(Originally published February 27th, 2012)
Because of the Unpredictable Human Element in all Economic Exchanges the Austrian School is more Laissez-Faire
Name some of the great inventions economists gave us. The computer? The Internet? The cell phone? The car? The jumbo jet? Television? Air conditioning? The automatic dishwasher? No. Amazingly, economists did not invent any of these brilliant inventions. And economists didn’t predict any of these inventions. Not a one. Despite how brilliant they are. Well, brilliant by their standard. In their particular field. For economists really aren’t that smart. Their ‘expertise’ is in the realm of the social sciences. The faux sciences where people try to quantify the unquantifiable. Using mathematical equations to explain and predict human behavior. Which is what economists do. Especially Keynesian economists. Who think they are smarter than people. And markets.
But there is a school of economic thought that doesn’t believe we can quantify human activity. The Austrian school. Where Austrian economics began. In Vienna. Where the great Austrian economists gathered. Carl Menger. Ludwig von Mises. And Friedrich Hayek. To name a few. Who understood that economics is the sum total of millions of people making individual human decisions. Human being key. And why we can’t reduce economics down to a set of mathematical equations. Because you can’t quantify human behavior. Contrary to what the Keynesians believe. Which is why these two schools are at odds with each other. With people even donning the personas of Keynes and Hayek to engage in economic debate.
Keynesian economics is more mainstream than the Austrian school. Because it calls for the government to interfere with market forces. To manipulate them. To make markets produce different results from those they would have if left alone. Something governments love to do. Especially if it calls for taxing and spending. Which Keynesian economics highly encourage. To fix market ‘failures’. And recessions. By contrast, because of the unpredictable human element in all economic exchanges, the Austrian school is more laissez-faire. They believe more in the separation of the government from things economic. Economic exchanges are best left to the invisible hand. What Adam Smith called the sum total of the millions of human decisions made by millions of people. Who are maximizing their own economic well being. And when we do we maximize the economic well being of the economy as a whole. For the Austrian economist does not believe he or she is smarter than people. Or markets. Which is why an economist never gave us any brilliant invention. Nor did their equations predict any inventor inventing a great invention. And why economists have day jobs. For if they were as brilliant and prophetic as they claim to be they could see into the future and know which stocks to buy to get rich so they could give up their day jobs. When they’re able to do that we should start listening to them. But not before.
Low Interest Rates cause Malinvestment and Speculation which puts Banks in Danger of Financial Collapse
Keynesian economics really took off with central banking. And fractional reserve banking. Monetary tools to control the money supply. That in the Keynesian world was supposed to end business cycles and recessions as we knew them. The Austrian school argues that using these monetary tools only distorts the business cycle. And makes recessions worse. Here’s how it works. The central bank lowers interest rates by increasing the money supply (via open market transactions, lowering reserve requirements in fractional reserve banking or by printing money). Lower interest rates encourage people to borrow money to buy houses, cars, kitchen appliances, home theater systems, etc. This new economic activity encourages businesses to hire new workers to meet the new demand. Ergo, recession over. Simple math, right? Only there’s a bit of a problem. Some of our worst recessions have come during the era of Keynesian economics. Including the worst recession of all time. The Great Depression. Which proves the Austrian point that the use of Keynesian policies to end recessions only makes recessions worse. (Economists debate the causes of the Great Depression to this day. Understanding the causes is not the point here. The point is that it happened. When recessions were supposed to be a thing of the past when using Keynesian policies.)
The problem is that these are not real economic expansions. They’re artificial ones. Created by cheap credit. Which the central bank creates by forcing interest rates below actual market interest rates. Which causes a whole host of problems. In particular corrupting the banking system. Banks offer interest rates to encourage people to save their money for future use (like retirement) instead of spending it in the here and now. This is where savings (or investment capital) come from. Banks pay depositors interest on their deposits. And then loan out this money to others who need investment capital to start businesses. To expand businesses. To buy businesses. Whatever. They borrow money to invest so they can expand economic activity. And make more profits.
But investment capital from savings is different from investment capital from an expansion of the money supply. Because businesses will act as if the trend has shifted from consumption (spending now) to investment (spending later). So they borrow to expand operations. All because of the false signal of the artificially low interest rates. They borrow money. Over-invest. And make bad investments. Even speculate. What Austrians call malinvestments. But there was no shift from consumption to investment. Savings haven’t increased. In fact, with all those new loans on the books the banks see a shift in the other direction. Because they have loaned out more money while the savings rate of their depositors did not change. Which produced on their books a reduction in the net savings rate. Leaving them more dangerously leveraged than before the credit expansion. Also, those lower interest rates also decrease the interest rate on savings accounts. Discouraging people from saving their money. Which further reduces the savings rate of depositors. Finally, those lower interest rates reduce the income stream on their loans. Leaving them even more dangerously leveraged. Putting them at risk of financial collapse should many of their loans go bad.
Keynesian Economics is more about Power whereas the Austrian School is more about Economics
These artificially low interest rates fuel malinvestment and speculation. Cheap credit has everyone, flush with borrowed funds, bidding up prices (real estate, construction, machinery, raw material, etc.). This alters the natural order of things. The automatic pricing mechanism of the free market. And reallocates resources to these higher prices. Away from where the market would have otherwise directed them. Creating great shortages and high prices in some areas. And great surpluses of stuff no one wants to buy at any price in other areas. Sort of like those Soviet stores full of stuff no one wanted to buy while people stood in lines for hours to buy toilet paper and soap. (But not quite that bad.) Then comes the day when all those investments don’t produce any returns. Which leaves these businesses, investors and speculators with a lot of debt with no income stream to pay for it. They drove up prices. Created great asset bubbles. Overbuilt their capacity. Bought assets at such high prices that they’ll never realize a gain from them. They know what’s coming next. And in some darkened office someone pours a glass of scotch and murmurs, “My God, what have we done?”
The central bank may try to delay this day of reckoning. By keeping interest rates low. But that only allows asset bubbles to get bigger. Making the inevitable correction more painful. But eventually the central bank has to step in and raise interest rates. Because all of that ‘bidding up of prices’ finally makes its way down to the consumer level. And sparks off some nasty inflation. So rates go up. Credit becomes more expensive. Often leaving businesses and speculators to try and refinance bad debt at higher rates. Debt that has no income stream to pay for it. Either forcing business to cut costs elsewhere. Or file bankruptcy. Which ripples through the banking system. Causing a lot of those highly leveraged banks to fail with them. Thus making the resulting recession far more painful and more long-lasting than necessary. Thanks to Keynesian economics. At least, according to the Austrian school. And much of the last century of history.
The Austrian school believes the market should determine interest rates. Not central bankers. They’re not big fans of fractional reserve banking, either. Which only empowers central bankers to cause all of their mischief. Which is why Keynesians don’t like Austrians. Because Keynesians, and politicians, like that power. For they believe that they are smarter than the people making economic exchanges. Smarter than the market. And they just love having control over all of that money. Which comes in pretty handy when playing politics. Which is ultimately the goal of Keynesian economics. Whereas the Austrian school is more about economics.
Tags: asset bubbles, Austrian economics, Austrian school, Austrian school of economics, bad debt, banking, banking system, business cycle, businesses, central banking, cheap credit, consumption, credit, debt, depositors, deposits, economic activity, economic exchanges, Economics, economists, fractional reserve banking, free market, Great Depression, Hayek, human behavior, income stream, inflation, interest rates, investment, investment capital, Keynes, Keynesian, Keynesian economists, loan, malinvestment, market forces, market interest rates, mathematical equations, monetary tools, money supply, predict human behavior, prices, quantify, recessions, savings, savings accounts, savings rate, speculation, unquantifiable, workers
Week in Review
There was a sketch on the Benny Hill Show that reminds me of Keynesian economists. Benny was singing a song and they were showing the unrequited love around him. They showed one woman who loved a man. But that man loved another woman. Who loved Benny. And who did Benny love? The camera remained on Benny. Because that’s who he loved.
Keynesian economists are a lot like that. They like to sound erudite. They like to write things with impressive economic jargon in it. The layman can’t understand a thing they say or write. But that’s okay. As they are writing to impress their peers. People who are as narcissistic as they are. And they tell each other how brilliant they are with all of their demand-side pontificating. Pinching each other’s cheeks and saying, “Who’s a good economist? You are. You’re a good economist. Yes you are.” Even though they are always wrong. Reminding me of another television show. Hogan’s Heroes. Where Colonel Hogan and Colonel Klink were disarming a bomb in the compound. They’re down to two wires. One disarms the bomb. The other detonates it. Colonel Hogan asks Colonel Klink which wire to cut. He picks one. And just as he’s about to cut it Colonel Hogan changes his mind and cuts the other wire. Disarming the bomb. Colonel Klink asks him if he knew which wire to cut why did he ask him. And he replied that he wasn’t sure but he knew for sure that Colonel Klink would pick the wrong wire.
This is just like a Keynesian economist. Ask them what to do to help the economy and you can be sure they’ll pick the wrong thing to do. Because they love their demand-side economics with all their charts and graphs and equations. For it feeds into their superiority complex. As they can baffle people with their bull s***. Well, the truth is that the economic data doesn’t support demand-side economics. For all of the stimulus spending Keynesians have encouraged governments to do have never pulled an economy out of a recession. It has only extended a recession. And made it more painful. For if you want to help the economy you have to work on the supply side. Make it easier for people to be creative and bring things to market. Things people will buy. Even if they had no idea that they existed before seeing them in the market (see How Taco Bell’s Lead Innovator Created The Most Successful Menu Item Of All Time by Ashley Lutz posted 2/26/2014 on Business Insider).
The Doritos Locos Taco is one of the most successful fast food innovations of all time.
Taco Bell released the product in 2012 and sold more than a billion units in the first year. The fast food company had to hire an estimated 15,000 workers to keep up with demand…
The team went through more than 40 recipes, and Gomez told Business Insider he sometimes felt like the idea would never come to fruition.
“Execution was so difficult,” he said.
Gomez was eventually able to perfect the shell by using the same corn masa found in Doritos. He also discovered a process that would evenly distribute the seasoning on the shells. And the company found a way to contain the cheese dust in the production process.
Even after Gomez created the ultimate shell, he still had to design production facilities that would make millions of them.
But for Gomez, the years of effort was worth it.
“When we shared the idea with our consumers, they loved it,” Gomez said. “I was blown away with how immediately popular Doritos Locos Tacos became.”
The taco is the most popular menu item in the fast food chain’s 50-year history.
This wasn’t demand-driven. As Keynesians believe everything is. Get more money into the hands of consumers and they will demand things. Thus increasing economic activity. But not a single consumer was demanding the Doritos Locos Taco. As there was no such thing to demand. And giving them more money wasn’t going to bring it to market. Only creative people with an idea and an indefatigable passion brought this to market. Spending a lot of years and lots of money to bring to market something people weren’t demanding. And might not even like. But they did. And it was a big success. This is how you create economic activity. On the supply side. Cut tax rates and costly regulations. Like Obamacare. So other people are encouraged to be creative and use their indefatigable passion to bring other things to market. Creating a whole lot more economic activity than just giving people a stimulus check and telling them to go out and create economic activity. Because once that Keynesian stimulus is spent it cannot create any more economic activity. Unlike all of the economic activity it takes to sell a billion or more Doritos Locos Tacos a year.
Tags: demand, demand-side, demand-side economics, Doritos Locos Taco, economic activity, economists, Keynesian, Keynesian economists, narcissistic, recession, stimulus, supply, supply-side, Taco Bell
(Originally published May 8th, 2012)
Capitalism allows Entrepreneurs to bring their Great Ideas to Life
Entrepreneurs start with an idea. Of how to do something better. Or to create something we must have that we don’t yet know about. They think. They create. They have boundless creative energies. And the economic system that best taps that energy is capitalism. The efficient use of capital. Using capital to make profits. And then using those profits to make capital. So these ideas of genius that flicker in someone’s head can take root. And grow. Creating jobs. And taxable economic activity. Creating wealth for investors and workers. Improving the general economy. Pulling us out of recessions. Improving our standard of living. And making the world a better place. Because of an idea. That capitalism brought to life.
Entrepreneurs Risked Capital to bring Great Things to Market and to Create Jobs
Henry Ford established the Detroit Automobile Company in 1899. Which failed. He reorganized it into the Henry Ford Company in 1901. Ford had a fight with his financial backers. And quit. Taking the Ford name with him. And $900. The Henry Ford Company was renamed Cadillac and went on to great success. Ford tried again and partnered with Alexander Malcomson. After running short of funds they reorganized and incorporated Ford Motor Company in 1903 with 12 investors. The company was successful. Some internal friction and an unexpected death of the president put Ford in charge. Ford Motor built the Model A, the Model K and the Model S. Then came the Model T. And the moving assembly line. Mass production greatly increased the number of cars he could build. But it was monotonous work for the assembly line worker. Turnover was high. So to keep good workers he doubled pay in 1914 and reduced the 9-hour shift to 8 hours. This increased productivity and lowered the cost per Model T. Allowing those who built the cars to buy what they built. In 2011 the Ford Motor Company employed approximately 164,000 people worldwide.
Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard established Hewlett-Packard (HP) in 1939. In a garage. They raised $538 in start-up capital. In that garage they created their first successful commercial product. A precision audio oscillator. Used in electronic testing. It was better and cheaper than the competition. Walt Disney Productions bought this oscillator to certify Fantasound surround sound systems in theaters playing the Disney movie Fantasia. From this garage HP grew and gave us calculators, desktop and laptop computers, inkjet and laser printers, all-in-one multifunction printer/scanner/faxes, digital cameras, etc. In 2010 HP employed approximately 324,600 employees worldwide. (Steve Wozniak was working for HP when he designed the Apple I. Which he helped fund by selling his HP calculator. Wozniak offered his design to HP. They passed.)
Steve Jobs had an idea to sell a computer. He convinced his friend since high school, Steve Wozniak, to join him. They sold some of their things to raise some capital. Jobs sold his Volkswagen van. Wozniak sold his HP scientific calculator. They raised about $1,300. And formed Apple. They created the Apple I home computer in 1976 in Steve Jobs’ garage. From these humble beginnings Apple gave us the iPad, iPhone, iPod, iMac, MacBook, Mac Pro and iTunes. In 2011 Apple had approximately 60,400 full time employees.
Jerry Baldwin, Zev Siegl, and Gordon Bowker opened the first Starbucks in 1971 in Seattle, Washington. About 10 years later Howard Schultz drank his first cup of Starbucks coffee. And he liked it. Within a year he joined Starbucks. Within another year while traveling in Italy he experienced the Italian coffeehouse. He loved it. And had an idea. Bring the Italian coffeehouse to America. A place to meet people in the community and converse. Sort of like a bar. Only where the people stayed sober. Soon millions of people were enjoying these tasty and expensive coffee beverages at Starbucks throughout the world. In 2011 Starbucks employed approximately 149,000 people.
Ray Kroc sold Prince Castle Multi-Mixer milk shakes mixers to a couple of brothers who owned a restaurant. Who made hamburgers fast. Richard and Maurice McDonald had implemented the Speedee Service System. It was the dawn of fast food. Kroc was impressed. Facing tough competition in the mixer business he opened a McDonald’s franchise in 1955. Bringing the grand total of McDonald’s restaurants to 9. He would go on to buy out the McDonald brothers (some would say unscrupulously). Today there are over 30,000 stores worldwide. In 2010 McDonald’s employed approximately 400,000 people.
Richard Branson started a magazine at 16. He then sold records out of a church crypt at discount prices. The beginning of Virgin Records. In 1971 he opened a record store. He launched a record label in 1972. And a recording studio. Signing the Sex Pistols. And Culture Club. In 1984 he formed an airline. Virgin Atlantic Airways. In 1999 he went into the cellular phone business. Virgin Mobile. In 2004 he founded Virgin Galactic. To enter the space tourism business. His Virgin Group now totals some 400 companies. And employs about 50,000 people.
The Decline of Capitalism and the Rise of the Welfare State caused the European Sovereign Debt Crisis
And we could go on. For every big corporation out there will have a similar beginning. Corporations that use capital efficiently. Bringing great things to market. Introducing us to new things. Always making our lives better. And more comfortable. One thing you will not find is a great success story like this starting in the Soviet Union. The People’s Republic of China (back in the days of Mao Zedong). East Germany (before the Berlin Wall fell). North Korea. Or Cuba. No. The command economies of communist countries basically froze in time. Where there was no innovation. No ideas brought to life. Because the government kind of frowned on that sort of thing.
There is a reason why the West won the Cold War. And why we won that war without the Warsaw Pack and NATO forces fighting World War III. And why was this? Because we didn’t need to. For the communist world simply could not withstand the forces of living well in the West. Whenever they could their people escaped to the West. To escape their nasty, short and brutish lives. In the command economies of their communist states. Where the state planners failed to provide for their people. Even failing to feed their people. The Soviet Union, the People’s Republic of China and North Korea all suffered population reducing famines. But not in the West. Where we are not only well fed. But our poor suffer from obesity. Which is not a good thing. But it sure beats dying in a famine.
Sadly, though, the West is moving towards the state planning of their one time communist foes. Social democracies are pushing nations in the European Union to bankruptcy. Japan’s generous welfare state is about to implode as an aging population begins to retire. Even in the United States there has been a growth of government into the private sector economy like never before. Which is causing the Great Recession to linger on. As it caused Japan’s lost decade to become two decades. And counting. As it is prolonging the European sovereign debt crisis. With no end in sight. The cause of all their problems? The decline of capitalism. And the rise of the welfare state. Which just kills the entrepreneurial spirit. And the creation of jobs. Which is one cure for all that ails these countries. And the only one. For only robust economic activity can pull a country out of recession. And for that you need new jobs. And the entrepreneurial spirit. In short, you need capitalism.
Tags: Apple, Apple I, assembly line, Bill Hewlett, Branson, calculator, capital, capitalism, coffee, coffeehouse, Communist, computer, corporation, Dave Packard, decline of capitalism, economic activity, entrepreneurs, european sovereign debt crisis, European Union, famine, Ford, Henry Ford, Hewlett, Hewlett-Packard, Howard Schultz, HP, idea, investors, Italian coffeehouse, Japan, jobs, Kroc, McDonald's, North Korea, Packard, People's Republic of China, profits, Ray Kroc, recession, Richard Branson, rise of the welfare state, Schultz, social democracies, sovereign debt crisis, Soviet Union, standard of living, Starbucks, state planning, Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak, Virgin, welfare state, West, workers, Wozniak
Week in Review
Governments love it when people buy houses and cars. Because building houses and cars generates a lot of economic activity. So much economic activity that central banks will flood their economies with money to keep interest rates artificially low. To encourage people to go into great debt and buy these things. Even if they don’t want them. Especially if they don’t want them. Because if you add in people buying things who don’t want them with the people who do that’s a lot of economic activity. Which is why central banks keep interest rates artificially low. To get people to buy things even when they don’t want them. But do because those low interest rates are just too good to pass up.
Automotive jobs are union jobs. At least with the Big Three. Which is another reason why the Federal Reserve (America’s central bank) keeps interest rates artificially low. To save union jobs. Because they support Democrats. And the Democrats take care of them. By enacting legislation that favors union-built cars. Placing tariffs and quotas on imports. And doing whatever they can to encourage the Fed to keep interest rates artificially low. So the Big Three keep building cars with union labor. Even if they’re not selling the cars they build (see Spending on new cars may break record in December by Joseph Szczesny posted 12/25/2013 on CNBC).
Total vehicle sales are expected to be up at least 4 percent year over year, with the industry anticipating all-time record consumer spending on new vehicles, according to a forecast.
While new car sales started the month slowly, they are expected to finish strong, according to a monthly sales forecast developed jointly by J.D. Power and LMC Automotive. That would be a welcome development for industry planners concerned about a recent bulge in dealer inventories, which has led several manufacturers to trim production…
Vehicle production in North America through November is up 5 percent from the same time frame last year, with nearly 700,000 additional units. Even as inventory has increased, production volume remained strong last month, at 1.4 million units—a 4 percent increase from November 2012.
But there are some concerns that the industry may be turning up production faster than the market can handle. General Motors, Ford Motor and Chrysler continued to build inventories last month, and their combined supply climbed from 87 days at the beginning of November to 93 days by the end…
Some of the buildup can be traced to dealers’ ordering pickup trucks and utility vehicles before the planned shutdowns for model changes at GM and Ford. But those two makers also have decided to take more downtime at some of their plants this month in an effort to reduce excess stock.
Automotive news is often contradictory. Sales are up they tell us. Even when inventories are growing. A sign that sales are not growing. Because when people buy more cars than they build inventories fall. But when people buy fewer cars than they build inventories rise. So when inventories are rising typically that means sales are falling. So this isn’t a sign of a booming economy. But one that is likely to slip into recession. Especially when the Fed finally begins their tapering of their bond buying (i.e., quantitative easing). The thing that is keeping interest rates artificially low. And once they do those inventories will really bulge. As they do during the onset of a recession.
Tags: Big Three, cars, central bank, Democrats, economic activity, Federal Reserve, interest rates, inventories, keep interest rates artificially low, sales, union jobs
A Fall in Economic Activity follows a Surge in Keynesian Stimulus Spending
The minimum wage argument is a political argument. Because it’s a partisan one. Not one based on sound economics. Such as the classical school of economics that made America the number one economic power in the world. Thrift. Savings. Investment. Free trade. And a gold standard. Then you have the politicized school of economics that replaced it. The Keynesian school. Which nations around the world accept as sacrosanct. Because it is the school of economics that says governments should manage the economy. Thus sanctioning and enabling Big Government.
Keynesian economics is all about consumption. Consumer spending. That’s all that matters to them. And it’s the only thing they look at. They completely ignore the higher stages of production. Above the retail level. They ignore the wholesale level. The manufacturing level. The industrial processing level. And the raw material extraction level. Which is why Keynesian stimulus fails. Just putting more money into consumers’ pockets doesn’t affect them. For they see the other side of that stimulus. Inflation. And recession. And they’re not going to expand or hire more people just because there is a temporary spike in consumer spending. Because they know once the consumers run through this money they will revert back to their previous purchasing habits. Well, almost.
Keynesian stimulus is typically created with an expansion of the money supply. As more dollars chase the same amount of goods prices rise. And people lose purchasing power. So they buy less. Which means following a surge in Keynesian stimulus spending there follows a fall in economic activity. Which is why the higher stages of production don’t expand or hire people. Because they know that for them the economy gets worse—not better—after stimulus spending.
A Stronger Economy would help Minimum Wage Workers more than Raising the Minimum Wage
Increasing the minimum wage shares the Keynesian goal of putting more money into consumers’ pockets. And many of the arguments for increasing the minimum wage mirror those arguments for Keynesian stimulus. Even to reverse the consequences of previous Keynesian policies (see Everything You Ever Needed to Know About the Minimum Wage by Jordan Weissmann posted 12/16/2013 on The Atlantic).
The federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour, which means that depending on the city you’re in, 60 minutes of work will just about buy you a Chipoltle burrito (without guac). By historical standards, it’s fairly low. Thanks to inflation, the minimum wage is worth about $3.26 less, in today’s dollars, than when its real value peaked in 1968.
It’s a Keynesian argument that says putting more money into people’s pockets will increase economic activity. That’s the rebuttal to the argument that a higher minimum wage will reduce economic activity (by raising prices with higher labor costs). For they will take those higher wages and spend them in the economy. More than offsetting the loss in sales due to those higher prices.
The whole concept of Keynesian stimulus is predicated on giving consumers more money to spend. Like raising the minimum wage. Either with stimulus money raised by taxes. From borrowing. Or printing. Their favorite. Which they have done a lot of. To keep interest rates low to spur housing sales in particular. But with this monetary expansion comes inflation. And a loss of purchasing power. So the Keynesian policies of putting more money into consumers’ pockets to stimulate economic activity has reduced the purchasing power of that money. Which is why the minimum wage in real dollars keeps falling.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1.57 million Americans, or 2.1 percent of the hourly workforce, earned the minimum wage in 2012. More than 60 percent of them either worked in retail or in leisure and hospitality, which is to say hotels and restaurants, including fast-food chains.
…Almost a third of minimum-wage workers are teenagers, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Some in retail sales get a commission added on to their hourly wage. Many in the food and leisure industry earn tips in addition to their hourly wage. So some of those who earn the minimum wage get more than the minimum wage. Those who don’t are either unskilled entry level workers. Such as students who are working towards a degree that will get them a higher-paying job. Those working part-time for an additional paycheck. Those who work because of the convenience (hours, location, etc.). Those who have no skills that can get them into a higher-paying job. Or because these entry-level jobs are the only jobs they can find in a bad economy.
A stronger economy could create better jobs. And higher wages. For it is during good economic times that people leave one job for a better job. And employers pay people more to prevent good employees they’ve already trained from leaving. So they don’t have to start all over again with a new unskilled worker. This would be the better approach. Creating a stronger economy to allow unskilled workers to move up into higher skilled—and higher paying—jobs. For you can’t have upward mobility if there are no better jobs to move up into.
On one side of the debate, you mostly have traditionalists who believe that increasing the minimum wage kills some jobs for unskilled workers, like teens…
On the other side, you have researchers who believe that increasing the minimum wage doesn’t kill jobs at all and may even give the economy a boost by channeling more pay to low-income workers who are likely to spend it.
The Automotive industry has long fought for tariff protection. For the high cost of their union labor made their cars costlier than their imported competition. The legacy costs of an aging workforce (health care for retirees and pensions) required a government bailout to keep General Motors and Chrysler from going belly-up. And it was this high cost of union labor that caused the Big Three to lose market share. Shedding jobs—and employees—as they couldn’t sell the cars they were making.
So higher wages raise prices. And reduce sales. Leading to layoffs. And reduced economic activity. The unions believe this. That’s why they fight so hard for legislation to protect themselves from lower-priced competition. You would have to believe that the economic forces that affect one part of the economy would affect another. And those economic forces say that higher wages kill jobs. They don’t increase economic activity. They just help the lucky few who have those high-paying jobs. While many of their one-time coworkers found themselves out of a job.
When the minimum wage goes up, the theory says, businesses shape up. Managers find ways to make their employees more productive. Turnover slows down, since people are happier with their paychecks, and the unemployed snap up jobs elsewhere in town. Meanwhile, Burger King and McDonald’s can raise their prices a little bit without scaring off customers.
Managers finding ways to make their employees more productive? Do you know what that means? It means how they can get more work out of fewer employees. No worker wants to hear management talk about productivity gains. For that usually means someone will lose their job. As the remaining workers can do more with less because of those productivity gains. So that’s a horrible argument for a higher minimum wage. Because fewer people will have those bigger paychecks. Made possible by reducing costs elsewhere. As in laying off some of their coworkers.
Based on data from 80s and early 90s, Daniel Aaronson estimated that a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage drove up the price of McDonald’s burgers, KFC chicken, and Pizza Hut’s pizza-like product by as much as 10 percent. Assuming that holds true today, it means that bringing the minimum wage to $10.10 would tack $1.60 onto the cost of your Big Mac.
McDonald’s will never win the award for having the healthiest food. And that’s fine. People don’t go there to eat healthy. They go there for the value. As it is one of the few places you can take a family of four out for about $25. Adding another $1.60 per burger could add another $6.40 to that dinner out. For a family living paycheck to paycheck that may be just too much for the weekly budget. Especially with inflation raising the cost of groceries and gasoline. Thanks to those Keynesian economic policies.
Raising the Minimum Wage will not Result in any of the Lofty Goals the Economic Planners Envision
There is a lot of anger at these minimum wage companies paying their employees so little. Some of their minimum workers have gone on strike recently to protest their low pay. As they are apparently not working at these companies because they love the work. So suffice it to say that no one is yearning to work at these companies. And that some may outright hate these jobs. So why in the world would we want to punish them by paying them more? Removing all ambition to leave the jobs they hate?
If you raise the minimum wage what happens to other jobs that pay what becomes the new higher minimum wage? Putting their earnings on par with unskilled entry-level jobs? Jobs that require greater skills than entry-level minimum wage jobs? Will they continue to work harder for the same wage as unskilled workers? Will they leave their more difficult jobs for an easier entry-level job? Will they demand a raise from their employer? Keynesians would say this is a good thing. As it will drive wages up. It may. But to pay these higher labor costs will require cost cuts elsewhere. Perhaps by shedding an employee or two.
Raising the minimum wage will not result in any of the lofty goals the economic planners envision. For if putting more money into consumers’ pockets is all we need to create economic activity then we wouldn’t have had the Great Recession. The stagflation of the Seventies. Or the Great Depression. Keynesian stimulus spending didn’t create new economic activity to prevent any of these. So why would a rise in the minimum wage be any different?
Tags: consumer spending, economic activity, entry level jobs, inflation, jobs, Keynesian, Keynesian economics, Keynesian stimulus, minimum wage, purchasing power, recession, stages of production, stimulus, stimulus spending, wages
(Originally published February 20th, 2012)
John Maynard Keynes said if the People aren’t Buying then the Government Should Be
Keynesian economics is pretty complex. So is the CliffsNotes version. So this will be the in-a-nutshell version. Keynesian economics basically says, in a nut shell, that markets are stupid. Because markets are full of stupid people. If we leave people to buy and sell as they please we will continue to suffer recession after recession. Because market failures give us the business cycle. Which are nice on the boom side. But suck on the bust side. The recession side. So smart people got together and said, “Hey, we’re smart people. We can save these stupid people from themselves. Just put a few of us smart people into government and give us control over the economy. Do that and recessions will be a thing of the past.”
Well, that’s the kind of thing governments love to hear. “Control over the economy?” they said. “We would love to take control of the economy. And we would love to control the stupid people, too. Just tell us how to do it and our smart people will work with your smart people and we will make the world a better place.” And John Maynard Keynes told them exactly what to do. And by exactly I mean exactly. He transformed economics into mathematical equations. And they all pretty much centered on doing one thing. Moving the demand curve. (A downward sloping graph showing the relationship between prices and demand for stuff; higher the price the lower the demand and vice versa).
In macroeconomics (i.e., the ‘big picture’ of the national economy), Keynes said all our troubles come from people not buying enough stuff. That they aren’t consuming enough. And when consumption falls we get recessions. Because aggregate demand falls. Aggregate demand being all the people put together in the economy out there demanding stuff to buy. And this is where government steps in. By picking up the slack in personal consumption. Keynes said if the people aren’t buying then the government should be. We call this spending ‘stimulus’. Governments pass stimulus bills to shift the demand curve to the right. A shift to the right means more demand and more economic activity. Instead of less. Do this and we avoid a recession. Which the market would have entered if left to market forces. But not anymore. Not with smart people interfering with market forces. And eliminating the recession side of the business cycle.
Keynesians prefer Deficit Spending and Playing with the Money Supply to Stimulate the Economy
Oh, it all sounds good. Almost too good to be true. And, as it turns out, it is too good to be true. Because economics isn’t mathematical. It’s not a set of equations. It’s people entering into trades with each other. And this is where Keynesian economics goes wrong. People don’t enter into economic exchanges with each other to exchange money. They only use money to make their economic exchanges easier. Money is just a temporary storage of value. Of their human capital. Their personal talent that provides them business profits. Investment profits. Or a paycheck. Money makes it easier to go shopping with the proceeds of your human capital. So we don’t have to barter. Exchange the things we make for the things we want. Imagine a shoemaker trying to barter for a TV set. By trading shoes for a TV. Which won’t go well if the TV maker doesn’t want any shoes. So you can see the limitation in the barter system. But when the shoemaker uses money to buy a TV it doesn’t change the fundamental fact that he is still trading his shoemaking ability for that TV. He’s just using money as a temporary storage of his shoemaking ability.
We are traders. And we trade things. Or services. We trade value created by our human capital. From skill we learned in school. Or through experience. Like working in a skilled trade under the guidance of a skilled journeyperson or master tradesperson. This is economic activity. Real economic activity. People getting together to trade their human capital. Or in Keynesian terms, on both sides of the equation for these economic exchanges is human capital. Which is why demand-side economic stimulus doesn’t work. Because it mistakes money for human capital. One has value. The other doesn’t. And when you replace one side of the equation with something that doesn’t have value (i.e., money) you cannot exchange it for something that has value (human capital) without a loss somewhere else in the economy. In other words to engage in economic exchanges you have to bring something to the table to trade. Skill or ability. Not just money. If you bring someone else’s skill or ability (i.e., their earned money) to the table you’re not creating economic activity. You’re just transferring economic activity to different people. There is no net gain. And no economic stimulus.
When government spends money to stimulate economic activity there are no new economic exchanges. Because government spending is financed by tax revenue. Wealth they pull out of the private sector so the public sector can spend it. They take money from some who can’t spend it and give it to others who can now spend it. The reduction in economic activity of the first group offsets the increase in economic activity in the second group. So there is no net gain. Keynesians understand this math. Which is why they prefer deficit spending (new spending paid by borrowing rather than taxes). And playing with the money supply.
The End Result of Government Stimulus is Higher Prices for the Same Level of Economic Activity
The reason we have recessions is because of sticky wages. When the business cycle goes into recession all prices fall. Except for one. Wages. Those sticky wages. Because it is not easy giving people pay cuts. Good employees may just leave and work for someone else for better pay. So when a business can’t sell enough to maintain profitability they cut production. And lay off workers. Because they can’t reduce wages for everyone. So a few people lose all of their wages. Instead of all of the people losing all of their wages by a business doing nothing to maintain profitability. And going out of business.
To prevent this unemployment Keynesian economics says to move the aggregate demand curve to the right. In part by increasing government spending. But paying for this spending with higher taxes on existing spenders is a problem. It cancels out any new economic activity created by new spenders. So this is where deficit spending and playing with the money supply come in. The idea is if the government borrows money they can create economic activity. Without causing an equal reduction in economic activity due to higher taxes. And by playing with the money supply (i.e., interest rates) they can encourage people to borrow money to spend even if they had no prior intentions of doing so. Hoping that low interest rates will encourage them to buy a house or a car. (And incur dangerous levels of debt in the process). But the fatal flaw in this is that it stimulates the money supply. Not human capital.
This only pumps more money into the economy. Inflates the money supply. And depreciates the dollar. Which increases prices. Because a depreciated dollar can’t buy as much as it used to. So whatever boost in economic activity we gain will soon be followed by an increase in prices. Thus reducing economic activity. Because of that demand curve. That says higher prices decreases aggregate demand. And decreases economic activity. The end result is higher prices for the same level of economic activity. Leaving us worse off in the long run. If you ever heard a parent say when they were a kid you could buy a soda for a nickel this is the reason why. Soda used to cost only a nickel. Until all this Keynesian induced inflation shrunk the dollar and raised prices through the years. Which is why that same soda now costs a dollar.
Tags: ability, aggregate demand, aggregate demand curve, business cycle, consumption, deficit, deficit spending, demand, demand curve, economic activity, economic exchanges, economic stimulus, Economics, economy, government spending, higher prices, human capital, inflation, interest rates, John Maynard Keynes, Keynes, Keynesian, Keynesian economics, market forces, markets, money, money supply, prices, recession, skill, smart people, sticky wages, stimulus, stupid people, taxes, trade, traders, value
(originally published August 6, 2012)
Keynesians believe if you Build Demand Economic Activity will Follow
People hate catching a common cold. And have long wanted a cure for the common cold. For a long time. For hundreds of years. But no one had ever filled this incredible demand. All this time doctors and scientists still haven’t been able to figure that one out. Despite knowing with that incredible demand, and our patent rights, whoever does figure that one out will become richer than Bill Gates. Which is quite the incentive for figuring out the ingredients to make one little pill. So why hasn’t anyone found the cure for the common cold?
There are many reasons. But let’s just ignore them. Like a Keynesian economist ignores a lot of things in their economic formulas. In fact, let’s try and enter the head of some Keynesian economists. And have them answer the question why there isn’t a cure for the common cold. Based on their economic analysis you might hear them say that we have a cure for the common cold. Because a high demand makes anything happen. Or you might hear them say we don’t have a cure because enough people haven’t caught a cold yet. And that we need to get more people to catch colds so we increase the demand for a cure.
Keynesians believe if you build demand economic activity will follow. Like in that movie where they build a baseball diamond in a cornfield and those dead baseball players come back to play on it. So Keynesians believe in government spending. And love stimulus spending. As well as taxing people to give their money to other people to spend. Because having money to spend stimulates demand. Consumers will consume things. And increase consumption. So suppliers will bring more things to market. And create more jobs to meet that consumption demand. Unless people save that money. Which is something Keynesians hate. Because saving reduces consumption. Which is about the worst thing you could do in the universe of Keynesian economics. Save money. For in that universe spending trumps saving. In fact, spending trumps everything. No matter how you create that spending. Keynesians actually believe taxing people so they can pay other people to dig a ditch and then fill that ditch back in stimulates economic activity. Because these ditch diggers/fillers will take their paycheck and spend it.
Today People wait Anxiously for the next Apple Release to Learn what the Next Thing is that they Must Have
Of course there is a problem with this economic theory. When you take money away from others they haven’t created new economic activity. They just transferred that spending to someone else. The people who earned that money spend less while the people who didn’t earn it spend more. It’s a wash. Some spending goes down. While some spending goes up. Actually there is a net loss in economic activity. Because that money has to pass through government hands. Where some of it sticks. Because bureaucrats have to eat, too. So the people receiving this money don’t receive as much as what was taxed away. So Keynesian stimulus doesn’t really stimulate. It actually reduces economic activity from what it might have been. Because of the government’s cut.
And it gets worse. Because this consumption demand doesn’t really create jobs. We get nothing new out of it. What do people demand? Things they see. Things they know about. For it is hard to demand something that doesn’t exist. You see a commercial for another incredible Apple product and you want it. Thanks to some great advertising that explained why you must have it. In other words, when you give money to people all they will do is buy things they’ve always wanted. Things that already exist. Old stuff. It’s sort of the chicken and the egg thing. Which came first? Wanting something? Or the thing that people want?
Raising taxes on Apple to create a more egalitarian society by redistributing their wealth will let people buy more of the old stuff. But it won’t help Apple create more new things to bring to market. Things we don’t even know about yet. If we tax them so much that it leaves little left for them to invest in research and development how are they going to develop new things? Things we don’t even know about yet? Things that we will learn that we must have? Once upon a time no one was asking for portable cassette players. Then Sony came out with the Walkman. And everyone had to have one. Once upon a time there were no MP3 players. No smartphones. No tablet computers. Now people must have these things. After their manufacturers told us why we must have them. Today people wait anxiously for the next Apple release to learn what the next thing is that they must have.
Say’s Law states that Supply Creates Demand
Supply leads demand. We can’t ask for the unknown. We can only ask for what the market has shown us. Which is why Keynesian economics doesn’t work. Because focusing on demand doesn’t work. Giving people money to spend doesn’t stimulate creativity in the market place. Because that money was taxed out of the market place. Reducing profits. Leaving less for businesses to invest into research and development. And reducing their incentive to take big risks to bring the next big thing to market. Like a phone you can talk to and ask questions. Again something no one was demanding. But now it’s something everyone wants.
Jean-Baptiste Say (1767–1832) was a French economist. Another brilliant French mind that contributed to the Enlightenment. And helped advance Western Civilization. He observed how supply led demand. Understood production was key in the economy. He knew to create economic activity you had to focus on the producers. Not the consumers. Because if we encourage brilliant minds to bring brilliant things to market the demand will follow. As history has shown. And continues to show. Every time a high-tech company brings something new to market that they have to explain to us before we realize we must have it. Or said in another way, supply creates demand. A little law of economics that we call Say’s law.
If Keynesian economics worked no one would have to have a job. The government could print money for everyone. And the people could take their government dollars and consume whatever was in the market place. Which, of course, would be pretty sparse if no one worked. If there were no Steve Jobs out there thinking of brilliant things to bring to market. Because supply creates demand. Demand doesn’t create supply. For fists full of money won’t stimulate any economic activity if there is nothing to buy. So using Keynesian stimulus as a cure for a recession is about as effective as someone’s homemade cure for the common cold. You take the homemade concoction and in a week or two it cures you. Of course, the cold just ran its course. Which is how recessions end. After they run their course. Which can be a short course if there isn’t too much Keynesian intervention.
Tags: Apple, common cold, Consumers, consumption, create jobs, cure for the common cold, demand, economic activity, government spending, incentive, Jean-Baptiste Say, jobs, Keynesian economist, Keynesians, market, money, production, recession, research and development, saving, Say's Law, spending, stimulate demand, stimulus spending, suppliers, supply, Supply creates demand, taxes, taxing
(Originally published August 28th, 2012)
Ben Franklin’s Post Office struggles to Stay Relevant in a World where Technology offers a Better Alternative
Once upon a time people stayed in touch with each other by mailing letters to each other. Benjamin Franklin helped make this possible when he was America’s first Postmaster General of the United States. And it’s in large part due to his Post Office that the American Revolutionary War became a united stand against Great Britain. As news of what happened in Massachusetts spread throughout the colonies via Franklin’s Post Office.
In America Samuel Morse created a faster way to communicate. (While others created this technology independently elsewhere.) Through ‘dots’ and ‘dashes’ sent over a telegraph wire. Speeding up communications from days to seconds. It was fast. But you needed people who understood Morse code. Those dots and dashes that represented letters. At both ends of that telegraph wire. So the telegraph was a bit too complicated for the family home. Who still relied on the Post Office to stay in touch
Then along came a guy by the name of Alexander Graham Bell. Who gave us a telephone in the house. Which gave people the speed of the telegraph. But with the simplicity of having a conversation. Bringing many a teenage girl into the kitchen in the evenings to talk to her friends. Until she got her own telephone in her bedroom. Then came cell phones. Email. Smartphones. And Texting. Communication had become so instantaneous today that no one writes letters anymore. And Ben Franklin’s Post Office struggles to stay relevant in a world where technology offers a better alternative.
As Keynesian Monetary Policy played a Larger Role in Japan Personal Savings Fell
These technological advances happened because people saved money that allowed entrepreneurs, investors and businesses to borrow it. They borrowed money and invested it into their businesses. To bring their ideas to the market place. And the more they invested the more they advanced technology. Allowing them to create more incredible things. And to make them more efficiently. Thus giving us a variety of new things at low prices. Thanks to innovation. Risk-taking entrepreneurs. And people’s savings. Which give us an advanced economy. High productivity. And growing GDP.
Following World War II Japan rebuilt her industry and became an advanced economy. As the U.S. auto industry faltered during the Seventies they left the door open for Japan. Who entered. In a big way. They built cars so well that one day they would sell more of them than General Motors. Which is incredible considering the B-29 bomber. That laid waste to Japanese industry during World War II. So how did they recover so fast? A high savings rate. During the Seventies the Japanese people saved over 15% of their income with it peaking in the mid-Seventies close to 25%.
This high savings rate provided enormous amounts of investment capital. Which the Japanese used not only to rebuild their industry but to increase their productivity. Producing one of the world’s greatest export economies. The ‘Made in Japan’ label became increasingly common in the United States. And the world. Their economic clot grew in the Eighties. They began buying U.S. properties. Americans feared they would one day become a wholly owned subsidiary of some Japanese corporation. Then government intervened. With their Keynesian economics. This booming economic juggernaut became Japan Inc. But as Keynesian monetary policy played a larger role personal savings fell. During the Eighties they fell below 15%. And they would continue to fall. As did her economic activity. When monetary credit replaced personal savings for investment capital it only created large asset bubbles. Which popped in the Nineties. Giving the Japanese their Lost Decade. A painful deflationary decade as asset prices returned to market prices.
Because the Germans have been so Responsible in their Economic Policies only they can Save the Eurozone
As the world reels from the fallout of the Great Recession the US, UK and Japan share a lot in common. Depressed economies. Deficit spending. High debt. And a low savings rate. Two countries in the European Union suffer similar economic problems. With one notable exception. They have a higher savings rate. Those two countries are France and Germany. Two of the strongest countries in the Eurozone. And the two that are expected to bail out the Eurozone.
While the French and the Germans are saving their money the Japanese have lost their way when it comes to saving. Their savings rate plummeted following their Lost Decade. As Keynesian economics sat in the driver seat. Replacing personal savings with cheap state credit. Much like it has in the US and the UK. Nations with weak economies and low savings rates. While the French and the Germans are keeping the Euro alive. Especially the Germans. Who are much less Keynesian in their economics. And prefer a more Benjamin Franklin frugality when it comes to cheap state credit. As well as state spending. Who are trying to impose some austerity on the spendthrifts in the Eurozone. Which the spendthrifts resent. But they need money. And the most responsible country in the Eurozone has it. And there is a reason they have it. Because their economic policies have been proven to be the best policies.
And others agree. In fact there are some who want the German taxpayer to save the Euro by taking on the debt of the more irresponsible members in the Eurozone. Because they have been so responsible in their economic policies they’re the only ones who can. But if the Germans are the strongest economy shouldn’t others adopt their policies? Instead of Germany enabling further irresponsible government spending by transferring the debt of the spendthrifts to the German taxpayer? I think the German taxpayer would agree. As would Benjamin Franklin. Who said, “Industry, Perseverance, & Frugality, make Fortune yield.” Which worked in early America. In Japan before Japan Inc. And is currently working in Germany. It’s only when state spending becomes less frugal that states have sovereign debt crises. Or subprime mortgage crisis. Or Lost Decades.
Tags: Alexander Graham Bell, asset bubbles, Bell, Benjamin Franklin, capital, cheap state credit, credit, economic activity, Euro, Eurozone, France, Franklin, French, Germans, Germany, invest, investment, investment capital, Japan, Japan Inc., Japanese, Keynesian, Keynesian economics, lost decade, monetary policy, Morse, Morse code, personal savings, Post Office, productivity, Samuel Morse, savings, savings rate, telegraph, telephone
(Originally published August 27th, 2012)
Healthy Sales can Support just about any Bad Decision a Business Owner Makes
“Industry, Perseverance, & Frugality, make Fortune yield.” Benjamin Franklin (1744). He also said, “A penny saved is a penny earned.” Franklin was a self-made man. He started with little. And through industry, perseverance and frugality he became rich and successful. He lived the American dream. Which was having the liberty to work hard and succeed. And to keep the proceeds of his labors. Which he saved. And all those pennies he saved up allowed him to invest in his business. Which grew and created more wealth.
Frugality. And saving. Two keys to success. Especially in business. For the business that starts out by renting a large office in a prestigious building with new furniture is typically the business that fails. Healthy sales can support just about any bad decision a business owner makes. While falling sales quickly show the folly of not being frugal. Most businesses fail because of poor sales revenue. The less frugal you’ve been the greater the bills you have to pay with those falling sales. Which speeds up the failing process. Insolvency. And bankruptcy. Teaching the important lesson that you should never take sales for granted. The importance of being frugal. And the value of saving your pennies.
Saving and frugality also hold true in our personal lives. Especially when we start buying things. Like big houses. And expensive cars. As a new household starting out with husband and wife gainfully employed the money is good. The money is plentiful. And the money can be intoxicating. Because it can buy nice things. And if we are not frugal and we do not save for a rainy day we are in for a rude awakening when that rainy day comes. For if that two income household suddenly becomes a one income household it will become very difficult to pay the bills. Giving them a quick lesson in the wisdom of being frugal. And of saving your pennies.
The Money People borrow to Invest is the Same Money that Others have Saved
Being frugal lets us save money. The less we spend the more we can put in the bank. What we’re doing is this. We’re sacrificing short-term consumption for long-term consumption. Instead of blowing our money on going to the movies, eating out and taking a lot of vacations, we’re putting that money into the bank. To use as a down payment on a house later. To save for a dream vacation later. To put in an in-the-ground pool later. What we’re doing is pushing our consumption out later in time. So when we do spend these savings later they won’t make it difficult to pay our bills. Even if the two incomes become only one.
Sound advice. Then again, Benjamin Franklin was a wise man. And a lot of people took his advice. For America grew into a wealthy nation. Where entrepreneurs saved their money to build their businesses. Large savings allowed them to borrow large sums of money. As bank loans often required a sizeable down payment. So being frugal and saving money allowed these entrepreneurs to borrow large sums of money from banks. Money that was in the bank available to loan thanks to other people being frugal. And saving their money.
To invest requires money. But few have that kind of money available. So they use what they have as a down payment and borrow the balance of what they need. The balance of what they need comes from other people’s savings. Via a bank loan. This is very important. The money people borrow to invest is the same money that others have saved. Which means that investments are savings. And that people can only invest as much as people save. So for businesses to expand and for the economy to grow we need people to save their money. To be frugal. The more they save instead of spending the greater amount of investment capital is available. And the greater the economy can grow.
The Paradox of Thrift states that Being Frugal and Saving Money Destroys the Economy
Once upon a time this was widely accepted economics. And countries grew wealthy that had high savings rates. Then along came a man named John Maynard Keynes. Who gave the world a whole new kind of economic thought. That said spending was everything. Consumption was key. Not savings. Renouncing centuries of capitalism. And the wise advice of Benjamin Franklin. In a consumption-centered economy people saving their money is bad. Because money people saved isn’t out there generating economic activity by buying stuff. Keynes said savings were nothing more than a leak of economic activity. Wasted money that leaks out of the economy and does nothing beneficial. Even when people and/or businesses are being frugal and saving money to avoid bankruptcy.
In the Keynesian world when people save they don’t spend. And when they don’t spend then businesses can’t sell. If businesses aren’t selling as much as they once were they will cut back. Lay people off. As more businesses suffer these reductions in their sales revenue overall GDP falls. Giving us recessions. This is the paradox of thrift. Which states that by doing the seemingly right thing (being frugal and saving money) you are actually destroying the economy. Of course this is nonsense. For it ignores the other half of saving. Investing. As a business does to increase productivity. To make more for less. So they can sell more for less. Allowing people to buy more for less. And it assumes that a higher savings rate can only come with a corresponding reduction in consumption. Which is not always the case. A person can get a raise. And if they are satisfied by their current level of consumption they may save their additional income rather than increasing their consumption further.
Many people get a raise every year. Which allows them to more easily pay their bills. Pay down their credit cards. Even to save for a large purchase later. Which is good responsible behavior. The kind that Benjamin Franklin would approve of. But not Keynesian economists. Or governments. Who embrace Keynesian economics with a passion. Because it gives them a leading role. When people aren’t spending enough money guess who should step in and pick up that spending slack? Government. So is it any wonder why governments embrace this new kind of economic thought? It justifies excessive government spending. Which is just the kind of thing people go into government for. Sadly, though, their government spending rarely (if ever) pulls a nation out of a recession. For government spending doesn’t replicate what has historically created strong economic growth. A high savings rate. That encourages investment higher up in the stages of production. Where that investment creates jobs. Not at the end of the stages of production. Where government spending creates only inflation. Deficits. And higher debt. All things that are a drag on economic activity.
Tags: bank, bank loan, Benjamin Franklin, capital, capitalism, consumption, down payment, economic activity, Economics, entrepreneurs, Franklin, frugal, frugality, invest, John Maynard Keynes, Keynes, Keynesian, loan, money, paradox of thrift, rainy day, recession, sales, sales revenue, saving, savings, savings rate, spending
To Better Understand the Economy we should Study the Economic Indicators Investors Study
If you’ve lost your job you have a pretty good idea about the state of the economy. It’s bad. An unemployed person is like a soldier in the trench. He or she doesn’t need to examine any data to understand what’s happening in the economy. They know firsthand how bad things are. But generals far behind the lines don’t have that up close and personal economic experience. So they have to examine data to understand what’s going on. Just as government officials, investors and economic prognosticators have to examine data. Giving them an understanding of the state of the economy. So they can know what the unemployed know. The economy sucks.
Government officials want positive economic data so they can say their policies are working. Whether they are or not. In fact, they will parse the data to serve them politically. When necessary. Such as during the run-up to an election. So their reports on the economy are not always, how should we say, full of truthiness. For they can take some bad economic data and put a positive spin on it. Completely changing the meaning of the data. The unemployed won’t believe the rosy picture they’re painting. But those in the trenches may. And those in the rear with the gear. After all, they have jobs. So things don’t really seem that bad to them.
No, for a better picture of the economy you should listen to the people with skin in the game. Those who are making bets on the economy. Investors. And business owners. Who are risking their money. And if we look at what they look at we can get a better understanding of the economy. See what bothers them. What pleases them. And what excites them. So what do they look at? Economic data we call economic indicators. Because they indicate the health of the economy. And give an idea of what the future holds. There are a lot of economic indicators. The government compiles most of them. They each give a little piece of the economic puzzle. And when you put them together you see the bigger picture.
With a Rise in Housing Starts a Rise in Durable Goods should Follow Creating a lot of New Jobs
As far as economic indicators go retail sales is a big one. Because consumer spending is the vast majority of economic activity in the new Keynesian economy. (John Maynard Keynes changed the way governments intervene in the private sector economy in the early 20th century.) Keynesians believe consumer spending is everything. Which is why governments everywhere inflate their money supplies. To keep their interest rates artificially low. To encourage people to borrow money. And spend. When they do retail sales increase. Signaling a healthy economy. When they fall it may mean a recession is coming. Of course, if retail spending rises more than expected investors get nervous. Because it could mean inflation is coming. Which the government will try to prevent by raising interest rates. Thus cooling the economy. And hopefully sending it into a soft landing. But more often than not they send it into recession.
Another economic indicator is housing starts. A lot of economic activity comes from building houses. Building them generates a lot. And furnishing them generates even more. So governments are always trying to do everything within their power to encourage new housing. They keep interest rates artificially low. Encouraging people to get mortgages. And they’ve pressured lenders to lower their lending standards. To get more people with bad credit (or no credit) into houses. Which led to subprime lending. The subprime mortgage crisis. And the Great Recession. So more housing starts can be good. But too many housing starts can be bad. Generally, though, if they are increasing it’s a sign of an improving economy.
Before Keynesian economics the prevailing school of economic thought was classical economics. Which we used to make America the world’s number one economic power. Unlike Keynesians in the classical school we looked higher in the stages of productions. Where real economic activity took place. Raw material extraction. Industrial processing. Manufacturing. And wholesaling. An enormous amount of activity before you reach the consumer level. All of these higher order economic activities fed into the making of durable goods. Those things we bought to fill those new houses. Which is why we like rising housing starts. Because a rise in durable goods should follow. And when we’re producing more durable goods we’re employing more people. Making the durable goods economic indicator a very useful one.
One should Always be Skeptical when the Government says their Policies are Improving the Economy
The Producer Price Index (PPI) tells us how the prices are moving above the consumer level. So if the PPI is rising it tells us the costs to produce consumer goods are rising. And these higher costs will flow down the stages of production to the consumer level. Causing a rise in consumer prices. So the PPI forecasts what will happen to the CPI. The consumer price index. When it rises it means inflation is entering the picture. Which the government will try to prevent by raising interest rates. To cool the economy down. And lower the prices at both the consumer and producer level. Again, trying to send the economy into a soft landing. But usually sending it into recession. Which is why investors pay close attention to the PPI. So they can get an idea of what will happen to the CPI. So they can buy and sell (stocks and/or bonds) accordingly.
The rest of us can get an idea of what these investors think about the economy by following the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA). Which is the weighted ‘average’ of 30 stocks. (We calculate it by dividing the sum of the 30 stock prices by a divisor that factors in all stock splits and changes of companies in the Dow 30). As a company does well in a growing economy its stock price grows. And if investors like what they see in other economic indicators they bid up the stock price even further. So a rising DJIA indicates that investors believe the economy is doing well. And will probably even improve. But sometimes investors have a little irrational exuberance. Such as during the dot-com bubble in the Nineties. Where they poured money into any company that had anything to do with the Internet. Making a huge bet that they found the next Bill Gates or Steve Jobs. Of course, when that blind hope faded and reality set in those inflated stock prices came crashing down to reality. Causing a long and painful recession in the early 2000s. So even investors don’t always get it right.
When the dot-com bubble burst it threw a lot of people out of a job. Increasing the unemployment rate. Another big economic indicator. But one that can be massaged by the government. For they only count people out of a full-time job who are looking for full-time work. The official unemployment rate (what we call the U-3 rate) doesn’t count people who gave up looking for work. Or people who took a couple of part-time jobs to make ends meet. A more accurate unemployment rate is the U-6 rate that counts these people. For while the official unemployment rate fell below 8% during the run-up to the 2012 election the U-6 rate was showing a much poorer economic picture. And the labor force participation rate showed an even poorer economic picture. The labor force participation rate shows the percentage of people who could be working who were actually working. So the lower this is the worse the economy. The higher it is the better the economy. So while the president highlighted the fall of the U-3 rate below 8% as a sign of an improving economy the labor force participation rate showed it was the worst economy since the Seventies. Something the unemployed could easily understand. But those who had a job believed the less than honest U-3 economic indicator. Believed the president was making the economy better. When, in fact, he had made it worse. Which is why one should always be skeptical when the government says their policies are improving the economy. For they are more concerned about winning the next election than the people toiling away in the trenches.
Tags: bubble, classical economics, consumer level, consumer spending, CPI, DJIA, dot com bubble, dot.com, Dow, durable goods, economic activity, economic data, economic indicators, economy, Great Recession, housing starts, inflation, interest rates, investors, Keynesian, Keynesian economics, labor force participation rate, PPI, recession, Retail sales, soft landing, stages of production, subprime, U-3, U-6, unemployed, unemployment rate
« Previous Entries