Peace through Strength

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 6th, 2014

Politics 101

Bad Guys won’t open their Can of Whoop-Ass if there is a Chance they’ll get their Ass Kicked

Bullies generally pick on smaller and weaker people.  Smaller and weaker people don’t pick on tough guys.  They don’t walk up to a bully and give him a wedgie.  They’d like to.  But they don’t.  Why?  Because if a small and weak person did they’d get their ass kicked.  That’s why.  And people don’t like getting their ass kicked.  But sometimes it’s the tough guys that save the day.

In the opening scene of V for Vendetta Evey was about to get raped by some government thugs.  Then tough guy V came along and kicked their asses.  Saving Eve from a brutal rape.  In Die Hard the evil Hans Gruber was going to kill everyone in that building until tough guy John McClane happened on the scene.  And started killing the bad guys.  Saving the day.  In the movie Patton everyone wanted him thrown out of the Army after he slapped that crying soldier.  But when the Allies’ drive stalled in the Normandy hedgerow country who did they turn to?  That’s right.  Tough guy General Patton.  Who started kicking Nazi ass big time.  Breaking through their lines and advancing in every compass direction while British General Bernard Montgomery was still struggling o take his D-Day objective.  Caen.

People don’t like getting their ass kicked.  But if they are in danger of a good ass-kicking they’d want someone on their side who can kick ass as good as the next guy.  For even bad guys don’t want to get their ass kicked.  And if there is a chance of that happening they’re going to think long and hard before opening their can of whoop-ass.  Especially when someone else’s can of whoop-ass is bigger.

Only the Military Might of the United States could contain Soviet Expansion

The Roman Empire had one mighty can of whoop-ass.  Something her potential enemies understood.  And feared.  So they didn’t cause any trouble.  Because they didn’t want to get their ass kicked.  Which is why from approximately 27 BC to 180 AD there was relative peace in the world.  Pax Romana.  For the Romans had the mightiest military force in the world.  And if you went up against them you were most likely going to lose.  So they didn’t.  Instead, choosing to live in peace.

The British Empire was even larger than the Roman Empire.  And had an even larger can of whoop-ass.  Not only did they have armies throughout their empire which was so large that the sun never set on it.  The Royal Navy ruled the seas.  Which meant if you caused any trouble in the world you could expect an ass-kicking.  Either from her mighty military power.  Or her aid to a smaller and weaker country under threat from an aggressive neighbor.  The bad guys learned.  It wasn’t worth it.  If you tried to break the peace you were going to get your ass kicked.  Which is why from 1815 through 1914 when the British Empire ruled the world there was relative peace.  Pax Britannica.

The United States of America had come of age during the 20th century.  Growing even bigger and stronger than the empire that sired her.  The British Empire.  Who went into decline during the 20th century.  But just as Pax Britannica drew to a close and the world became a more dangerous place the United States stepped in.  Allowing the Allies to defeat Nazi Germany.  And Imperial Japan.  She grew to have the biggest can of whoop-ass in history.  And became the world’s policeman.  Pushing back against Soviet expansion.  In Europe.  The Balkans.  The Middle East.  And Southeast Asia.  The Soviets wanted to conquer the world.  And would have if not for America’s mighty military to counter their threat.  Leading to a period of relative peace following World War II.  Pax Americana.  As only the military might of the United States could contain Soviet expansion.

Vladimir Putin feels that he can put the old Soviet Union back together during the Obama Administration

During a sound check before a radio address President Reagan made a joke.  He said, “My fellow Americans, I’m pleased to tell you today that I’ve signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever.  We begin bombing in five minutes.”  Reagan had a sense of humor and those present laughed.  The joke leaked.  The Soviets heard it.  And they put their Soviet Far East Army on alert.  You see, they had great respect for the awesome military power of the United States.  And they respected Reagan.  They did not like him.  But they respected him.  And if he said he was going to open a can of whoop-ass on them they got nervous.  For President Reagan may have spoken softly.  But he was not afraid to kick ass.

The Soviets had no such respect for Reagan’s predecessor.  Jimmy Carter.  In fact, they had so little respect for him that they developed a nuclear first-strike plan.  For Carter was gutting the military.  And wasn’t a tough guy when it came to foreign policy.  He was a president who wanted to focus on domestic policy.  A sign of weakness the Soviets could smell.   Anyone who gutted the military to pay for more domestic spending would never pull the nuclear trigger.  At least that’s what the Soviets thought.  Which is why they prepared a nuclear first-strike plan during the Carter administration.  Sure they could win a nuclear war against him.  The Soviets thought no such thing during the Reagan administration.  So instead of a nuclear war (which may have happened in a Carter second term) we had peace.  Because of our strength.

Peace through strength.  If you’re a bad-ass people will leave you alone.  Because no one wants to get their ass kicked.  If you’re hell-bent on beating the crap out of your neighbor so you can take her resources and there is a bad-ass in the world that can bring a world of hurt down on you it will make you think.  And pause.  This is why there was a Pax Romana.  A Pax Britannica.  And a Pax Americana.  Because people respect a bad-ass.  And will not incite it.  They may hate the bad-ass.  But they will respect it.  And not piss it off.

President Obama has a strong domestic agenda.  Like Jimmy Carter.  He doesn’t want to deal with foreign policy.  Like Jimmy Carter.  And he is not respected or feared by the world’s bad guys.  Like Jimmy Carter.  Who is far more inclined to make a speech and threaten action.  But is far less likely to open a can of whoop-ass.  Like Ronald Reagan.  Which is why Vladimir Putin feels that he can put the old Soviet Union back together during the Obama administration.  Because he doesn’t fear the wrath of President Obama.  As no one does.  For he is all bark and no bite.  At least, so far.  Apart from killing a bunch of people that can’t fight back.  Drone strikes.  Bombing Libya (that was no threat to American interests).  And killing Osama bin Laden with a SEAL team.  More of an imperial use of force than acting as the world’s policeman to safeguard liberty and democracy.  So Vladimir Putin has little to worry about during an Obama presidency.  Unlike conservatives in America.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Bretton Woods, Nixon Shock, OPEC, Yom Kippur War, Oil Embargo, Stagflation, Paul Volcker, Ronald Reagan and Morning in America

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 1st, 2013

History 101

(Originally published September 18th, 2012)

Under the Bretton Woods System the Americans promised to Exchange their Gold for Dollars at $35 per Ounce

Wars are expensive.  All kinds.  The military kind.  As well as the social kind.  And the Sixties gave us a couple of doozies.  The Vietnam War.  And the War on Poverty.  Spending in Vietnam started in the Fifties.  But spending, as well as troop deployment, surged in the Sixties.  First under JFK.  Then under LBJ.  They added this military spending onto the Cold War spending.  Then LBJ declared a war on poverty.  And all of this spending was on top of NASA trying to put a man on the moon.  Which was yet another part of the Cold War.  To beat the Soviets to the moon after they beat us in orbit.

This was a lot of spending.  And it carried over into the Seventies.  Giving President Nixon a big problem.  As he also had a balance of payments deficit.  And a trade deficit.  Long story short Nixon was running out of money.  So they started printing it.  Which caused another problem as the US was still part of the Bretton Woods system.  A quasi gold standard.  Where the US pegged the dollar to gold at $35 per ounce.  Which meant when they started printing dollars the money supply grew greater than their gold supply.  And depreciated the dollar.  Which was a problem because under Bretton Woods the Americans promised to exchange their gold for dollars at $35 per ounce.

When other nations saw the dollar depreciate so that it would take more and more of them to buy an ounce of gold they simply preferred having the gold instead.  Something the Americans couldn’t depreciate.  Nations exchanged their dollars for gold.  And began to leave the Bretton Woods system.    Nixon had a choice to stop this gold outflow.  He could strengthen the dollar by reducing the money supply (i.e., stop printing dollars) and cut spending.  Or he could ‘close the gold window’ and decouple the dollar from gold.  Which is what he did on August 15, 1971.  And shocked the international financial markets.  Hence the name the Nixon Shock.

When the US supported Israel in the Yom Kippur War the Arab Oil Producers responded with an Oil Embargo

Without the restraint of gold preventing the printing of money the Keynesians were in hog heaven.  As they hated the gold standard.  The suspension of the convertibility of gold ushered in the heyday of Keynesian economics.  Even Nixon said, “I am now a Keynesian in economics.”  The US had crossed the Rubicon.  Inflationary Keynesian policies were now in charge of the economy.  And they expanded the money supply.  Without restraint.  For there was nothing to fear.  No consequences.  Just robust economic activity.  Of course OPEC didn’t see it that way.

Part of the Bretton Woods system was that other nations used the dollar as a reserve currency.  Because it was as good as gold.  As our trading partners could exchange $35 for an ounce of gold.  Which is why we priced international assets in dollars.  Like oil.  Which is why OPEC had a problem with the Nixon Shock.  The dollars they got for their oil were rapidly becoming worth less than they once were.  Which greatly reduced what they could buy with those dollars.  The oil exporters were losing money with the American devaluation of the dollar.  So they raised the price of oil.  A lot.  Basically pricing it at the current value of gold in US dollars.  Meaning the more they depreciated the dollar the higher the price of oil went.  As well as gas prices.

With the initial expansion of the money supply there was short-term economic gain.  The boom.  But shortly behind this inflationary gain came higher prices.  And a collapse in economic activity.  The bust.  This was the dark side of Keynesian economics.  Higher prices that pushed economies into recessions.  And to make matters worse Americans were putting more of their depreciated dollars into the gas tank.  And the Keynesians said, “No problem.  We can fix this with some inflation.”  Which they tried to by expanding the money supply further.  Meanwhile, Egypt and Syria attacked Israel on October 6, 1973, kicking off the Yom Kippur War.  And when the US supported their ally Israel the Arab oil producers responded with an oil embargo.  Reducing the amount of oil entering America, further raising prices.  And causing gas lines as gas stations ran out of gas.  (In part due to Nixon’s price controls that did not reset demand via higher prices to the reduced supply.  And a ceiling on domestic oil prices discouraged any domestic production.)  The Yom Kippur War ended about 20 days later.  Without a major change in borders.  With an Israeli agreement to pull their forces back to the east side of the Suez Canal the Arab oil producers (all but Libya) ended their oil embargo in March of 1974.

It was Morning in America thanks to the Abandonment of Keynesian Inflationary Policies

So oil flowed into the US again.  But the economy was still suffering from high unemployment.  Which the Keynesians fixed with some more inflation.  With another burst of monetary expansion starting around 1975.  To their surprise, though, unemployment did not fall.  It just raised prices.  Including oil prices.  Which increased gas prices.  The US was suffering from high unemployment and high inflation.  Which wasn’t supposed to happen in Keynesian economics.  Even their Phillips Curve had no place on its graph for this phenomenon.  The Keynesians were dumfounded.  And the American people suffered through the malaise of stagflation.  And if things weren’t bad enough the Iranians revolted and the Shah of Iran (and US ally) stepped down and left the country.  Disrupting their oil industry.  And then President Carter put a halt to Iranian oil imports.  Bringing on the 1979 oil crisis.

This crisis was similar to the previous one.  But not quite as bad.  As it was only Iranian oil being boycotted.  But there was some panic buying.  And some gas lines again.  But Carter did something else.  He began to deregulate oil prices over a period of time.  It wouldn’t help matters in 1979 but it did allow the price of crude oil to rise in the US.  Drawing the oil rigs back to the US.  Especially in Alaska.  Also, the Big Three began to make smaller, more fuel efficient cars.  These two events would combine with another event to bring down the price of oil.  And the gasoline we made from that oil.

Actually, there was something else President Carter did that would also affect the price of oil.  He appointed Paul Volcker Chairman of the Federal Reserve in August of 1979.  He was the anti-Keynesian.  He raised interest rates to contract the money supply and threw the country into a steep recession.  Which brought prices down.  Wringing out the damage of a decade’s worth of inflation.  When Ronald Reagan won the 1980 presidency he kept Volcker as Chairman.  And suffered through a horrible 2-year recession.  But when they emerged it was Morning in America.  They had brought inflation under control.  Unemployment fell.  The economy rebounded thanks to Reagan’s tax cuts.  And the price of oil plummeted.  Thanks to the abandonment of Keynesian inflationary policies.  And the abandonment of oil regulation.  As well as the reduction in demand (due to those smaller and more fuel efficient cars).  Which created a surge in oil exploration and production that resulted in an oil glut in the Eighties.  Bringing the price oil down to almost what it was before the two oil shocks.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

FT185: “When it comes to foreign policy the Republicans do what is best for the country while Democrats do what is best for their party.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 30th, 2013

Fundamental Truth

Wherever the Soviets pushed the Americans pushed back to Contain the Expansion of Communism

Once upon a time Democrats were practically warmongers.  Woodrow Wilson got us into World War I.  FDR got us into World War II.  Harry Truman got us into the Korean War.  And LBJ got us into the Vietnam War.  While Republicans were nearly pacifists.  Dwight Eisenhower got us out of the Korean War.  And Richard Nixon got us out of the Vietnam War.

Eisenhower was the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe during World War II.  Saw the carnage of war up close.  And was glad when it was over.  Unlike General Patton.  Who wanted to invade the Soviet Union.  Because he knew we would have to fight them sooner or later.  And rather do it then when they had the most awesome military force in the world still in Europe.  General Patton lost command of Third Army because of talk like that.  And later would die from injuries he got in a freak car accident.

It didn’t take long following the end of World War II for the Soviets to become the new big bad in town.  Just like General Patton foresaw.  Truman stood up to them in Berlin.  Greece.  Turkey.  Iran.  And Korea.  Wherever they pushed the Americans tried to hold the line.  To contain the expansion of communism.  It was the Cold War.  And it first got hot in Korea.  But the UN forces held the line in Korea.  After three years of war.  About as long as America spent fighting in Europe during World War II.

JFK’s refusal to commit American Military Power during the Bay of Pigs Invasion led to the Cuban Missile Crisis

Communism was a thorn in the side of democracy.  The democratic West believed in peace through strength.  With the occasional war breaking the peace.  While the communist East believed in a perpetual state of war with the occasional peace breaking that war.  The communists sought to expand through violent revolution.  If you contained it early (like in the Berlin Airlift) you could avoid a shooting war.  And keep it cold.  But if they got a foothold you could find yourself mired in a hot and prolonged war.  Like in Korea.

When Fidel Castro turned Cuba communist it was not a good thing for the United States.  For all their efforts to contain communism throughout the world here they were.  On Cuba.  Within missile range of the United States.  And Castro was cozying up to the Soviets.  Which is why President Eisenhower gave the green light for the CIA to remove Castro from power.  To remove a threat so close to the United States.  The plan was the Bay of Pigs Invasion.  Which proceeded under the following administration.  JFK’s.

The invasion, though, did not go well.  And unlike in the Guatemalan coup d’état, JFK did not commit American military power to help the invaders (unlike Eisenhower did in the Guatemalan coup).  Who were soon pushed back.  And defeated.  Which breathed new life in Cuba’s communist revolution.  Brought them more into the Soviet sphere.  And encouraged the Soviets to test this young president.  Which they did.  By sending nuclear missiles to Cuba.  Leading to the Cuban Missile Crisis.  And near nuclear war (Castro’s right hand man, Che Guevara, was angry with the Soviets because they refused to nuke the United States during the crisis).  While the Cuban people suffered under their communist oppressors.  And still do.

Today Iran—and Radical Islam—is the Thorn in the Side of Democracy that Communism once Was

Truman was the last Democrat warrior president.  LBJ got us into Vietnam.  But he also gave us the Great Society.  Turning the nation towards a welfare state.  A very costly welfare state.  Which the great costs of the Vietnam War threatened.  The government, much like they did during the Revolutionary War, began printing money to pay for all of this spending.  Devaluing a dollar pegged to gold.  With nations concerned with this devaluation they traded their dollars for gold.  Which is what is supposed to happen under a gold standard.  So nations don’t devalue their currencies.  But printing money is easier than cutting spending.  So President Nixon decoupled the dollar from gold.  So they could really print it.  Giving us the inflationary Seventies.

Since then Democrat presidents have done two things.  Expanded the welfare state.  And demonized their political opponents.  Which extended to their foreign policy.  President Carter cut back on defense spending.  And tried to make friends with our archenemy.  The Soviet Union.  A president the Soviets had little respect for.  Even considering a nuclear first-strike policy as they didn’t think Carter would ever launch his nuclear weapons.  And then President Carter criticized American ally, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran, for his human rights violation.  There was revolutionary fervor in the air.  The Shah implored for help from their long-time friend and ally.  The United States.  Who assured the Shah that the Americans would intervene militarily on his behalf.  But didn’t.  The Iranian Revolution followed.  And Iran became America’s new archenemy.

Iranian oil won World War II.  It fed the Red Army.  Iran served as a portal into the Soviet Union.  War material as well as oil flowed through Iran and into the Soviet Union.  After the war the Soviets didn’t want to leave Iran.  Give up that oil.  Or a warm-weather port on the Indian Ocean.  But the British and the Americans helped the Iranians keep the Soviets at bay.  Their actions included a coup.  And some human rights violations.  To keep what happened in Eastern Europe following World War II from happening in Iran.  Iran prospered.  And Westernized.  It was becoming everything the American left loved.  Secular.  It was becoming more like America.  Where men and women enjoyed doing things they could enjoy in New York City.  Which angered the Islamists.

Today Iran—and radical Islam—is the thorn in the side of democracy that communism once was.  And unlike their Cold War warrior forefathers, today’s Democrats choose party over country.  Basing their foreign policy on expanding the welfare state.  Or demonizing their political opponents.  President Clinton treated al Qaeda’s increasing acts of hostility against Western/American interests as a legal issue.  Which grew bolder until they culminated in the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.  Clinton did this so he wouldn’t waste money on defense by risking war to protect America.  Or anger his liberal base.  After 9/11, George W. Bush fought back.

The Democrats have demonized George W. Bush as a rich oil man who traded blood for oil.  While at the same time they said he was purposely causing oil shortages to raise the price of oil.  When an opportunity came to overthrow America’s new archenemy, Iran, President Obama did nothing to support the Green Revolution in Iran following questionable election results that kept Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in power.  An intervention that would have been in the best interests of both America and the Iranian people.  But when the Arab Spring blew through Egypt he was quick to tell our friend and ally, Hosni Mubarak, that he had to go.  Turning Egypt over to the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood.  But when civil war came to Syria he chose to do nothing.  Until now (to save face from his ‘red line’ comment about chemical weapons?).  When the opposition has most probably been infiltrated by al Qaeda.

What is the constant in these Democrat foreign policy decisions?  They are the opposite of what the Republicans would have done.  So they couldn’t have done them.  For it would have vindicated George W. Bush.  Angered their liberal base.  And made the world a safer place.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Keynesian Policies and Obamacare reduce Household Incomes

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 25th, 2013

Week in Review

President Obama is a horrible president.  Why?  Because he’s black?  No, that’s not it.  He’s a horrible president who just happens to be black.  One of the big reasons why he is a horrible president is because he is a Keynesian.  And has tried the same failed Keynesian policies of the past to turn the economy around.  And just as they failed in the past they have failed consistently during the Obama presidency.

Keynesian economics states that during a recession when people aren’t spending money the government should do something about it. They should start spending money.  And they should implement policies that put more money into consumers’ pockets.  So they go out in the economy and spend it.  Thus generating economic activity.  And pulling the nation out of recession.  The government could cut taxes to put more money into consumers’ pockets.  But they don’t like cutting taxes.  Preferring to add more welfare programs.  Which give money to consumers.  So they can spend it.  That’s how President Obama has chosen to pull the nation out of the worst recession since the Great Depression.  And as expected by every non-Keynesian, his Keynesian policies have been an abject failure (see Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the ‘Recovery’ as During the Recession by JEFFREY H. ANDERSON posted 8/23/2013 on The Weekly Standard).

New estimates derived from the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey by Sentier Research indicate that the real (inflation-adjusted) median annual household income in America has fallen by 4.4 percent during the “recovery,” after having fallen by 1.8 during the recession.  During the recession, the median American household income fell by $1,002 (from $55,480 to $54,478). During the recovery—that is, from the officially defined end of the recession (in June 2009) to the most recent month for which figures are available (June 2013)—the median American household income has fallen by $2,380 (from $54,478 to $52,098).  So the typical American household is making almost $2,400 less per year (in constant 2013 dollars) than it was four years ago, when the Obama “recovery” began.

Importantly, these income tallies include government payouts such as unemployment compensation and cash welfare. So Obama’s method of funneling ever-more money and power to Washington, and then selectively divvying some of it back out, clearly isn’t working for the typical American family. Nor would his proposed immigration bill help the income prospects of the median American.  And perhaps it’s just a coincidence, but the span of time over which the typical American household’s income has dropped by about $2,400 a year (during an ostensible “recovery”) corresponds almost exactly with the span of time that we’ve been living with the looming specter of Obamacare—which began to be debated in earnest around June 2009.

Another reason why President Obama is a horrible president is that he is more interested in transforming the nation than he is in improving people’s lives.  He wants to make it what it was before President Reagan made the nation great again.  President Reagan followed President Carter.  Who was another horrible president.  Because of his Keynesian economic policies.  While President Reagan wasn’t a Keynesian.  Which is why the economic recovery following Carter’s malaise was one of the strongest economic recoveries in history.  Making President Reagan a great president.  Because he made life better for people.  Unlike Carter and Obama.  Who made life worse.  Because of their Keynesian economic policies.

Obamacare, the pathway to national health care, is a big driver of the fall in household incomes.  The plan for Obamacare was to put the private health insurance business out of business.  So Obamacare can evolve into full-blown national health care.  And to do that they forced businesses to spend more money on their health insurance for full-time employees.  Of course, the idea was for businesses to avoid this additional cost by pushing people to part-time.  And taking away their health insurance.  Advancing the nation further down the Obamacare pathway to national health care.  Which is more important to him than household incomes.  Which he will gladly trade away to transform the country.  Not to just what it was before Ronald Reagan.  But even further left.  Because, for President Obama, what he wants is more important than what the people want.  Jobs, a rising household income and private health insurance.  Which makes him a horrible president.  Just as his Keynesian economic policies make him a horrible president.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Figures don’t Lie but Liars Figure when it comes to the Economy and the Patriot Act

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 6th, 2013

Politics 101

Politicians Lie because they don’t want you to see how Wrong their Economic Policies Are

If you’re objective you look at the facts to form an informed opinion.  If you’re subjective you form the facts to support your opinion.  If you’re objective the facts mean the same thing to you as the next guy.  If you’re subjective they don’t.  Water boils at 212 degrees Fahrenheit.  That’s an objective fact.  The post-impressionists (such as Vincent van Gogh) are better than the impressionists.  That’s a subjective opinion.  For not everyone will agree with that statement.  As a lot of people are wrong about art.

Politics is subjective.  Because politicians selectively take facts and ‘spin’ them.  Which means they take what supports their political views and hype them.  While downplaying or ignoring those things that do not.  For example, take the monthly reports on the economy.  They hype the new jobs the economy created.  And the fall in the unemployment rate.  But continually downplay the shrinking labor force.  Which is the only reason why the unemployment rate fell.  The government quits counting the unemployed once they quit looking for a job.

Do politicians lie?  Of course they do.  All of the time.  Because they want to deceive you.  When they are talking about the economic numbers they may not be technically lying.  But they are deceiving you.  Because they don’t want you to see how wrong their economic policies are.  So they spin the facts.  Like that expression many attribute to Mark Twain.  “Figures don’t lie but liars figure.”

Objectively Harding’s, Coolidge’s, JFK’s and Reagan’s Economic Policies were Very Successful

When it comes to economic policies Democrats and Republicans have very different beliefs.  Democrats believe in an activist government intervening in the private sector.  Like FDR did when he turned a recession into the Great Depression.  Like Jimmy Carter did when he gave us terms like economic malaise and the misery index.  And like President Obama did when he turned a recession into the Great Recession.  Whereas Republicans believe in a limited government that stays out of the private sector economy.  Like Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge did when they gave us the Roaring Twenties.  Like JFK did when his policies gave LBJ a robust economy.  (Until his Great Society gave Jimmy Carter economic malaise and misery.)  And Ronald Reagan did when he gave us one of the longest and strongest economic expansions of all time.

Objectively Harding’s, Coolidge’s, JFK’s and Reagan’s economic policies were very successful.  Conservatives in the Republican Party want to implement similar policies today.  While Democrats want to continue the failed economic policies of FDR, Carter and Obama.  Because they prefer them for subjective reasons.  As they require an activist government intervening in the private sector.  And they don’t care that these policies have a long record of failure.  For they are more interested in growing the size of government than they are in the economy.

So the Democrats spin the economic news to deceive the American people.  And they spun their deception well.  For President Obama won reelection despite his policies giving us the worse economic recovery since that following the Great Depression.  Despite 4 years of failure the American people believe that he cares more than anyone else.  And continues to work harder than anyone else to fix the economy.   Despite his policies proving otherwise.

It was Wrong when George W. Bush used the Patriot Act but it is Perfectly Acceptable if President Obama uses It

So Democrats will ‘figure’ with the economic data to deceive the people so they can advance their agenda.  Making the federal government larger and more powerful.  Hyping the fall in the unemployment rate even though the labor force participation rate has fallen to Jimmy Carter lows.  They may deceive and they may destroy when it comes to the economy but one thing they are is consistent.  Which is more than you can say when it comes to national defense.  Or spying on Americans.

Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks the Bush administration passed the Patriot Act.  This law allowed warrantless wiretaps on international calls to people having suspected ties to terrorist activities.  The Democrats railed against the Patriot Act.  For it was turning the United States into a police state.  Where Big Brother was spying on our every movement.  If those movements were an international call to a person having a suspected tie to terrorist activities.  Even President Obama himself railed against the Patriot Act.  Saying in the 2008 presidential campaign that he would repeal this and every other Bush law that violated our Constitutional protections.  Of course, when he became president it was a different story.

Not only did the Obama administration keep the Patriot Act law they used it for far more than the Bush administration ever used it for.  The UK’s Guardian recently reported that the Obama administration was collecting and storing information on every Verizon phone call.  Not just people making international calls to people with suspected ties to terrorist activities.  But every man, woman and child that has a Verizon phone.  And probably every man, woman and child using every other cellular carrier.  You see, President Obama said it was wrong when George W. Bush used the Patriot Act.  But it is perfectly acceptable if he uses the Patriot Act.  As being able to spy on every American can go a long way in furthering the Democrat agenda.  Making the federal government larger and more powerful.  Showing how the Patriot Act is not an objective violation of our Constitutional rights.  But a subjective instrument of good.  As long as Democrats are wielding this awesome power over their political enemies.  And anyone who may become their political enemy.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

FT161: “Only in government can rank amateurs be put in charge of industries.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 15th, 2013

Fundamental Truth

Politicians love Keynesian Economics because it’s a Pathway to European Social Democracy

For years now we’ve been hearing about President Obama’s efforts to create jobs.  Going all the way back to that laser-like focus he was putting on job creation.  And there was that $800 billion stimulus bill.  That stimulated little but Democrat campaign contributors.  The president has been talking about job creation for a long time.  Yes, he can talk the talk.  But he sure can’t walk the walk.

A big reason why the economy is still so anemic is in large part due to Obamacare.  The onerous requirements of the new health care law have frozen new hiring.  And dampened business growth.  For all those small businesses that are just starting up and trying to gain some traction see massive new costs coming their way.  On top of the massive costs they’re paying already.  From taxes.  To regulatory costs.  Increasing the cost of doing business.  And leaving less and less to reinvest into their business.  So they can grow and hire new people.  Creating jobs.  Which is something the president claims he’s all for.  Yet it is his policies that are preventing these job creators from creating jobs.  And there is a reason for that.

The president and the Democrat Party (and many in the Old Guard of the Republican Party) are Keynesians.  And they believe in the economic policies of John Maynard Keynes.  Which ushered in the era of Big Government.  And massive interventions into the private economy.  A substitution for socialism.  Providing a pathway to socialism.  As in the European variety.  Those social democracies that are all wallowing in the European sovereign debt crisis.  Because their governments grew too large.  Intervened too much into the private economy.  And spent far too much money they didn’t have.

Nixon, Ford and Carter tried Keynesian Economics on a Grand Scale once Nixon Decoupled the Dollar from Gold

All government economists are Keynesian economists.  The Keynesians tell their friends in government to keep interest rates artificially low to stimulate the economy.  Because they believe that even though consumer demand isn’t there businesses will borrow this cheap money and expand production.  And hire more people.  Also, if the economy is not performing as it should be the government needs to spend money.  With make-work programs. Paying people to do things like dig ditches.  And fill them back in.  Because they will take their earnings and spend it.  Creating economic activity.  And the government should do this with deficit spending.  Spending money they don’t have.  Either by printing it.  Or borrowing it.

They have been trying this since World War I or so.  In fact, Keynes met with FDR.  Telling him about his economic theories.  Some of which FDR took to heart.  For he did increase the size of government.  And he spent money on a lot of make-work programs.  None of which pulled the economy out of the Great Depression.  And he tried for over ten years.  Nixon, Ford and Carter tried Keynesian economics on a grand scale.  Once Nixon decoupled the dollar from gold.  Stopping the gold flow out of the country due to Nixon’s inflationary policies (foreign governments said if you want to make the U.S. dollar worthless we’ll take the gold instead at the promised exchange rate of $35/ounce).  Once they no longer had to honor that promise they were able to print even more money. Unleashing an inflation that reached double digits in the Seventies.  And caused massive unemployment and stagnant economic growth.  Stagflation.

This was a failure of Keynesian economics.  For the theory went if you have a recession you used inflation to end it.  And you did that by printing money.  But instead of an improved economy all they got was inflation (and higher prices) to go with an already bad economy.  Which just made everything worse.  Had they continued the classical economic policies that made America the number one economic power in the world (thrift, low taxes, low regulations, the gold standard, savings, etc.) there would have been no inflation.  And there would have been a lot of new economic activity.  Because this is what happened in the past with these policies.  While every time Keynesians tried to spend their way out of a recession it has never worked.  As the historical record clearly documents.

Obamacare will do to Health Care what Government has done to Businesses in our Big Metropolitan Cities

Now either those in government don’t understand this.  Or they do.  And just don’t care about the economic damage they cause as they are more interested in expanding their control over the private economy than they are about the American people.  Which means they’re either not very smart.  Or they’re devious.  Lying to the American people just to advance their agenda.  A larger and more powerful federal government.  Compounding this problem is that most of our politicians don’t understand the first thing about business.  Most are lawyers who think businesses are little more than cash piñatas.  Good for suing.  Or taxing.  But they have no idea how they work.  Which builds the case for our politicians not being very smart.  As well as being devious.

Worse, it’s these same people who are regulating the hell out of our businesses.  These people who don’t understand the first thing about running a business.  But are killing small businesses with costly regulations.  Especially in the big cities.  Where there is so much costly red tape to cut through to open a business.  And to run a business.  Especially if you want to hire employees.  A regulatory nightmare few business owners ever expected.  And so complex and costly that a lot of businesses fail because they don’t charge enough to cover all of their costs.  But these politicians don’t care.  As evidenced by the amount of business they drive out of large metropolitan cities.  Detroit once was the automotive capital of the world.  But the city government grew so large and costly that the costs of doing business in Detroit soared to pay for it.  Making it just too costly to do business in Detroit.  So businesses left.  First the jobs left.  Then the people.  The two greatest employers in Detroit these days are the City of Detroit.  And the Detroit Public Schools.  Both paid with tax dollars.  Generated by businesses.  That are no longer there.  So facing bankruptcy due to the crushing costs of government (primarily pensions and health care benefits), the governor declared an emergency.  And assigned an emergency manager to fix Detroit’s finances.

Now the people who destroyed the business environment in our big metropolitan cities are taking over health care.  Who know even less about health care than they do about running a business.  There are some doctors in Congress.  But only approximately 3.7% are doctors.  And only 16 of the 20 are Republicans.  So they will have little say with the Democrat-passed Obamacare.  While Obamacare will do to health care what government has done to businesses in our big metropolitan cities.  It will destroy it.  Because health care is very complex.  Doctors spent some 8 years of schooling to become a doctor.  And spend their career in continuing education to stay current in their fields.  But who will be managing these professionals now?  Rank amateurs.  For only in government can rank amateurs be put in charge of industries.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Bretton Woods, Nixon Shock, OPEC, Yom Kippur War, Oil Embargo, Stagflation, Paul Volcker, Ronald Reagan and Morning in America

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 18th, 2012

History 101

Under the Bretton Woods System the Americans promised to Exchange their Gold for Dollars at $35 per Ounce

Wars are expensive.  All kinds.  The military kind.  As well as the social kind.  And the Sixties gave us a couple of doozies.  The Vietnam War.  And the War on Poverty.  Spending in Vietnam started in the Fifties.  But spending, as well as troop deployment, surged in the Sixties.  First under JFK.  Then under LBJ.  They added this military spending onto the Cold War spending.  Then LBJ declared a war on poverty.  And all of this spending was on top of NASA trying to put a man on the moon.  Which was yet another part of the Cold War.  To beat the Soviets to the moon after they beat us in orbit.

This was a lot of spending.  And it carried over into the Seventies.  Giving President Nixon a big problem.  As he also had a balance of payments deficit.  And a trade deficit.  Long story short Nixon was running out of money.  So they started printing it.  Which caused another problem as the US was still part of the Bretton Woods system.  A quasi gold standard.  Where the US pegged the dollar to gold at $35 per ounce.  Which meant when they started printing dollars the money supply grew greater than their gold supply.  And depreciated the dollar.  Which was a problem because under Bretton Woods the Americans promised to exchange their gold for dollars at $35 per ounce.

When other nations saw the dollar depreciate so that it would take more and more of them to buy an ounce of gold they simply preferred having the gold instead.  Something the Americans couldn’t depreciate.  Nations exchanged their dollars for gold.  And began to leave the Bretton Woods system.    Nixon had a choice to stop this gold outflow.  He could strengthen the dollar by reducing the money supply (i.e., stop printing dollars) and cut spending.  Or he could ‘close the gold window’ and decouple the dollar from gold.  Which is what he did on August 15, 1971.  And shocked the international financial markets.  Hence the name the Nixon Shock.

When the US supported Israel in the Yom Kippur War the Arab Oil Producers responded with an Oil Embargo

Without the restraint of gold preventing the printing of money the Keynesians were in hog heaven.  As they hated the gold standard.  The suspension of the convertibility of gold ushered in the heyday of Keynesian economics.  Even Nixon said, “I am now a Keynesian in economics.”  The US had crossed the Rubicon.  Inflationary Keynesian policies were now in charge of the economy.  And they expanded the money supply.  Without restraint.  For there was nothing to fear.  No consequences.  Just robust economic activity.  Of course OPEC didn’t see it that way.

Part of the Bretton Woods system was that other nations used the dollar as a reserve currency.  Because it was as good as gold.  As our trading partners could exchange $35 for an ounce of gold.  Which is why we priced international assets in dollars.  Like oil.  Which is why OPEC had a problem with the Nixon Shock.  The dollars they got for their oil were rapidly becoming worth less than they once were.  Which greatly reduced what they could buy with those dollars.  The oil exporters were losing money with the American devaluation of the dollar.  So they raised the price of oil.  A lot.  Basically pricing it at the current value of gold in US dollars.  Meaning the more they depreciated the dollar the higher the price of oil went.  As well as gas prices.

With the initial expansion of the money supply there was short-term economic gain.  The boom.  But shortly behind this inflationary gain came higher prices.  And a collapse in economic activity.  The bust.  This was the dark side of Keynesian economics.  Higher prices that pushed economies into recessions.  And to make matters worse Americans were putting more of their depreciated dollars into the gas tank.  And the Keynesians said, “No problem.  We can fix this with some inflation.”  Which they tried to by expanding the money supply further.  Meanwhile, Egypt and Syria attacked Israel on October 6, 1973, kicking off the Yom Kippur War.  And when the US supported their ally Israel the Arab oil producers responded with an oil embargo.  Reducing the amount of oil entering America, further raising prices.  And causing gas lines as gas stations ran out of gas.  (In part due to Nixon’s price controls that did not reset demand via higher prices to the reduced supply.  And a ceiling on domestic oil prices discouraged any domestic production.)  The Yom Kippur War ended about 20 days later.  Without a major change in borders.  With an Israeli agreement to pull their forces back to the east side of the Suez Canal the Arab oil producers (all but Libya) ended their oil embargo in March of 1974.

It was Morning in America thanks to the Abandonment of Keynesian Inflationary Policies

So oil flowed into the US again.  But the economy was still suffering from high unemployment.  Which the Keynesians fixed with some more inflation.  With another burst of monetary expansion starting around 1975.  To their surprise, though, unemployment did not fall.  It just raised prices.  Including oil prices.  Which increased gas prices.  The US was suffering from high unemployment and high inflation.  Which wasn’t supposed to happen in Keynesian economics.  Even their Phillips Curve had no place on its graph for this phenomenon.  The Keynesians were dumfounded.  And the American people suffered through the malaise of stagflation.  And if things weren’t bad enough the Iranians revolted and the Shah of Iran (and US ally) stepped down and left the country.  Disrupting their oil industry.  And then President Carter put a halt to Iranian oil imports.  Bringing on the 1979 oil crisis.

This crisis was similar to the previous one.  But not quite as bad.  As it was only Iranian oil being boycotted.  But there was some panic buying.  And some gas lines again.  But Carter did something else.  He began to deregulate oil prices over a period of time.  It wouldn’t help matters in 1979 but it did allow the price of crude oil to rise in the US.  Drawing the oil rigs back to the US.  Especially in Alaska.  Also, the Big Three began to make smaller, more fuel efficient cars.  These two events would combine with another event to bring down the price of oil.  And the gasoline we made from that oil.

Actually, there was something else President Carter did that would also affect the price of oil.  He appointed Paul Volcker Chairman of the Federal Reserve in August of 1979.  He was the anti-Keynesian.  He raised interest rates to contract the money supply and threw the country into a steep recession.  Which brought prices down.  Wringing out the damage of a decade’s worth of inflation.  When Ronald Reagan won the 1980 presidency he kept Volcker as Chairman.  And suffered through a horrible 2-year recession.  But when they emerged it was Morning in America.  They had brought inflation under control.  Unemployment fell.  The economy rebounded thanks to Reagan’s tax cuts.  And the price of oil plummeted.  Thanks to the abandonment of Keynesian inflationary policies.  And the abandonment of oil regulation.  As well as the reduction in demand (due to those smaller and more fuel efficient cars).  Which created a surge in oil exploration and production that resulted in an oil glut in the Eighties.  Bringing the price oil down to almost what it was before the two oil shocks.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

The Left Hate Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan because they Restored their Countries to Greatness

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 16th, 2012

Week in Review

The British Left hates Margaret Thatcher.  So much that they are already selling t-shirts celebrating her death.  Though she is still alive.  For she is the Ronald Reagan of Great Britain.  A singularly remarkable person who came along just in time to save a nation in decline.  And restore it to greatness (see The Left hates Margaret Thatcher because she reminds them they are wrong about everything by Daniel Hannan posted 9/12/2012 on the Daily Mail).

Now and again, we are reminded of the sheer nastiness of a certain kind of Leftie. Not, let me stress, all Lefties: I have Labour friends who are motivated by a more or less uncomplicated desire to help the disadvantaged.

But they march alongside some committed haters who define their politics not by what they like, but by what they loathe. They also define opponents not as human beings with whom they disagree, but as legitimate targets.

A lack of empathy, bordering almost on sociopathy sits behind their talk of caring and sharing.

Not much different from the American Left.  Who hate their political opponents.  And attack them personally.  With no understanding of the underlying policy in question.  For they never say they prefer tax, borrow and print (money) Keynesian economics over a more Austrian approach of sound money and low taxation.  The kind of policies that have made great economies great.  Instead they say their opponents hate women, hate poor people, hate children, hate seniors, etc.  And yet they are the tolerant people.  Who tolerate everyone that agrees with them.  And hates all those who disagree with them.  Making these tolerant some of the most intolerant of people.  Which is why they hate Ronald Reagan in America.  And they hate Margaret Thatcher in Britain.  Even though they both returned their countries to prosperity after a decade of decline and despair.

I am just old enough to remember the end of the Seventies: power cuts, three-day weeks, constant strikes, price and income controls, inflation.

Worst of all, I remember the sense of despair, the conviction that Britain was finished.

I don’t believe you can grasp Margaret Thatcher’s achievement without the context of what she displaced.

Throughout the Sixties and Seventies, this country had been outperformed by every European economy. ‘Britain is a tragedy — it has sunk to borrowing, begging, stealing until North Sea oil comes in,’ said Henry Kissinger.

The Wall Street Journal in 1975 was blunter: ‘Goodbye, Great Britain: it was nice knowing you.’

Margaret Thatcher’s victory in 1979 was like a thaw after the cruellest of winters. Inflation fell, strikes stopped, the latent enterprise of a free people was awakened.

Having lagged behind for a generation, we outgrew every European country in the Eighties except Spain (which was bouncing back from an even lower place). As revenues flowed in, taxes were cut and debt was repaid, while public spending — contrary to almost universal belief — rose.

In America we were mired in stagflation and a record high misery index of the Carter Seventies.  Much of which he inherited from LBJ’s Great Society and Richard Milhous Nixon’s abandoning of the quasi gold standard.  The Nixon Shock.  Because he refused to cut Great Society spending.  As did Gerald Ford.  As did Jimmy Carter.  No one wanted to cut back spending and continued to print money to pay for the Great Society spending causing the record high inflation during the Seventies.  Which added to the high unemployment that gave Jimmy Carter that horrible misery index.  And malaise.  Like Daniel Hannan I’m just old enough to remember how bad it was in the Seventies.  And how great Ronald Reagan’s Morning in America was.  We were better off after 4 years of Ronald Reagan than we were after 4 years of Jimmy Carter.  And the numbers proved it.  Lower tax rates increased tax revenue.  Allowing even greater government spending.  Which was the source of the Reagan deficits.  Not the tax cuts.

In the Falklands, Margaret Thatcher showed the world that a great country doesn’t retreat forever.

And by ending the wretched policy of one-sided detente that had allowed the Soviets to march into Europe, Korea and Afghanistan, she set in train the events that would free hundreds of millions of people from what, in crude mathematical terms, must be reckoned the most murderous ideology humanity has known.

Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan stood together against communism.  While Jimmy Carter eroded America’s military power so much that the Soviets actually put together a nuclear first-strike doctrine.  For unlike the policy of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) of previous administrations the Soviets believed they could launch and win a nuclear war against Jimmy Carter.  Reagan and Thatcher rebuilt and deployed nuclear and regular military forces to reduce the threat of a Soviet first-strike.  And made the enemies of Great Britain and the United States fear and respect our military might.  It was peace through strength.  For all free and democratic countries.  Not the detente of Jimmy Carter that encouraged the Soviets to add a nuclear first-strike doctrine.  The beginning of the end of the Cold War began under Thatcher’s and Reagan’s watch.

Why, then, do Lefties loathe her so much..?

No, what Lefties (with honourable exceptions) find hard to forgive is the lady’s very success: the fact that she rescued a country that they had dishonoured and impoverished; that she inherited a Britain that was sclerotic, indebted and declining and left it proud, wealthy and free; that she never lost an election to them.

Their rage, in truth, can never be assuaged, for she reminds them of their own failure.

The same reasons the American Left hates Ronald Reagan.  Because he, too, returned his country to greatness.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Gas Prices continue to Rise as the Number of Working Oil Rigs in the U.S. Fall

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 15th, 2012

Week in Review

The law of supply and demand tells us when prices rise demand rises.  Causing supply to rise to meet that demand.  And it typically works when the free market is left to market forces.  Apparently that isn’t happening in the U.S. oil business.  So if you ever wonder why gasoline prices are so high this is the reason (see U.S. rig count unchanged at 1,864 by The Associated Press posted 9/14/2012 on USA Today).

The number of rigs actively exploring for oil and natural gas in the U.S. remained unchanged this week at 1,864.

Houston-based oilfield services company Baker Hughes reported Friday that 1,413 rigs were exploring for oil and 448 were searching for gas. Three were listed as miscellaneous. A year ago, Baker Hughes listed 1,985 rigs…

The rig count peaked at 4,530 in 1981 and bottomed at 488 in 1999.

The president may say we are drilling for more oil than ever before but the number of active rigs fell this year to 1,864 from last year’s 1,985.  A drop of 121 rigs.  At a time of increasing gasoline prices.  The rig trend appears to be trending in the wrong direction.  Rising prices mean demand is greater than supply.  So the number of rigs should increase not decrease.  To meet that rising demand.

The last time gasoline prices were soaring like this was during the Carter years.  Because gas prices were so high oil companies rushed in to meet that demand.  So that by 1981 (the first year of the Reagan administration) the number of rigs peaked at 4,530.  Which gave us the steepest fall in gas prices in U.S. history.  Falling from a high of $3.31 to about $1.75 a gallon (prices are in 2007 dollars).  All of those rigs (as well as others throughout the world) created a glut of oil in the market.  And that glut of oil brought gas prices down.

Gas prices are about as high as they were in 1981.  And yet we have fewer rigs drilling for oil.  Far fewer.  President Carter may have asked us to turn down our thermostats and wear a sweater to help in the energy crisis.  But he at least allowed the oil companies to drill for oil.  And they would drill today like they did under Carter for gas prices are as high as they were under Carter.  And the only reason that they are not can be that it is not as economically beneficial for them today as it was under Carter.  Or that the Obama administration is just not letting them drill.  And with prices and demand being as high as ever it suggests the latter.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Jimmy Carter, Malaise, Ronald Reagan, Austrian Economics, Morning in America, Barack Obama, Keynesian Economics and Great Recession

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 4th, 2012

History 101

It was Morning in America again because Ronald Reagan reduced the Misery Index by 42.7%

Ronald Reagan was a supply-sider when it came to economics.  Of the Austrian school variety.  In fact, one of his campaign promises was to bring back the gold standard.  A very Austrian thing.  The Austrian school predates the Keynesian school.  When the focus was on the stages of production.  Not on consumer spending.  These policies served the nation well.  They (and the gold standard) exploded American ingenuity and economic activity in the 19th century.  Making the U.S. the number one economy in the world.  Surpassing the nation that held the top spot for a century or more.  Perhaps the last great empire.  Great Britain.

Following the stagflation and misery (misery index = inflation rate + unemployment rate) of the Seventies Reagan promised to cut taxes and governmental regulations.  To make it easier for businesses to create economic activity.  Easier to create jobs.  And he did.  Among other things.  Such as rebuilding the military that the Carter administration severely weakened during the Seventies (it was so bad that the Soviet Union put together a first-strike nuclear option.  Because they thought they could win a nuclear war with Jimmy Carter as president).  During the 1980 campaign Reagan asked the people if they were better off after 4 years of Jimmy Carter.  The answer was no.  Four years later, though, they were.  Here’s why.  (Note:  We used so many sources that we didn’t source them here to save space.  The inflation rate and unemployment rates are for August of the respective years.  The dollar amounts are annual totals with some estimates added to take them to the end of 2012.  The debt and GDP are not adjusted for inflation as they are only 4 years apart.  Gas prices and median income are adjusted for inflation.  There may be some error in these numbers.  But overall we believe the information they provide fairly states the economic results of the presidents’ policies.  (This note applies to both tables.))

Reagan entered office with some horrendous numbers.  The Carter administration was printing so much money that inflation was at 12.9% in 1980.  Added to the unemployment rate that brought the misery index to 20.6%.  A huge number.  To be fair Carter tapped Paul Volcker to be Fed Chairman and he began the policy of reigning in inflation.  But Carter did this far too late.  The only way to cure high inflation is with a nasty recession.  Which Volcker gave Ronald Reagan.  But it worked.  By 1984 inflation fell 8.8 points or 66.7%.  Even with this nasty recession the unemployment rate fell 0.2 points or 2.6%.  Which shaved 8.8 points off of the miserable index.  Or reducing it by 42.7%.  This is why it was morning in America again.  The Left to this day say “yeah, but at what cost?” and point to the record deficits of the Reagan administration.  Saying this is the price of tax cuts.  But they’re wrong.  Yes, the debt went up.  But it wasn’t because of the tax cuts.  Because those tax cuts stimulated economic activity.  GDP rose 12.6% by 1984.  And tax receipts even increased with those lower tax rates.  Because of the higher GDP.  By 1984 Reagan’s policies increased tax revenue by 28.9%.  And on a personal level the median income even increased 0.4%.  And this following a very bad recession a few years earlier.  Finally, gas prices fell 22.2%.  And the way Americans feel about rising gas prices this was truly morning in America again.

To Top off the General Malaise of the Obama Economy Gas Prices Soared while Median Income Fell

Barack Obama is a Keynesian through and through.  A believer in pure demand-side economics.  To that end his administration focused everything on increasing consumer spending.  Tax and spend policies.  Income redistribution.  Deficit spending.  Anything to make America ‘more fair.’  Raising taxes on the rich so the poor can spend more money.  With the Keynesian multiplier they believe this is the path to economic prosperity.  Just doing everything within their power to put more spending money into the hands of poorer people.  Increasing government regulation, fees and fines as well as taxes to bring more money in Washington so they can redistribute it.  Or spend it directly on things like roads and bridges.  Or solar power companies.  Even paying people to dig a hole and fill it back in.  Because these people will take their wages and spend them.  Creating economic activity.

So President Obama put Keynesian economics to work.  Beginning with a $787 billion stimulus bill.  Investments into green energy and the jobs of the future.  Like a Department of Energy loan of $528 million to the now bankrupt Solyndra.  Which was only one of many loans.  The bailout of the UAW pension fund (aka the auto bailout).  The government poured $528 million into GM.  And President Obama touted the Chevy Volt, boasting that GM would sell a million each year bringing his green goals to fruition (GM is struggling to sell 10,000 Volts a year).  A lot of malinvestment as the Austrians would say.  But a Keynesian sees any government expenditure as a good investment.  Because if all the people who receive this government money spends at least 80% of it (while saving only 20%) the Keynesian multiplier will be five.  Meaning that the net gain in GDP will be five times whatever the government spends.  So how has that worked for the president?  Well, here are his numbers:

The government spent so much money that the federal debt increased by $5.4 trillion.  Trillion with a ‘T’.  That’s over a trillion dollar deficit each of the president’s 4 years in office.  And his last year isn’t even a whole year.  Unprecedented until President Obama.  And what did all of that federal spending get us after about 4 years?  An unemployment rate 2.1 points higher.  Or 33.9% higher than when he took office.  Inflation fell but it did nothing to spur GDP growth which grew at an anemic 3.1%.  Which is less than a percentage point a year.  Which is why the Great Recession lingers still.  Meanwhile the Chinese are having a bad year with a GDP growth of 7.8%.  So all of that spending didn’t help at all.  In fact, it made things worse.  The economic activity is so bad that even tax receipts fell 2.2% after four years of President Obama.  Which has many in his party saying that we need to raise tax rates.  Contrary to what Ronald Reagan did.  And to top off the general malaise of the Obama economy gas prices soared 107.6% under his presidency.  While the median income fell 7.3%.  One has to look hard to find any positive news from the Obama economy.  And there is one.  Inflation did fall.  But even that really isn’t good.  As it may be an indicator of a looming deflationary spiral.  Giving America a lost decade.  Like Japan’s Lost Decade.

The Flaw in Keynesian Thinking is that it Ignores the Layers of Economic Activity above the Consumer Level

So there you have an Austrian and a Keynesian.  Both entered office during bad economic times.  Although things were much worse when President Reagan took office than when President Obama took office.  The misery index was 20.6% in 1980.  It was only 11.6% in 2008.  About half as bad for President Obama than it was for President Reagan.  It came down 16.4% under Obama.  But it came down 42.7% under Reagan.  Which is why it isn’t morning in America under President Obama.  Reagan increased tax receipts by 28.9 % by the end of his first term.  They fell 2.2% under Obama.  Adjusted for inflation Reagan averaged annual deficits of $348 billion.  That’s billion with a ‘B’.  Obama averaged $1.324 trillion.  That’s trillion with a ‘T’.  Or 280% higher than Ronald Reagan.  Gas prices fell 22.2% under Reagan.  They rose 107.6% under Obama.  Median income barely rose 0.4% under Reagan.  But it fell 7.3% under Obama.  In short there is nothing in the Obama economic record that is better than the Reagan economic record.

And why is this?  Because Obama’s policies are Keynesian.  While Reagan’s policies were Austrian.  Reagan focused on the stages of production to improve economic activity.  Cutting taxes.  Reducing regulatory compliance costs.  Creating a business-friendly environment.  A system that rewarded success.  Whereas Obama focused on consumer spending.  Tax, borrow and print (i.e., quantitative easing).  So the government could spend.  Putting more money into the pockets of consumers.  Which stimulated only the last stage in the stages of production.  So while some consumers had more money it was still a business-unfriendly environment.  Where tax, regulatory and environmental policies (as well as the uncertainty of Obamacare) hindered business growth everywhere upstream from retail sales.  From raw material extraction to industrial processing to construction to manufactured goods.  Where these Obama’s policies punish success.  For the bigger you get the more you pay in taxes and regulatory compliance costs.

The greatest flaw with Keynesian economics is that it looks at aggregate supply and demand.  With a focus on consumer spending.  And ignores the layers of economic activity that happens before the consumer level.  The Austrian school understands this.  As did the British when she became one of the greatest empires of all times.  As did America during the 19th century.  No nation became an economic superpower using Keynesian economics.  Japan grew to be a great economic power during the Fifties and Sixties.  Then went Keynesian in the Eighties and suffered their Lost Decade in the Nineties.  Some Keynesians like to point to China as an example of the success of Keynesian economics.  But they still have a fairly restrictive police state.  And their economic policies are hauntingly similar to Japan’s.  Some have even posited that it is very possible that China could suffer the same fate as Japan.  And suffer a deflationary spiral.  Resulting in a lost decade for China.  Which is very plausible considering the Chinese practice state-capitalism where the state partners closely with businesses.  Which is what the Japanese did in the Eighties.  And it hasn’t been great for them since.  As it hasn’t been great in America economically since the current administration.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

« Previous Entries