A Weakening Dollar is giving Boeing a Trade Advantage over Airbus

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 23rd, 2013

Week in Review

Before you can buy from a foreign country you have to exchange your currency fist.  For example, if you’re in China and want to buy some aircraft from Boeing or Airbus, you have to exchange you currency first.  Exchange Chinese yuan for U.S. dollars.  Or exchange Chinese yuan for euros.

Now if both Boeing and Airbus have a plane that meets all of their needs leaving price as the only consideration, they have two things to consider.  Price, obviously.  And the current exchange rate.  For if the U.S. dollar is weaker compared to the euro they will get more dollars than euros when exchanging their currency.  Giving the Americans a trade advantage.  Because if the dollar is weaker than the euro the Chinese yuan will buy more from Boeing than it will from Airbus.  A situation that actually exists now.  And it concerns Airbus (see Airbus CEO Concerned Over Euro/USD Exchange Rate Affecting Exports by David Pearson posted 6/20/2013 on 4-traders).

Airbus Chief Executive Fabrice Bregier Thursday said he remains concerned about the strength of the euro against the U.S. dollar which could limit the European plane-maker’s export-reliant growth despite strong demand for passenger jets particularly from Asia.

The CEO has previously expressed concern that the euro’s rise against the dollar could force the company to seek extra cost cuts or savings.

The aircraft market is a world market.  An aircraft manufacturer’s export sales will be greater than their domestic sales.  So a weak currency benefits them.  Which is why governments like to weaken their currencies.  Especially if they depend on robust export sales.  But the down side to that is that a weaker currency will raise prices everywhere else.  So, yes, exports will grow.  But people will lose purchasing power.  As their money won’t buy as much as it once did.

Because the Chinese yuan will buy more from Boeing than it will from Airbus they have to somehow lower the price of their planes to offset that advantage Boeing has. Which means they will have to find costs they can cut.  Find savings elsewhere.  Or watch Boeing sell more planes.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Used Cars put a Crimp in Venezuela’s Inflationary Policies

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 27th, 2013

Week in Review

The American Left attacks capitalism for being unfair and evil because it puts profits before people.  Whereas socialism puts people before profits.  Where people give according to ability and take according to need.  Fair, yes?  In the way it makes people want to link arms and sing Kumbaya.  Because everyone has everything they need.  Thanks to that redistribution of wealth.  And exactly how does that work?  Something like this.

An unemployed man with 8 children will get more from the government than a single woman with no children working 12-hour days 6 days a week.  She will have a lot of income the state can tax.  So she has a lot of ability.  While he will get a lot of state benefits.  Because he has a lot of need.  A smart person will look at this and quickly come to the understanding that working hard sucks.  While being a lay-about means you live comfortably on state benefits.  Paid for by people like that woman working 12-hour days 6 days a week.  So in true socialism it’s a contest to show as little ability and as much need as possible.

Sometimes there aren’t enough people to tax.  So to keep the people happy the state spends money it doesn’t have.  By printing more and more money.  Which is what Hugo Chavez did in Venezuela.  Actions which the American Left applaud.  As they applaud Hugo Chavez for putting people before profits.  For unabashedly embracing socialism.  And condemning capitalism.  So Venezuela should be a socialist utopia.  So is it?  Let’s take a look (see Venezuela Ready to Crack Down on Clunker Car Inflation Refuge by Corina Pons & Nathan Crooks posted 1/24/2013 on Bloomberg).

Automobiles purchased in Venezuela, South America’s largest oil exporter, typically gain in value the moment they are driven off the dealership lot. Facing 20.1 percent inflation and capital controls introduced in 2003 that limit the amount of bolivars citizens may take out of the country, Venezuelans invest in durable goods…

Venezuela’s consumer prices last month rose 3.5 percent, the fastest pace in 32 months, the central bank said Jan. 11. Venezuela has the third-highest inflation rate worldwide.

Chavez in 2012 ordered companies to cut prices of shampoo, soap and other personal care products to contain inflationary pressures…

Inflation rose after Chavez restricted dollar supplies in a bid to close a fiscal gap widened by spending before elections in October, in which he defeated challenger Henrique Capriles Radonski by more than 10 percentage points.

The lack of dollars has created shortages of goods that range from toilet paper to detergent and extend to automobiles. Suvinca, a Venezuelan state distributor of Chinese-made cars, posted a notice on its website yesterday that said it had run out of cars and suspended sales…

“The law won’t solve the problem, because it doesn’t resolve the fact that there is still little supply. It won’t reduce demand, either,” Garcia said. “A black market will be created very fast. Instead of solving the problem, it will make it worse…”

“With this law, it will not be permissible to sell a car above the maximum suggested price, and a used car can never cost more than a new one,” Amoroso said. “Notaries will be prohibited from legalizing any transaction that is above the suggested price.”

When you print a lot of money it just makes your money worthless.  Which is why governments frown on people using their computer printers to make money.  If everyone did this money would lose its value.  For it would be as common place as leaves on the ground in autumn.  In countries with high inflation rates people want to spend their money as fast as they get it before it loses too much of its purchasing power.  For the real goods they buy will hold their value.  So it’s a safer place to put your savings.  Instead of in a bank.

The more bolivars (the Venezuelan currency) they print the less each bolivar is worth.  The more they depreciate the bolivar the faster people want to convert them into something that will hold its value.  Like cars.  If the bolivar loses half of its value it will take twice as many of them to buy a car.  So if you own a car its value in bolivars will soar the more of them they print.  Not that people want bolivars.  But they do want dollars.  And getting dollars by selling real goods avoids the inflation problem of the bolivar.  But it also helps to undermine the currency as no one wants to use it.  Or accept it in exchange for valuable goods.

Of course an easy solution to this problem is simply implementing price controls.  If you legally prevent prices from rising in response to runaway inflation problem solved, yes?  No.  Because if prices are held at artificially low levels people will buy so many of these items while the buying is good that these things will disappear from store shelves.  And if the store shelves are empty it doesn’t matter what prices are.  This is why there were gas lines in the Seventies.  Gas sales were so strong that gas stations ran out of gas.  And with prices below real market prices there wasn’t new supply coming on market to meet that excessive demand.  Because having to sell below your costs doesn’t encourage anyone to sell.  Except on the black market.  Where black market prices adjust market supply to market demand.  And everything is available for a price.

This is the socialist utopia that is Venezuela.  Only it’s not a utopia.  It just converts as many people with ability into people with need.  And when there are no longer enough people to tax to provide for those in need societies break down.  And governments collapse.  Unless you have a strong police state.  Which has been the hallmark of all social utopias that put people before profits.  Places like Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, the People’s Republic of China, North Korea, the communist countries of Eastern Europe, Cuba, etc.  Venezuela, too.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Pure Gold Standard

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 8th, 2012

Economics 101

To Expand the Money Supply under a Pure Gold Standard requires an Enormous Investment unlike it does for Fiat Money

Do you know why we’ll never have a pure gold standard?  Because a pure gold standard doesn’t need a government.  Or their economists (from the Keynesian school) advising them how to make the economy better.  A pure gold standard works all by itself.  And is hard to manipulate.  Governments can’t inflate the money supply to spend money they don’t have.  So it really takes the fun out of being a spendthrift politician.  And because it would work so well it would debunk a century or so of Keynesian economics.  And shut down most economics departments at our Universities.  Because that’s all they know how to teach.  Keynesian economics.

So there is a lot of opposition to returning to a responsible monetary standard like a pure gold standard.  Ronald Reagan was the last presidential candidate to include a pure gold standard in the campaign platform.  But the idea died quickly after inauguration.  Not because he lied.  There was just too much political opposition that would never let it happen.  For that’s the last thing our spendthrift politicians in Washington want.  Something restraining them from spending what they don’t have.  As that would only make it more difficult to buy votes.  Reward campaign donors.  And reward special contributors with federal jobs in an ever expanding federal bureaucracy.

No, what the spendthrift politicians like is fiat money.  The kind you make up out of thin air.  Easily.  And with very little cost.  Either by printing paper dollars.  Or adding numbers to an electronic ledger.  Something you can’t do when you use gold.  Because to expand the money supply under a pure gold standard requires an enormous investment to find it.  To dig the ore out of the ground.  To comminute it (break it into smaller pieces) usually by crushing and grinding.  To smelt it.  To separate the gold from everything else pulled out of the ground with it.  And add it to the money supply.  This process takes a while.  And costs an enormous amount of money.  Unlike fiat money.  Where they can simply expand the money supply with a few computer key strokes.  Over a cup of coffee.

The Keynesian Interest Rate will always have a Larger Inflation Factor Included than a Gold Standard Rate

Gold mining requires gold mining companies.  And these gold mining companies have to raise a lot of capital to finance their extraction of gold.  Often with stocks and bonds.  So digging gold out of the ground requires investors to take great risks with their investment portfolios.  So it takes a lot to get gold out of the ground.  Which is why under a gold standard you can never have runaway inflation.  Technically you could.  But it would require the company to invest an inordinate amount of money into that inflation.  And if they flooded the market with all of that gold it would only lower the price of gold.  So they would spend more to earn less.  Something a private company is not likely to do.  Which is why it would be very difficult to impossible to have runaway inflation.

One of the things that makes a healthy economy is low interest rates.  If the cost of borrowing money is low more people will borrow money.  And if they’re buying things that require loans they’re generating a lot of economic activity.  Creating a lot of jobs along the way.  This is why Keynesians want to print money.  To flood the market with dollars so it doesn’t cost much to borrow them.  But there is another factor in interest rates.  Inflation.  The greater the inflation rate the greater the interest rate.  To compensate lenders for the loss in purchasing power over the time of the loan.  And increasing the money supply devalues the dollar.  Leading to a loss in purchasing power.  And those higher interest rates.

As it is much easier to inflate fiat money than it is with gold interest rates are higher with fiat money than they are with gold.  Because there is always a risk for governments to print more money for political purposes (i.e., buying votes) there is more cushion built in interest rates.  If you remove the irresponsible government aspect from the monetary system interest rates will be lower.  Because lenders would ask for less cushion in their interest rates.  Because of this stability that gold gives you interest rates are low for extended periods of time.  Encouraging lenders to lend.  And borrowers to borrow.  Leading to economic growth.  And jobs.  What the Keynesians try to get by printing money.  But the Keynesian interest rate will always have a larger inflation factor included.  So their interest rates will never be as low as they are under a pure gold standard.

Because Gold is not a Friend of Inflation it is no Friend to Keynesian Economists or Spendthrift Politicians

Under such a gold standard we would not get rid of paper dollars.  We’d still have those.  Only there would be no fractional reserve banking.  Where the banks keep only a small percentage of their deposits in their bank vaults while lending the rest out.  Under a gold standard our dollars would be ‘receipts’ for the gold stored in those bank vaults.  If the price of gold was $50 an ounce (it’s not) then $1 would equal 1/50 of an ounce of gold.  So for every dollar in circulation there would be 1/50 of an ounce of gold in a bank vault somewhere.  If you had $500 in your checking account the bank would have 10 ($500 X 1/50) ounces of gold on deposit for you.  Which means if everyone came to withdraw their money at the same time everyone would get their money.  There would not be any bank runs.  And no bank failures like there were during the Great Depression.

But could banks still loan money with a 100% reserve requirement for demand deposits (i.e., checking accounts)?  Yes.  They would loan money that people deposited for a fixed period of time.  Like a 5-year certificate of deposit.  Where the depositor can’t withdraw it until that 5-year period is up without a significant penalty for early withdrawal.  If a bank makes a 4-year loan with a 5-year deposit the money should be returned to the bank in time for the depositor to withdraw it at the end of 5 years.  As most savings are long-term (such as for retirement) this would not hinder lending.  There would still be plenty of money to lend.  Only there may be tighter lending standards where only people who can actually repay their loans may be able to borrow money.  Which would be a good thing.  As it would prevent another subprime mortgage crisis from happening.

If the economy grows larger than the money supply there will be fewer dollars chasing all those goods and services.  Meaning that the dollar’s purchasing power will increase.  And prices will fall.  This is something Keynesians all fear (but not consumers who like lower prices).  For they say if prices fall there could be another Great Depression.  However, the Federal Reserve helped to bring about the Great Recession with their deflationary monetary policies.  They contracted the money supply by some 30%.  That can’t happen with a pure gold standard.  Because the money supply never gets smaller.  Because just as you can’t create gold out of thin air you can’t make it disappear.  For once they add it to the money supply it is always there.  The gold stock never shrinks.  It can only grow less than the economy.  So you can have a monetary deflation without a depression.  Which is a good thing.  For your paycheck will go farther.  You savings will give you a better retirement.  It even makes international trade fair.  Because gold is gold.  Which makes any currency based on a unit weight of gold difficult to manipulate when it comes to exchange rates.  As prices are, essentially, in weights of gold.

So who wouldn’t win under a pure gold standard?  Governments with welfare states.  Who like to buy votes with their power over the monetary system.  Who depend on Keynesian inflationary policies to give them those large sums to spend.  And because gold is not a friend of inflation it is no friend to Keynesian economists or spendthrift politicians.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

LESSONS LEARNED #87: “In a democracy you hold the keys to the treasury. So be careful of what you ask for.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 13th, 2011

Keynesian Spending gave us Double Digit Interests Rates, Double Digit Inflation Rates and Stagflation

LBJ was going to end poverty.  He declared war on it.  His soldiers?  Dollars.  Lots of them.  His battle plan?  The Great Society.  Tactics?  Just throw lots of money at a problem.  Hope that some of it actually hit its target.  And further hope that some of the money that did hit its target actually did something beneficial.  Just hope for the best.

And thus grew the welfare state.  The recipients liked it.  Because they were the recipients.  Government liked it.  Because the recipients liked it.  Who voted for them out of gratitude.  And dependency.  And the Keynesian economists liked it.  Because government spending was stimulus.  And they love stimulus.  These Keynesian economists.  So everybody kept asking for more.  As no one saw the harm in printing money to make people feel good.

The Keynesian said this was proof that a manageable amount of continuous inflation (printing money) would do away with the business cycle.  The boom and bust that had recurring good times.  And recurring recessions.  They said let’s just have a continuous boom.  When real demand fell just create artificial demand by having the government step in.  Let the government stimulate demand by printing money to spend.  And they did.  GDP went up.  Thus proving their theory.  Or so they thought.  Until they realized printing all that money had so weakened the dollar that interests rates soared.  To double digits.  As did prices.  Giving us double digit inflation rates.  And stagflation.  That’s why the economy sucked in the Seventies.  And why Jimmy Carter was a one term president.

Bad Monetary Policy gave us Cheap Money, the Housing Bubble and the Subprime Mortgage Crisis

After the dot-com bubble burst the economy went into recession.  So the government went to their patented recession cure-all.  Monetary policy.  Playing with interest rates.  I.e., printing money.  Because housing sales have always been the key to a growing economy.  Because building a house generates a lot of economic activity.  And furnishing a house generates even more economic activity.  So the best way to kick-start the economy was to get more people into houses.  The more the better.  Whether they could afford to or not.  Because no matter what happens, people always pay their mortgage.

So the government kept interest rates low.  Artificially low.  To encourage people to borrow money.  To buy housees.  And they did.  But not enough of them did.  Poor people weren’t buying.  Mortgage bankers were turning them down.  Because they couldn’t qualify for a mortgage.  So the government pressured them to approve people even if they didn’t qualify.  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac guaranteed these risky mortgages.  Then bought them.  It worked.  Thanks to ARMs and no-doc mortgages, anyone could walk in off the street and get a cheap mortgage with little down.  The people liked it.  And asked for more.  Thus began the housing boom.

People were buying and selling houses like there was no tomorrow.  Investors were flipping homes.  People were moving up into McMansions.  Bidding the price of houses into the stratosphere.  Paying whatever the price was.  Because the money was so cheap to borrow.  Artificially low.  Which really inflated the price of these houses.  To unsustainable levels.  Until the bubble burst.  And these prices began to correct to reflect reality.  The Fed, waking up the next morning in a stupor, saw what they had done.  And desperately tried to fix things.  To limit the damage.  They raised interest rates.  ARMs reset.  And the great Subprime Mortgage Crisis began.  And thanks to Fannie and Freddie buying those risky mortgages, the contagion spread around the world.  To everyone who bought what they thought were safe investments backed by safe mortgages.  Because people always paid their mortgages.   But were, in fact, backed by the riskiest of all investments.  Defaulting subprime mortgages.

The Social Democracies’ Spending gave European Countries Staggering Debt and a Sovereign Debt Crisis

Karl Marx was a German.  But his theories quickly swept across the Rhine.  Soon there were communists everywhere in the West.    After World II, when communism became the new enemy, Western Europe favored something called social democracies.  Communism-light.  The social welfare state.  Cradle to the grave nanny state.  With generous state benefits.  National health care.  Pensions.  You name it.  And the state gave it.

People liked it.  Asked for more.  And their governments were glad to oblige.  They spent more and more money.  Rather, they spent more and more of the taxpayers’ money.  These social democracies had some of the highest tax rates.  Which was fine with the poor receiving these generous state benefits.  But it explains why anti-capitalists like John Lennon and Bono moved out of the UK.  To escape the high taxes on the wealth they created with free market capitalism.  So there was a capital flight out of these social democracies.  While at the same time their public sectors grew.  More and more people worked for the government.  Received government pay and benefits.  And generous pensions.  The people liked this.  And asked for more.  Except Lennon and Bono, of course.  And the other superrich who fled these social democracies.

As tax rates climb and capital flees, though, economic activity stagnates.  Which forces these countries to borrow.  And borrow some of them did.  Some of the smaller countries in the Eurozone (Greece) are so in debt that they can’t even roll over their existing debt.  They are in such a mess that no one wants to take a chance loaning them money.  Because no one thinks Greece will ever be able to repay whatever they borrow.  Of course, with the common currency (Euro), Greece’s problems are everyone’s problems.  So the richer countries in the Eurozone (Germany) are pouring money into the ECB to try and rescue Greece.  And save the Euro.  What we call the European sovereign debt crisis.  While the world waits with bated breath.  Because if they fail it could very well plunge the world into another severe recession.  Or worse.  Because the world needs the Eurozone.  To buy their exports.  So they can prop up their own sick economies.

Class Warfare pits the Rich against the Poor and Middle Class, the Taxpayers against the Public Sector

Many, if not all, of the great crises countries have…are…going through is because of bad monetary policy.  Using the power of the purse to make happy voters.  Whatever the cost.  For they were always sure they could avoid paying this cost.  That they could always keep pushing this cost off onto a future generation.  But the spending grew too great.  The debt grew too high.  And, before they knew it, that future generation was here.  And it’s us.

The people grew fat and lazy on these generous benefits.  And they never worried about the cost.  Because the cost was always someone else’s problem.  Until now.  Not only are they losing some of these generous benefits.  But they now have to pay for some of them.  The cost being so great that everyone has to pay their ‘fair’ share.  Which was fair when ‘everyone’ didn’t include them.  But it now includes them.  And they don’t like it one bit.  So they’ve taken to the streets throughout Europe.  Rioting here.  Protesting there.  And demanding that the rich (anyone who is not them) pay more in taxes so they can continue to live the good life.  All funded courtesy of the taxpayers.  Who aren’t.  Living the good life.

So class warfare escalates.  Pitting the rich against the poor and middle class.  And the taxpayers against the public sector.  Placing these countries on the brink of anarchy.  All because the people learned that they could vote themselves money.  And did.  They got everything they asked for.  Including something they didn’t bargain for.  The destruction of their countries.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH #48: “Government benefits aren’t from the government. They’re from the taxpayers.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 11th, 2011

The Concept of Other People’s Money

A lot of people don’t understand how a bank works.  Or government.  In fact, banks and government are similar in one respect.  They both ‘give’ things away.  Banks loan money.  Government gives out benefits.  But before either gives anything away, they have to take from other people first.  Banks take money from depositors.  And government takes money from taxpayers.  That’s how they get the money that they give away (bank loans and government benefits).

You see, banks and government have no money of their own.  They work with other people’s money.  Yes, they can make money.  Banks via fractional reserve banking.  And government via monetary policy (lowering the discount rate, selling bonds and treasuries or simply printing money – we call this fiat money).  But there’s a danger when they do.  If they make too much money, we get inflation.  And a lot of bad things follow inflation.  Higher interest rates.  Higher prices.  And an overheated economy that eventually crashes into recession.  Which causes higher unemployment.  So they have to be careful when they’re making money.

If inflation is such a bad thing, then why do they even make money in the first place?  That’s a bit complicated.  To get a simplified understanding, think of a bank.  Businesses borrow from banks to expand their business.  When they expand they create jobs.  Everybody likes this.  Jobs.  So we try to help them get the money they need to expand their businesses.  But banks often don’t have enough money from their depositors to loan to all these businesses.  Fractional reserve banking solves that problem.  This allows the banks to lend more money than they have in their vaults from their depositors.  Creating more money allows more economic activity.  And that’s why we make money.  But we have to be careful not to make too much.

Money is only as Good as our Faith in It

More economic activity means more jobs.  And more taxes for the government.  This is why the government likes a little inflation.  A little bit allows economic activity.  And what is economic activity?  People trading with each other.  A worker trades his or her skills for groceries.  Of course, an office worker in midtown Manhattan can’t easily trader his or her office skills for a dairy farmer’s milk and cheese in Wisconsin.   But that’s okay.  Because we have a medium of exchange to make trading easier.  Our money.

You see, it’s things or services we want.  Not the money.  Money just lets us trade what we do with what others do.  We’ve used different types of money throughout history.  Specie (like gold and silver coins).  And commodities (tobacco, food, whiskey, etc.).  Specie and commodities have intrinsic value.  They’re worth something besides their value as money.  And because of this, it is not easy to make more of it.  Because a printing press can’t print gold, silver, tobacco, food, whiskey, etc.  So you can’t ‘stimulate’ the economy like you can with fiat money.  Of course, this can be a good thing.  Because you can’t over-stimulate the economy like you can with fiat money.  There are pros and cons of each type of money.  And there’s been a lot of debate between competing types of money (such as the gold standard versus fiat money). 

Money is only as good as our faith in it, though.  Because specie and commodity have intrinsic value, it’s easy to have faith in it.  It’s pretty hard to make this kind of money worthless.  But it’s easy to make fiat money worthless.  All you have to do is print too much of it.  You do that and people won’t want to use it.  Because they will have little faith that it will hold its value.

Inflation Reduces your Purchasing Power

How bad can it get?  Let’s illustrate with an example.  Let’s say you dug down about 30 feet in your back yard and discovered gold.  And you worked your butt off to bring it up to the surface, smelt it and pour it into gold bars.  Now you want to trade that gold for a new car, a 60″ plasma television, a state of the art home theater sound system, an in-the-ground swimming pool, some property on an island in the Caribbean and a few other extravagances.  You see all of these things for sale.  But the sale prices are all in dollars, not weights of gold.  Not a problem.  Because you can sell your gold for dollars. 

Think of a scale.  Put your gold on one side of the scale.  And put dollars on the other side.  When the scale balances (when both sides equal the same value, not weights), you have the value of your gold in dollars.   Let’s say your gold equals $1 million.  Lucky for you because that’s the total price of everything you want to buy. 

A week later you have all the details worked out.  You’re ready to write your checks.  But the day before, the government printed more money and doubled the number of dollars in circulation.  When you increase the number of dollars, you decrease the value of each dollar.  In this case, they doubled the amount of money so money is now only worth half of what it used to be worth.  This makes you furious.  Because if you had waited only one more week, you would have gotten $2 million for your gold instead of $1 million (same amount of gold on one side of the scale but twice the amount of dollars on the other).  Worse, not only did the price of your gold go up (after you had already sold it at the old price), but prices everywhere went up.  The stuff you were about to buy for $1 million now costs $2 million.  Now you can only buy half of what you want.  Because doubling the amount of dollars in circulation cut your purchasing power in half.

Other People’s Things

This is the time value of money.  Money decreases in value over time because of inflation.  The greater the inflation rate, the quicker the money in your wallet loses value.  During times of high inflation, people will not want to hold onto their money for a long time.  They’ll want to spend it fast.  Because they’ll be able to buy more with it sooner than they will be able to later.  And it’s the things they want to buy that have real value to them.  Not the money.

Things, not money.  That’s what people want.  And that’s what government benefits are.  Things.  Other people’s things.  You can’t just print money and give it away.  Because you need things to buy with that money.  So not only do you need taxpayers to pay taxes.  But you need them to make the things (and services) people want to buy. 

The greater amount of benefits the government hands out, the more of other people’s stuff they have to take.  That’s why there is a limit on the amount of benefits that government can hand out.  The things the government does to pay for those benefits reduces economic activity.  And increases unemployment.  Unemployed people can’t make stuff or perform services.  And they have less stuff to take.   No matter how much fiat money the government prints.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Printing Money and Screwing Friends

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 12th, 2010

My Coworker, the Cheap Canadian Bastard

I worked with a Canadian once.  A real cheap bastard.  Yeah, he had some financial issues.   But they weren’t my issues.  And I got tired of subsidizing his problems by driving him to lunch every day.  And I got tired of the conversations.  He brought up every negative story about America.  Belittled our president.  Chastised America for not signing on to the Kyoto Protocol.  And said that we did not honor our trade agreement concerning softwood lumber (that his government was subsidizing in order to undersell their American competitors).

What really bothered me was that he was a Canadian that lived near the border but worked in the U.S.  He criticized America but he chose to work in America instead of Canada.  Why?  Because he could get paid more in America.  And there were the perks of crossing the border every day.  He gassed his car up in the United States.  And his wife’s car.  Why?  Because our gas prices were cheaper.  Yeah, he would criticize America until he was blue in the face, but he took every opportunity to escape the taxes that paid for all those things that made his country superior to mine.

Now don’t get me wrong.  I like Canada.  I just don’t like hypocrisy.  He made good money over here.  And with a much more favorable exchange rate back then, that translated into big dollars on the other side of the border.  Back when the American dollar was strong and the Canadian dollar was weak, he did very well.  Those strong American dollars exchanged into a whole lot more Canadian dollars.  Which allowed him to buy a whole lot more stuff than his fellow Canadians.  In fact, a lot of Americans vacationed in Canada back then.  Because the American dollar bought more in Canada than it did in America.

Have Cheap Cash, Will Travel – In Canada

So what’s the point talking about this cheap bastard?  Exchange rates.  And whenever there’s a currency war on the horizon, I can’t help but think about this cheap bastard.  See how he, a Canadian working in America, lived very well with a cheap Canadian dollar.  We paid him in strong U.S. dollars.  He then could use those strong U.S. dollars to buy gas and other ‘less taxed’ items on the U.S. side of the border.  (If he brought in and exchanged weak Canadian dollars for strong U.S. dollars, that same amount of gas would cost him more.)  And when he took those strong U.S. dollars across the border back into Canada, he exchanged them and got so many weak Canadian dollars in return that he alone stimulated the local economy.

Of course, he wasn’t the only one bringing strong American dollars into Canada.  When those strong dollars were exchanged for weak ones, the Canadian tourism industry boomed.  People could vacation in Canada for a week for what a weekend in America would cost.  Canadians traveling into America, on the other hand, paid more for less.  A weekend in America would cost what a week in Canada would cost.

In the above example, you can see how the nation with the weaker currency has more economic activity than the nation with the stronger currency.  Now, to understand international trade and foreign exchange rates, make the following substitutions in the above example:

  • Canada -> America
  • America -> China/Germany/Brazil/other U.S. trading partner

Alone Against the World.  And Alan Greenspan

Well, America is devaluing their currency.  They’re printing money to buy back treasury debt.  Supposedly to stimulate the economy by injecting more liquidity. But our problem is not a liquidity problem.  It’s a lack of consumer spending because of high unemployment.  And a fear of being unemployed soon.  So this will do little to solve our problems.  But it will make our exports cheaper.  And our trading partners’ imports more expensive.  In other words, we’re trying to fix our broken economy by flooding our trading partners’ economies with cheap American goods.  Which is pissing them off big time (see Reuters’ Analysis: German tempers fray as U.S. policy gulf widens by Stephen Brown and Andreas Rinke posted 11/10/2010).

Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble, 68, said last week that the U.S. Federal Reserve decision to buy $600 billion of government bonds undermined U.S. credibility and was “clueless.” There was no point, he said, in pumping money into the markets.

China and Brazil were among those echoing his comments but U.S. officials were particularly stung by Schaeuble and German Economy Minister Rainer Bruederle saying the Fed move amounted to “indirect manipulation” of the dollar to boost exports; this at a time when Washington is criticizing China for exactly the same kind of strategy.

“It’s not acceptable for the Americans to criticize China for currency manipulation then slyly help the dollar by printing at the Federal Reserve,” Schaeuble told Der Spiegel magazine.

And speaking of Brazil, President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said warned America not to rely on exports alone (see Brazil’s Lula Says World Headed For ‘Bankruptcy’ Unless Rich Nations Act posted 11/11/2010 on the Dow Jones Newswires).

“If they don’t consume, and they just bet on exports, the world will go into bankruptcy,” he told reporters as leaders at the Group of 20 industrial and developing nations headed into a two-day summit in the South Korean capital.

Even Alan Greenspan, former Federal Reserve Chairman, is expressing concern over the impact of American policy on foreign exchange rates (see Greenspan warns over weaker dollar by Alan Beattie in Seoul posted 11/10/2010 in the Financial Times).  In that same article, Mervyn King, governor of the Bank of England, warned that this currency manipulation could trigger a trade war that would make the next 12 months worse than the previous 12 months.

We’re All Cheap Bastards Now

When it comes down to it, I guess we’re all cheap bastards.  We all want some unfair advantage in life.  Like my one-time Canadian coworker.  And I can understand how our trading partners feel.  I’ve worked with and been lectured for years about how my country should change.  All the while he prospered quite handsomely from the way things were.  Of course, I can take some solace in the dollar’s slide.  It’s trading pretty much at parity with the Canadian dollar now.  It’s gotten so bad that I’ve heard my old friend has since found work on his side of the border.  Good for him.  Now he can truly embrace all those taxes that he spoke so highly about while he was avoiding them for all those years.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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