess workers during times of weak demand.  Using the Ford model, Detroit became the Motor City.  An economic dynamo.  Under the union model, GM and Chrysler went bankrupt.  And Detroit is considering bulldozing sparsely populated neighborhoods into farmland.

When profit wasn’t a dirty word businesses prospered and provided jobs.  When the left came in to protect the little guy from those greedy business owners they made it difficult to make a profit.  Business struggled to compete with their competition.  And when they couldn’t, they shuttered operations.  Jobs disappeared.  The greed of the left to protect against the greed of the right killed the golden goose.  And all those good manufacturing jobs grew legs and left the country.  Where they’re now providing a better life for other workers.  Like they once did here.

Greed is a Hell of an Incentive

The Right understands business.  The Left doesn’t.  But it has never stopped them from trying to tell businesses how they should conduct business.  And the more they get involved, the more business suffers.  The more jobs we lose.  And the less competitive we get as a nation.

FDR tried for a decade to end the Great Depression.  Nothing he did worked.  When World War II came along, something had to change.  There was a crisis.  We needed to provide war material to our allies.  So the FDR administration told American industry to do what they do best.  They let them make profits.  Restored incentive.  And the government said they would interfere no more.  Well, that unleashed the floodgates.  Workers were hired and factories worked round the clock.  Businesses made profits that let them innovate.  Improve productivity.  Trucks, planes, boats, weapons, etc., poured out of American factories.  The Allies armies were mechanized.  Jeeps and trucks moved our armies.  While the Nazis used horses to pull their artillery and supplies.  The Arsenal of Democracy, the Detroit dynamo of industry, won World War II.  And men like Henry Ford made it all possible.  Because they were greedy.

The post-war era was one of the most prosperous times in our nation.  There were jobs for everyone.  And a better life was there for the taking.  Times would stay good until the Left ushered in their Big Government programs beginning in the Sixties.  To protect the little guy.  And it’s been downhill ever since (with a brief respite during the Reagan Eighties).

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH #38: “Repeating a lie doesn’t make it true.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 2nd, 2010

If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit; even if O.J. Simpson did it.

A lie is a lie.  No matter how well you say it.  Or how often you say it.  O.J. Simpson has said over and over that he didn’t kill his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson.  Or her friend, Ronald Goldman.  Few believe him.  Even Oprah Winfrey told Mark Furman recently on her talk show that Simpson did it. And she’s no racist.  She even endorsed Barack Obama for president.  And he’s black.

But if you repeat the lie enough people will believe it.  The Simpson jury apparently believed it.  And they believed Furman was a racist and that he lied under oath.  But Furman is no more a racist than you are.  And although he was a pretty good detective, he actually forgot a thing or two he said in his past.  Like using the ‘n’ word during an interview with a writer who was working on a screenplay about cops.  A recording surfaced during the trial where Furman did in fact make some pretty nasty racial slurs.  But it was probably more bravado than racism.  A young cop trying to sound like a tough and gritty L.A. cop in front of a screenwriter.  Besides, Furman was a Marine.  And Marines aren’t racists.  ‘Nuff said.

Anyway, armed with that, the defense repeated the lie that racist mark Furman planted the infamous bloody glove that did not fit.  The shrunken leather glove that didn’t fit Simpson’s gloved hand.  “If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit.”  And they did.  Simpson went free, though he’s in jail now for other crimes (armed robbery and kidnapping).  And Furman pleaded no contest to perjury.  The only criminal sentence in the Simpson/Goldman murders.  And very sad testament to the L.A. criminal law system.

“I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.”  Anita Hill cried wolf.

President Bill Clinton looked into the camera and wagged his finger at America.  “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.”  But the infamous blue dress begged to differ.  In some people’s world, playing with each other’s genitals and climaxing on someone may not be sexual relations.  But you’re not going to do any of that with a hooker unless you pay for it.  And what do hookers do?  They sell ‘sexual relations’.

Clinton did, in fact, lie.  Though to this day he still says what he said was not untrue.  He can say that all he wants but the Arkansas Supreme Court’s Committee on Professional Conduct says otherwise.  They suspended his license to practice law because they say he lied about Monica Lewinsky.  Makes one wonder about all those other denials about sexual misconduct with Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broaddrick, Elizabeth Ward Gracen, Sally Perdue, Dolly Kyle Browning, etc.  He denies the allegations.  But then again, he also denied the Lewinsky allegation. 

Then there was Clarence Thomas.  During his confirmation hearings, the Democrats brought in Anita Hill to testify.  She alleged inappropriate behavior.  Nothing illegal, but inappropriate.  And they gave him a full-blown public anal exam during his confirmation hearing.  Because Hill cried wolf.  There was no substantive proof.  Just some wild-ass allegations.  Of which he was all of a sudden guilty until proven innocent.  The feminist stood tall with Anita Hill.  But nary a one came to the defense of the Clinton women.  Even after the infamous blue dress.  They all stood by their man.  Bill Clinton.  Misogyny and all.  (And the allegations against Clarence Thomas were nowhere close to ‘blue dress’ level).

Pragmatist liberals lie to impose their liberal agenda because the ends justify the means.

Everybody lies.  It’s the degree of the lie, though, that matters.  And the reason.  Militant feminists, for example, will accept and perpetuate any lie to protect a ‘feminist’ man.  Any by a ‘feminist’ man I mean one who will be a staunch supporter of Roe vs. Wade and abortion in general (which they feared Clarence Thomas was not).  And lying in court is especially useful.  As the character Louie DePalma (played by Danny DeVito) illustrated so well in the TV show Taxi.  When Alex Rieger (played by Judd Hirsch) asked Louie if he knew what it meant to lie under oath in a court of law.  Louie replied, “Yeah, it means they gotta believe whatever you say.”

Some liars are just trying to stay out of trouble.  Or jail.  Others, though, are people who lie for another reason.  They’ll fabricate or sustain a lie for a ‘higher’ purpose.  We call these people pragmatists.  These people believe the ends justify the means.  And if the ‘ends’ are important enough, then any means employed are justified.  Liberals are pragmatists.  They have specific ends in mind.  They want legal abortion.  Universal health care.  More government.  Less free markets.  Etc.  And because only approximately 20% of Americans want the same thing, they have to tell a few lies to impose their liberal agenda.

Ronald Reagan was senile.  George W. Bush is stupid.  Sarah Palin is stupid and inexperienced.  Rush Limbaugh is a hate monger.  Glenn Beck is a fear monger.  Members of the Tea Party are a bunch of racists.  Business owners oppress their employees.  Republicans hate the poor.  And hate gays and lesbians.  Hate minorities.  Hate women.  And hate just about anyone liberals have a vested interest in.  Or so the liberal lies go.  Over and over and over again.

The 20% (liberal Democrats) try to rule the 80% (center-right America) with an able assist from the mainstream media, university professors, celebrities and activist judges.

America is a center-right country.  That means liberal Democrats are in the minority.  Which means they can’t impose their agenda at the voting booth.  They can’t legislate their liberal agenda.   So they lie to build a coalition.  To try to pull independents and moderates to their cause.  You know the lies.  Republicans will force women into back alleys for abortions.  Republicans want to defund Social Security.  Republicans will bring back Jim Crowe laws (which, ironically, Democrats put into law).  Republicans want to transfer the tax burden from the rich to the poor.  Etc.

And they have willing accomplices.  Though they are only 20% of the population, they are a very strategically located 20%.  They’re in the mainstream media.  They teach at our universities.  They star in our favorite movies and TV shows.  They perform our favorite music.  And they sit in our courts (what they can’t legislate in Congress, they legislate from the bench).  It’s a small 20%.  But they have a hell of a bully pulpit.  And they use that bully pulpit with extreme prejudice.

And then you have the politicians themselves.  Who will tell any lie.  Smear any character.  For they feel untouchable.  Because they write and enforce the laws.  They ARE the law.  And they think like Louis DePalma.  That the truth doesn’t matter.  Because the people gotta believe whatever they say.  Or should.  Because they are the law.  But we, the other 80%, know they lie.  The DePalma analogy still fits, though.  We see the typical liberal Democrat as a lying, corrupt, despicable scoundrel, lacking any vestiges of integrity who enrich themselves at the expense of the people they serve.  And who can’t see Louis DePalma in that?

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

« Previous Entries