Market Forces and Health Care

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 4th, 2013

Economics 101

Keynesians try to reduce Human Behavior down to Complex and Confusing Math

We hear a lot about introducing market forces into health care.  But what does that mean?  What exactly are market forces?  Are they like magnetic forces?  Electric forces?  Hydraulic forces?  No.  Market forces are not forces that conform to the laws of science.  Rather, they belong in the realm of the social sciences.  That are less science.  And more opinion.  Where there are a lot of theories.  And politicians massage the data to fit their theory.  As Mark Twain said, facts don’t lie but liars figure.  And politicians figure.  A lot.

So there are no hard rules when it comes to the social sciences.  Just a lot of theorizing.  And a lot of drawing conclusions.  Based on the data.  And how some massage the data.  Something to keep in mind whenever anyone discusses economic numbers.  For the accepted school of economics most politicians adhere to is the Keynesian school.  The dirty little whore of economics.  For there is a whole lot of massaging going on with Keynesians.  With the data.  Not each other.  Politicians love Keynesian economics because this school of economic thought calls for governments to tax, borrow, print and spend.  Empowering government.  Making government grow.  And become more intrusive in our personal lives.  All things politicians love.  Which is why they massage the economic data.  They have to.  Because this school of economic thought doesn’t work.

Keynesians make economics very complex.  Open a text book and you will find a lot of graphs and formulas.  Where they try to reduce human behavior down to math.  Very complex and confusing math.  And you can’t do that.  Humans have free will.  They make decisions based on any number of things.  One influencing factor more or less could change the way they decide.  And there’s no way we can quantify all the variables in our lives.  Therefore, there’s no way to reduce human decision-making down to math.  Which is what drives market forces.  Our decision-making process.  That point in time that triggers the free exchange of money for goods and/or services.

When it comes to the All-You-Can-Eat Buffet Customers think more in Terms of Quantity than Quality

Consider an all-you-can-eat buffet.  And how it changes your decision-making process.  But first let’s look at some typical behavior at a normal restaurant.  Where you may spend $15 for a 4-course meal and drink.  Soup, salad, entrée and dessert.  Which you enjoy with a friend.  You have pleasant conversation as you enjoy each of your 4 courses.  Taking your time.  Enjoying each course.  Slowly getting full.  And satisfied.  The portion sizes are just right.  Leaving just enough room for dessert.  You’re full.  But not too full.  Comfortable.  You’re able to go for an after-dinner walk.  Even take in a movie.

Now let’s consider the all-you-can-eat buffet.  Where you may pay $20 for unlimited access to the buffet.  You’re paying more than for a sit-down service.  Why?  Because you plan to eat more.  You will maximize the value you get for your $20.  Which means you’ll probably skip the soup and salad.  And start loading your plate with the expensive entrées.  You’ll probably go back once or twice.  Making sure you get a taste of everything.  And a lot of anything that is expensive.  Again, to maximize your value.  In fact you maximize so much that you become uncomfortably full.  Too full to sit through a movie without nodding off.  And too full for a walk.  All you want to do is go home and nap.

The restaurant sees this from a slightly different perspective.  The all-you-can-eat buffet is simple to serve.  You mass produce food to load up the buffet so it’s ready at the beginning of the buffet hours.  You replace the items people eat most.  While the less popular items sit longer in the buffet.  Becoming less fresh.  Also, the buffet is a good way to get rid of things approaching their ‘serve by’ dates.  Saving the freshest food for the made-to-order sit-down service.  And putting the older food in the buffet.  Because when it comes to the buffet you know customers are thinking more in terms of quantity than quality.  The food is good in the buffet.  But not as good as the food for the sit-down clientele.

If you Pay Cash at the Pharmacy you are more likely to Ask for the Less Expensive Generic Drugs

These are market forces.  People have come together to make voluntary exchanges.  The quantity of food available makes some people opt for the more expensive all-you-can-eat buffet.  Others may opt for the less expensive but higher quality made-to-order sit down service.  For the person who places the greatest value on eating mass quantities of food will choose the buffet.  The person who places the greatest value on the dining experience (quality of food, made-to-order, conversation, after-dinner walk or movie, etc.) will choose the sit-down service.  If more people are choosing the buffet the owner may extend the buffet hours.  If fewer people are choosing the buffet and leave a lot a food to throw away the owner may end the buffet service.  These are market forces.  Buyer and sellers coming together in the marketplace.  Seeing what each has to offer.  If they come to a mutual agreement they make an economic exchange.  The buyer willingly exchanges his or her money for goods and/or services.  The seller willingly accepts an amount of money in exchange for his or her goods and/or services.

The private economy works because it is buyers and sellers meeting and making exchanges they both freely agree to.  This is the key of market forces.  It’s what makes people with money go to the marketplace.  And it’s what makes people bring goods and/or services to the marketplace.  Because they will seek each other out and make these exchanges.  After which both buyer and seller will come away with something they value more.  This is what is missing in health care.  Buyer and sellers aren’t meeting to make exchanges.  In fact, the buyer and seller do not even meet.  Patients never ask for any prices.  Because they aren’t paying for anything.  Their insurer is.  And the medical provider will always provide the most expensive treatment billing guidelines will allow.  For that’s who they must please.  The people paying them.  Not the patient.  And they have to charge as much as they can to cover all the things they won’t get paid for.  People they treat without insurance who can’t pay.  And for the billings the insurers deny.

So this changes the decision making process.  For everyone.  Introducing a third party into the equation removes market forces.  If you pay cash at the pharmacy you are more likely to ask for the less expensive generic drugs.  If you get free prescription coverage you will ask for the most expensive name-brand medicine they have.  For when you’re not paying price is no object.  But when you are paying price is a very important object.  Because when it’s our money getting value for our money is very important.  So we’ll ask if the name-brand has any more value than the generic.  For who would spend more for something that doesn’t give you any more value than something you can get for less?

When it comes to medical tests and procedures patients aren’t going to ask for more than they absolutely need.  And doctors aren’t going to prescribe any more than a patient needs.  Because they aren’t billing a faceless bureaucrat.  They’re billing someone they have a close and personal relationship with.  And they sure aren’t going to try and bill someone they have a close and personal relationship with for someone else’s unpaid bill.  Not if they want to keep them as a patient.  Because a doctor-patient relationship is a long-term relationship.  A doctor could lose a lot of business by mistreating a patient to make an extra buck.  These are market forces.  Which makes the private sector work so well.  And why their absence makes the health care system not work so well.  Transforming our health care from a moderately priced, high quality, custom, sit-down service to a higher priced, mass-produced, lower quality, all-you-can-eat buffet.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

FT141: “Liberals are absolutely sure they’re right and you’re wrong even though they can’t explain why.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 26th, 2012

Fundamental Truth

Jobs are Everything in an Economy

In the movie Apollo 13 starring Tom Hanks it was a smart electrical engineer that saved the astronauts.  Who explained that nothing they did would save the astronauts unless they figured out how to make the limited remaining power last until reentry.  He said power was everything.  And if it ran out before reentry the astronauts wouldn’t make it back alive.  So heeding the advice of the smart electrical engineer they shut off all power to save what they had for reentry.  Which meant they had no heat.  And had to do some course corrections without the computer, requiring some complicated flying skills.  Because they listened to the smart electrical engineer they had just enough power left to make it to reentry.  And the astronauts made it back home alive.

An economy is similar in a way.  For it, too, has something that is everything.  And without it nothing else matters.  Jobs.  Jobs are everything in an economy.  For they are the only way we can afford things.  A house.  A car.  Food for our families.  The heating bill.  Fuel for our vehicles.  Electronic devices.  Our wireless/cable bills.  Coffee at Starbucks.  Clothing.  Shoes.  Pet food.  Etc.  None of these would be possible without a job.  And a paycheck.  Even our government benefits.  Paid for with taxes.  Deducted from our paychecks.  Without people working none of these things would be possible.  Because jobs are everything.

Money is not everything.  We use money to make it easier to trade our skills with others to get the things we want.  The more our skills are in demand by others the more we can trade them for other things.  Which is why doctors have more things than high school kids working an entry level job.  For there are a lot high school kids with entry-level job skills.  But not so many people with doctor skills.  So we pay doctors more.  And high school kids less.  Because doctors have more valuable skills than high school kids.  And therefore can trade those skills for a lot of other things.  So it’s not the money that matters.  It’s the skills that they can trade for money that matters.  Provided there is a job for them to fill.  Once again coming back to jobs.  Which are everything.

Birth Control and Abortion are the Pressing Social Issues that keep College Students Awake at Night with Worry

If the government printed money and paid everyone in the nation the equivalent of a doctor’s earnings it would not be the same thing.  Because if everyone was paid the same no matter their skill level no one would go through the costs and hard work to become a doctor.  Because working harder to acquire those skills wouldn’t provide them anything more than they can get for doing nothing.  Giving people money for skills they don’t have diminishes the values of those skills.  So people won’t work hard to get those skills.  With less skillful people in the workplace there will be fewer people to provide the goods and services we want to buy.  Leaving a lot of empty store shelves.  And high prices because the things you want will be very hard to find.

This is why high school kids go to college.  Take on a lot of student loan debt.  To get the skills that will let them get the kind of jobs that will let them earn a lot of money.  Granted, a lot of kids go to college for the fun.  First time away from home.  Binge drinking.  Casual sex.  Drugs.  But they’re also there for the big payday a college education is supposed to give you.  However, if the jobs aren’t there neither is that big paycheck.  But that student loan debt is.  Who’s to blame for the lack of jobs?  In part these college kids.  Who typically vote Democrat.  The party that favors social justice, access to birth control and abortion, gay marriage, the decriminalization of marijuana, and other pressing social issues that apparently keep college students awake at night with worry.  So the Democrats pursue these issues to get the youth vote.  Instead of making a favorable climate for business.  So they can grow and create the jobs these college students want and are going to college for.

The problem is that these kids don’t understand the fundamentals of economics.  They don’t understand business.  Or the affect of taxes and regulatory compliance costs on a business’ bottom line.  And they don’t seem to understand that they are not the only ones who want to make money.  So do business owners.  And if the tax burden and cost of regulatory compliance reduce the bottom line it makes it more difficult to meet payroll.  And pay their other bills.  So they will not grow their business.  They will not create jobs.  They will not offer pay raises and bonuses.  And may even lay off people.  When they do these things college kids call these business owners greedy.  While their desire for a high-paying job does not make them greedy.  Funny how subjective greed can be.

Liberals are Deep Critical Thinkers though they think about few things other than a Woman’s Reproductive Parts

In the current election cycle the Democrats don’t have a good record to run on.  The current economic recovery, if we can call it a recovery, is about the worst on record.  The biggest drag on the economy?  Jobs.  There are fewer of them today than when President Obama took office.  And his policies haven’t help.  Especially Obamacare.  Which has caused business owners to slam the brakes on hiring.  As they have no idea of the final total cost impact of Obamacare.  So having destroyed job creation, the Democrats have turned to other tactics.  Fear and loathing of Republican candidates.  Such as the so-called war on women.  Where the Democrats are warning women that if the Republicans win the upcoming 2012 election women will lose their birth control, their access to abortion, their cancer screening, their freedom.  Life for women under the Republicans, the Democrats say, will be little different than living under the Taliban.

Of course, this isn’t true.  For it didn’t happen under the 20 years of Republican rule of George W. Bush, George H. W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.  But it doesn’t stop the Democrats or their celebrity endorsers from warning about the horrible things that will happen to women should the Republicans win.  And they speak with such certain authority.  For they know everything.  At least, that’s what they think.  It would be interesting, though, to ask them a few questions.  So they can demonstrate their mastery of things economic.  By explaining the stages of production.  Why stimulus spending raises prices.  To explain the business cycle.  How recessions correct prices by wringing inflation out of them.  How keeping interest rates artificially low creates asset bubbles.  Like housing bubbles.  And how bubbles create recessions when they burst.  To explain what is Say’s Law.  To name an economic school besides the Keynesian school.  To explain the Keynesian school of economics.  The number of taxes a business must calculate and pay with every payroll.  How excessive government borrowing diverts investment capital from the job-creating private sector.  Or how the growth in government spending cannot increase greater than the population growth rate.

As they don’t teach any of this in today’s public schools and most universities they probably won’t be able to explain any of these things.  Yet liberals are absolutely sure they’re right and you’re wrong.  Even though they can’t explain why.  For they are smarter.  Brighter.  More progressive.  Enlightened.  And deep critical thinkers.  Though they think about few things other than a woman’s reproductive parts.  Even when the real unemployment rate (the U-6 number that counts everyone that can’t find a full-time job) currently stands at 14.7%.  Which is serious.  As jobs are everything.  And sometimes you can’t have everything you want.  Sometimes you must sacrifice.  And put in place policies that are business friendly.  Cutting back on the social spending.  At least until businesses start creating jobs again.  And the working tax base can once again support that social spending.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

2012 Endorsements: Alexander Hamilton

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 18th, 2012

2012 Election

When Hamilton looked out Across the Vast North American Continent he saw Great Economic Opportunity

Alexander Hamilton was born in the British West Indies.  At the age of eleven he had to get a job.  As his father abandoned his family after losing all the family money.  Young Alexander worked at Cruger and Beckman’s.  a New York trading house.  A window onto the world.  And international trade.  Where young Alexander learned about the world.  And business.  He had a gift for numbers.  He was bright.  And driven.  Born in the British West Indies he was also something else.  A Founding Father without any state lineage.  With no provincial views.  During the prelude to American independence when other patriots talked about the states going their own way he was already thinking of an American union.  And only of an American union.

The British response to the Boston Tea Party was the Intolerable Acts.  Or the Coercive Acts in Britain.  Where the British put the hurt on Boston.  And Massachusetts.  To separate it and isolate it from the rest of the colonies.  Reverend Samuel Seabury took to the papers and argued against uniting the other colonies to support Massachusetts.  That the people should support their king.  And Parliament.  And not the spoiled, trouble-making people of Boston.  Hamilton took to the papers and argued in support of union.  And Boston.  Warning the people that this was just the beginning for Britain.  More taxes would certainly follow.  Hamilton warned the people to put away their sectional differences.  As this attack on one was an attack on all.  And that if they gave up on Boston it would only be a matter of time before other colonies met the same fate.

That was all well and fine during the warm months of summer.  But the American colonies were part of the British Empire.  Which was a mercantilist empire.  Whose colonies shipped raw materials to the mother country.  And the proceeds from those sales were used to buy manufactured goods made from those raw materials in the mother country.  Making the colonists dependent on Britain for their clothing.  The lack of which would make a very cold and miserable winter.  Which led a lot of people to agree with Reverend Samuel Seabury.  But not Hamilton.  For he looked out across the American colonies and saw something else.  Economic independence.  The South had cotton.  The North could raise sheep for wool.  And they could build factories in the cities to make cloth and clothing.  Staffed by skilled immigrants from European factories.  This is what Hamilton saw when he looked out across the vast North American continent.  Great economic opportunity.  Made possible by an American union.

Hamilton spent the Winter Seasons at Valley Forge and Morristown Reading and Studying Economics and Public Finance

When the Revolutionary War came Hamilton joined the Continental Army.  Fought bravely.  Then ended up as General Washington’s aide-de-camp.  Serving in Washington’s inner circle he knew what the commanding general knew.  And he knew the sorry state of the army.  Half-naked, hungry and unpaid.  While some civilians were living the life of Riley.  Making a fortune off of hording commodities and selling them at high prices.  Which they could do with impunity as the Continental Congress was powerless to stop them.  As it was at the mercy of the states.  The national congress was broke and had little legal authority.  Which let the speculators run roughshod over it.  Leaving the people sacrificing the most for independence half-naked, hungry and unpaid.  Diminishing the fighting ability of the army.  Which greatly increased the risk of defeat.

Hamilton learned an important lesson.  The stronger the national government was, and the richer it was, the easier it was to wage war.  And the easier it was NOT to be defeated in war.  The problem here was that the national government was too weak.  While the state governments were too strong.  Which was fine for the people living normal lives in their states.  But not the soldiers in the field fighting for the nation.  Making things worse was inflation.  The Continental Congress was printing money.  As were the states.  And the more they printed the more they depreciated it.  Which led to even higher prices.  More profits for the speculators.  And even more hardship for the army.  Which had to at times take things from the local people in exchange for IOUs.  Making these people hate the army.  And the army hate the people.  As they were the ones risking life and limb for what was to them an ungrateful people.

Hamilton spent the winter seasons at Valley Forge and Morristown reading and studying economics and public finance.  And set out to solve the inflation problem.  What he learned was that a lot of people were benefiting by the rampant inflation.  Debtors loved it.  For the greater the inflation was the easier it was to repay loans in those depreciated dollars.  Especially the farmers.  They sold their produce at ever higher prices.  Borrowed money to buy land (and repaid those loans in depreciated dollars).  While escaping much of the ravages of inflation themselves.  Because they were farmers.  And were self-sufficient.  Eating what they grew.  Even making their own clothes.  For some inflation was a way to get rich quick at the detriment of others.  To help dissuade such activity Hamilton suggested high taxes in kind (if a farm grew wheat that they turned into flour they would pay a portion of their flour to the government as a tax) on those benefitting from inflation who where destroying the confidence in the dollar.

If Hamilton were Alive Today he would likely Endorse the Republican Candidates Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan

Hamilton also suggested a plan for a national bank.  To help restore the credit of the United States.  And to provide a source of credit for the national government.  The bank would be owned half by the government and half by rich investors.  By letting the rich investors make money on the bank it would, of course, encourage them to invest in the bank.  And provide capital the government could borrow.  Hamilton believed in bringing the rich people closer to the government.  So the government had access to their money.  Both would win in such a partnership.  And both would have a vested interest in seeing the government succeed.  The Continental Congress used some of Hamilton’s ideas.  But not enough to bring his vision to life.  He would get another chance, though.  When he became America’s first Secretary of the Treasury.

At the end of the Revolutionary War the United State’s finances were in a mess.  State governments and the national government owed money.  As they used that money to prosecute the war Hamilton believed the national government should assume the states’ debts and roll in into the national debt.  And, more importantly, the new national debt would help strengthen the union.  By binding the states to the national government.  These actions also helped to restore the nation’s credit.  Allowing it to borrow money to repay old debts.  As well as finance new spending.  Hamilton also got his bank.  And he produced a report on manufacturers.  A plan to use government funds to help launch American industry.  So they could catch up to Great Britain.  And even surpass the former mother country.

Hamilton pushed for these things because he wanted to use the power of government to make America strong and fiercely independent in the world of nations.  With an economic plan that would make the nation wealthy.  And allowing it to afford a military that equaled or surpassed Great Britain.  He did not want to make America wealthy to implement a massive welfare state.  His idea of partnering government with business was to make an American Empire modeled on the British Empire.  Making it a rich military superpower.  Able to project force.  Maintaining peace through strength.  Much like the British did with their Pax Britannica that he didn’t live to see.  And to protect what it had from anyone trying to take it away from them.  So based on this who would he endorse in the 2012 election?  The party that had business-friendly policies to encourage economic growth.  The party that was more anti-inflation.  The party that would best exploit the nation’s resources.  And the party that favored a strong military.  Which is NOT the Democrat Party.  No, if Alexander Hamilton were alive today he would likely endorse the Republican candidates Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Microeconomics and Macroeconomics

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 10th, 2012

Economics 101

Keynesians cannot connect their Macroeconomic Policies to the Microeconomic World

Economics can be confusing.  As there are actually two genres of economics.  There’s microeconomics.  The kind of stuff most people are familiar with.  And is more common sense.  This is more of the family budget variety.  And small business budget.  Where if costs go up (gasoline, commodities, food, insurance, etc.) families and businesses make cuts elsewhere in their budget.  When revenue falls (a decline in sales revenue or a husband/wife loses their job) people cut back on expenses.  They cancel the family vacation.  Or cancel Christmas bonuses.  Straight forward stuff of living within your means.

Then there’s macroeconomics.  The big economic picture.  This is the stuff about the national economy.  GDP, inflation, recession, taxes, etc.  Things that are more abstract.  Unfamiliar.  And often defy common sense.  Where living beyond your means is not only accepted.  But it’s national policy.  And when some policies fail repeatedly those in government keep trying those same policies expecting a different outcome eventually.  Such as using Keynesian economic policies (stimulus packages, deficit spending, printing money, etc.) to get an economy out of recession that never quite works.  And then the supporters of those policies always say the same thing.  Their policies only failed because they didn’t spend enough money to make them work.

Keynesian economics focuses on macroeconomics.  And cannot connect their macro policies to the micro world.  There is a large gap between the two.  Which is why Keynesians fail.  Because they look at the macro picture to try and effect change in the micro world.  To get businesses to create jobs.  To hire people.  And to reduce unemployment.  But the politicians executing Keynesian policy don’t understand things in the micro world.  Or anything about running a business.  All they understand, or all they care to try to understand, are the Keynesian basics.  That focus on the demand side of economics.  While ignoring everything on the supply side.

When the Economy goes into Recession the Fed Expands the Money Supply to Lower Interest Rates

Keynesians have a few fundamental beliefs.  And one of the big ones is the relationship between interest rates and GDP.  In fact, it’s the center of their world.  High interest rates discourage people from borrowing money.  When people don’t borrow money they don’t build things (like factories).  And if they don’t build things they won’t create jobs and hire people.  So the higher the interest rates the lower the economic output of the nation (GDP).

Low interest rates, on the other hand, encourage people to borrow money.  So they can build things and create jobs.  The lower the interest rates the more people will borrow.  And the greater the economic output of the nation will be.  This was the driving factor that caused the Great Recession.  The central bank (the Fed) kept interest rates so low for so long that people bought a lot of houses.  A lot of expensive houses.  The demand for housing was so great that buyers bid up prices.  Because at low interest rates there was no limit to how much house you could buy.  All this building and buying of houses, though, oversupplied the market with houses.  As home builders rushed in to fill that demand.  They built so many houses that there were just so many houses available to buy that buyers had a lot of choice.  Making it a buyers’ market.  So much so that people had to slash their asking price to sell their house.  Which popped the great housing bubble.

The Fed lowers interest rates by increasing the money supply.  They create new money and inject it into the economy.  By giving it to bankers.  Banks have more money to lend.  So more people can borrow money.  This is what lowers interest rates.  Things that are less scarce cost less.  More money to borrow means it’s less scarce.  And the price to borrow it (i.e., the interest rate) falls.  If the Fed wants to increase interest rates they pull money out of the economy.  Which makes it a little harder to borrow money.  Because more people are trying to borrow the limited amount of funds available to borrow.  And this is the basics of monetary policy.  Whenever the country enters a recession and unemployment rises the Fed expands the money supply to encourage businesses to borrow money to expand their businesses and create jobs that will lower unemployment.

Keynesian Economic Policies hurt the Higher Stages of Production where we Create Real Economic Activity

If low interest rates create greater economic activity why in the world would the Fed ever want to raise interest rates?  Because of the dark side of printing money.  Inflation.  Increasing the money supply gives people more money.  And when they have more money they try to buy what everyone else is buying.  As the money supply grows greater than the amount of economic output there is more money trying to buy fewer goods and services.  Which raises prices.  Just like those low interest rates did in the housing market.  The fear is that if this goes on too long there will be an economic crash.  Just like after the housing bubble burst.  From boom to bust.  Higher prices reduce consumer spending.  Because people can’t buy as much when prices are high.  As consumers stop spending businesses stop selling.  Faced with overcapacity in a period of falling demand they start cutting costs.  Laying off people.  People without jobs can buy even less at high prices.  And so on as the economy settles into recession.  This is why central bankers raise interest rates.  Because those good times are temporary.  And the longer they let it go on the more painful the economic correction will be.

This is why Keynesian stimulus spending fails to pull economies out of recession.  Because Keynesians focus only on the demand curve.  Consumption.  Consumer spending.  Not supply.  They ignore all that economic activity in the higher stages of productions.  That activity that precedes retail consumer sales.  The wholesale stage (the stage above retail).  The manufacturing stage (above the wholesale stage).  And the furthest out in time, the raw commodities stage (above the manufacturing stage).  As economic activity slows inventories build up.  Creating a bulge in the middle of the stages of production.  So manufacturing cuts back.  And because they do raw commodities cut back.  These are the first to suffer in an economic downturn.  And they are the last to recover.  Because of all that inventory in the pipeline.  When Keynesians get more money into consumers’ pockets they will increase their consumer spending.  For awhile.  Until that extra money is gone.  Which provided an economic boost at the retail level.  And a little at the wholesale level as they drew down those inventories.  But it did little at the higher stages of production.  Above inventories.  Manufacturing and raw material extraction.  Who don’t expand their production or hire new workers.  Because they know this economic activity is temporary.  And because they know all that new money will eventually create inflation.  Which will increase prices.  Throughout the stages of production.

The Keynesian approach focuses on the macro.  By playing with monetary policy.  Policies that ultimately hurt the higher stages of production.  At the micro level.  Where we create real economic activity.  If they’re not hiring then no amount of stimulus spending at the retail level will get them to hire.  Because giving the same amount of workers (i.e., consumers) more money to chase the same amount of goods and services only causes higher prices in the long run.  And it’s the long run that raw commodities and manufacturing look at.  They are not going to invest to expand their businesses unless they expect improving economic conditions in the long run.  All the way up the stages of production to where they are.  When new economic activity reaches them then they will expand and hire people.  And when they do they will add a lot of new consumers with real wages to go out and spend at the retail level.

One of the most efficient ways to achieve this is with tax cuts.  Because cuts in tax rates shape economic activity in the long run.  Across the board.  Unlike stimulus spending.  Which is short term.  And very selective.  Some benefit.  Typically political cronies.  But most see no benefit.  Just higher prices.  And continued unemployment.  Which is why Keynesian policies fail to pull economies out of recessions.  Because politicians use them for political purposes.  Not economic purposes.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Saving, Investing and the Paradox of Thrift

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 27th, 2012

Economics 101

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.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Energy/Environmental Policies requiring Ethanol cause Hunger and Economic Devastation throughout the World

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 4th, 2012

Week in Review

As if the Great Recession wasn’t bad enough already.  Bad economic policies and bad regulatory policies have already beaten this economy into the ground.  And now the government is going to pile on with bad energy/environmental policies.  Making the American people say “ouch” (see Corn for Food, Not Fuel by COLIN A. CARTER and HENRY I. MILLER posted 7/30/2012 on The New York Times).

…By suspending renewable-fuel standards that were unwise from the start, the Environmental Protection Agency could divert vast amounts of corn from inefficient ethanol production back into the food chain, where market forces and common sense dictate it should go.

The drought has now parched about 60 percent of the contiguous 48 states. As a result, global food prices are rising steeply. Corn futures prices on the Chicago exchange have risen about 60 percent since mid-June, hitting record levels, and other grains such as wheat and soybeans are also sharply higher. Livestock and dairy product prices will inevitably follow.

More than one-third of our corn crop is used to feed livestock. Another 13 percent is exported, much of it to feed livestock as well. Another 40 percent is used to produce ethanol. The remainder goes toward food and beverage production.

Previous droughts in the Midwest (most recently in 1988) also resulted in higher food prices, but misguided energy policies are magnifying the effects of the current one. Federal renewable-fuel standards require the blending of 13.2 billion gallons of corn ethanol with gasoline this year. This will require 4.7 billion bushels of corn, 40 percent of this year’s crop.

Almost half (40%) of our corn goes to produce ethanol.  That alone has raised the price of our food.  And a lot of our food has corn in it.  Including cows.  As in corn-fed beef.  Dairy cows, too, eat corn.  They give us milk and cheese.  Chickens eat corn.  Providing us with low-fat chicken breasts.  Eggs.  And those delicious Chicken McNuggets our kids love.  Our energy/environmental policies have been increasing the cost of groceries for families.  And the drought is only going to increase them more.  Making it ever harder for the American family to put food on the table.  Especially when a lot of them are struggling to get by on less thanks to an already bad economy.  So why do we use food to fuel our cars?  Because the government has dictated that we do.

The price of corn is a critical variable in the world food equation, and food markets are on edge because American corn supplies are plummeting. The combination of the drought and American ethanol policy will lead in many parts of the world to widespread inflation, more hunger, less food security, slower economic growth and political instability, especially in poor countries…

Any defense of the ethanol policy rests on fallacies, primarily these: that ethanol produced from corn makes the United States less dependent on fossil fuels; that ethanol lowers the price of gasoline; that an increase in the percentage of ethanol blended into gasoline increases the overall supply of gasoline; and that ethanol is environmentally friendly and lowers global carbon dioxide emissions.

The ethanol lobby promotes these claims, and many politicians seem intoxicated by them. Corn is indeed a renewable resource, but it has a far lower yield relative to the energy used to produce it than either biodiesel (such as soybean oil) or ethanol from other plants. Ethanol yields about 30 percent less energy per gallon than gasoline, so mileage drops off significantly. Finally, adding ethanol actually raises the price of blended fuel because it is more expensive to transport and handle than gasoline.

Ethanol isn’t what they say it is.  In fact it makes a pretty poor fuel.  And it will propagate hunger and economic devastation throughout the rest of the world.  Especially in poor countries.  So there is no good reason to use food to fuel our cars.  It would appear the only reason why the government dictates this policy is that the lobbyists make it worth their while to dictate this policy.  Amazing what you can get away with when you veil your special interests in the cloak of environmentalism.  The media and the court of public opinion eviscerate any non-environmental corporation for doing what the ethanol lobby does.  But if you want to make evil profits all you have to do is say ‘global warming’ and no one will fault you for your greed.

Families will have to cut out their visits to McDonalds as these high prices hit pretty much everything on their menu.  Which is an unintended consequence the government may actually like.  For they say our kids are too fat.  But this won’t make our kids happy.  They like their McNuggets.  Which can mean only one thing.  Our government hates kids.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

The Obama Administration says we’re Moving in the Right Direction Despite 30 Months of Bad Economic Reports

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 7th, 2012

Week in Review

The economic news is in.  And it’s not good.  Again.  But the Obama administration says that’s it important not to read too much into one monthly report.  Again (see Obama: 30 months of excusing bad jobs numbers by Byron York posted 7/6/2012 on The Washington Examiner).

The Obama White House says Americans should not “read too much into” the latest bad news from the jobs front.  Employers added just 80,000 new jobs in June — far fewer than needed for a healthy recovery — and the unemployment rate stayed at 8.2 percent.

Not long after the new figures were released, the White House sent out a statement from Alan Krueger, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers.  Facing a bleak situation yet again, Krueger said, “It is important not to read too much into any one monthly report.”

If that sounds familiar, it is because that is what the Obama White House has said during month after month of troubling economic reports.  The White House has said it so often, in fact, that the Romney campaign has compiled a list of 30 — yes, 30 — examples, going back to November 2009, of the administration cautioning that Americans should not “read too much into” the latest bad economic news.

But when these ‘any one monthly reports’ repeat for some 30 consecutive months I’m thinking we can read a lot in these monthly reports.  When coupled with the rosy economic spin they put on (like the Recover Summer back in 2010) you can make but one conclusion.  The Obama administration doesn’t understand a thing about economics.  Which is why three and half years of their programs have resulted in nothing but ‘we shouldn’t read too much into these monthly reports’.

A failure period lasting some 30 months?  I think the real danger is if we don’t read too much into these reports.  For up to now there is a perfect correlation between these horrible economic reports and President Obama’s time in office.  Perhaps if we vote one out we can remove the other.  And get some better economic news.  Sometime following the 2012 election.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , ,

FT121: “As liberals gain knowledge and experience they become conservatives.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 8th, 2012

Fundamental Truth

Carnegie and Rockefeller were able to make the World Better because of Capitalism and Free Markets

Liberals campaign hard to get the youth vote.  Before the young grow up and become responsible adults.  Lose their youthful idealism.  And their ignorance of rudimentary economics.  Kids graduating from high school don’t know much about economics.  They don’t know that JFK was a tax cutter just like Ronal Reagan.  And that those tax cuts stimulated real economic growth.  They don’t know any of this.  But they know who Al Gore is.  And will read you the riot act whenever you do anything that will increase your carbon footprint on this planet. 

Those who go on to college build on their liberal high school education.  Where they don’t learn about how Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller created the modern nation we know today.  Carnegie made steel plentiful and inexpensive.  Allowing us to build the skyscrapers in our cities.  Rockefeller made kerosene so plentiful and inexpensive that he put the whale oil industry out of business.  Saving the whales.  And gave us plentiful and inexpensive gasoline for our automobiles.  Providing fuel for our trains and planes.  Giving us the freedom to travel anywhere.  Visiting big cities like New York.  Where many of the great skyscrapers built with Carnegie steel are still standing today.

Carnegie and Rockefeller are just two entrepreneurs who changed the world.  And greatly increased our standard of living.  Who were free to make the world a better place because of capitalism and free markets.  Instead of working for a paycheck like most people do they took risks and created things.  Better steel.  And better fuel.  As well as jobs.  Lots and lots of jobs.  So people could work for a paycheck.  Why did they take these great risks?  Because the possibility of getting rich is a great incentive.  Which is why aspiring actors go to Los Angeles and starve.  Hoping to get a break.  Get discovered.  So they can become rich.   Which is why people buy lotto tickets.  To become rich.  For it appears everyone wants to get rich.  But there is a difference when people like Carnegie and Rockefeller get rich.  Everyone lives a better life when they do.  Not just the movie star or the lotto winner.

Students live College Life to the Fullest and Pursue Degrees that won’t take up too much of their Time

So what do they learn in college?  That capitalism isn’t fair.  Corporations are evil.  But communism and socialism are good.  Government intervention into the free markets is good.  And, of course, those who do learn economics only learn Keynesian economics.  The school of economics that favors government interventionism into private markets.  And that great industrialists like Carnegie and Rockefeller were greedy and exploited their workers.  While communism and socialism protected their workers.  Which is another failing of our educational system.  Students don’t learn what an abject failure communism was.  Both as an economic system.  And on human rights.  They don’t learn that.  Or that a lot of rich industrialists like Carnegie and Rockefeller spent the last years of their lives giving away the wealth they amassed.  Like some of America’s rich continue to do today.  As exemplified by Bill Gates.

No.  Their education is a poor one.  Which explains why the Indians and Chinese are passing American students by.  The goal of American public education is not to produce high test scores.  But to indoctrinate students into being good Democrat voters.  So those in the public sector unions can continue to earn more in pay and benefits than their counterparts in the private sector.  Another fact they don’t teach these young students.  They keep these students young and dumb as long as possible.  And the government helps.  By focusing on the things important to these students.  Lenient drug laws.  Birth control.  And abortion.  To make sure their first time living away from their parents is a good time.  A fun time.  And to make sure that they understand that Democrat political candidates aren’t like their parents.  Those buzz kills.  Whose favorite word in their vocabulary is ‘no’.  Not the Democrats.  They like the word ‘yes’.  As in “yes we can.”  And yes you can.  Do whatever young people with raging sex drives like to do.  And they do. 

They live college life to the fullest.  Many pursuing degrees that won’t take up too much of their time.  Taking less science and math like the Indians and the Chinese.  Because those are hard and require a lot of homework.  Instead they pursue degrees in women’s studies.  Minority studies.  Family studies.  American studies.  Communications.  Film.  Psychology.  Philosophy.  Things that are fun and have no math.  Allowing a lot of fun when outside of the classroom.  But are absolutely worthless in the high-tech economy.  The only employment opportunities for these degrees is to become a professor and teach other students these worthless degrees.

It turns out Liberalism is a Lie used to maintain a Privileged Class

So when these college graduates can’t get a job that’ll make them rich overnight they get angry.  And struggle to pay down the mountain of debt that paid for those worthless degrees.  Of course it’s not their fault.  Or the universities who sold them those worthless degrees.  It’s Wall Street’s fault.  Those evil rich people who don’t pay their fair share in taxes.  That somehow if they only paid more in taxes they could find gainful employment.

And when the young start working for a living they discover taxes.  From property taxes to payroll taxes to income taxes.  Which are a lot of taxes.  And when they start raising a family they start paying attention to what’s on television.  Which was fine when they were partying in their youth.  But somehow isn’t right now that they are parents.  They start thinking about the things they did in their youth.  And how to hide it from their kids.

And when there are ballot initiates to raise taxes to pay for budget deficits at the city and state level they pay attention to what caused these deficits.  And they don’t like what they learn.  Public sector pensions and health care benefits that are far greater than theirs.  Worse, they are not only paying for theirs (through a payroll deduction and/or lower pay) they’re paying for these generous public sector benefits via ever increasing taxes.  And they will be paying these taxes for a long time as few will be able to retire until they’re well into their sixties.  Working some 40-50 years.  While public sector retirees can enjoy their more generous benefits after only working some 20-30 years.

Which is why as liberals gain knowledge and experience they become conservatives.  Because young and dumb was fun in their youth.  But everyone has to grow up.  And learn that their parents were right.  Which is why a lot of people grow up to become conservative like their parents.  But few conservatives become liberals.  Because as it turns out liberalism is a lie.  It is just a means to maintain a privileged class.  Where life is great within the privileged class.  Where you can retire after 20-30 years and receive generous pensions and health care benefits.  But it sucks for those outside that privileged class who have to pay for it.  Which is why public education is not about test scores.  But producing good Democrat voters.  To maintain that privileged class.  Because education is in that privileged class.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Opportunity Costs

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 4th, 2012

Economics 101

Those on the Left are all for Choice as long as you Choose what they want you to Choose

Choice.  It’s what life is.  Every day we make hundreds of choices in our life.  The communists called that a burden.  And that their way removed all that stress from our lives.  The stress of constantly having to choose.  They came up with a new freedom.  Freedom from choice.  To live under oppression.  Like a slave.  Where you no longer had the burden of making a choice every waking hour of your day.  You simply took what the government gave you.  And relaxed.  Truly free.

It turned out the people living under communism preferred having that burden of choice.  And took every opportunity to escape the communist ‘freedom’.  To a freedom where you were free to choose whatever you wanted.  Instead of taking what central planners gave you.  Those on the Left always had a soft spot in their hearts for communism.  And Soviet central planners.  For they never cared that much for free markets.  Laissez faire capitalism.  Freedom of choice.  Because people so often chose poorly in their opinion.  For they weren’t as educated and enlightened as they were on the Left.  And therefore chose the wrong kind of foods to eat.  The wrong kind of beverages to drink.  The wrong kind of cars to drive.  The wrong kind of power to generate.  And the wrong people to vote for.

No.  Those on the Left are no fans of choice.  Except, of course, when it comes to abortion.  When it comes to abortion then they are big fans of choice.  But not so much when it comes to us choosing what to eat, drink and drive.  Or how we generate our energy.  So when it comes to choice those on the Left are like the Soviet central planners.  They are all for choice.  As long as you choose what they want you to choose.

When making any Economic Decisions we make our Choice based on Opportunity Costs 

But we choose.  Because we can.  At least with most things.  But how do we choose?  Does price determine what we choose?  Sometimes.  Quality?  Sometimes.  Loyalty?  Sometimes.  Sometimes it’s one of these things.  Sometimes a combination of all of these things.  Sometimes it’s none of these things.  So what is it that makes up your mind when confronted with a choice?  Do you know?  You do.  For obviously you’re making the choice.  But the ‘why’ we may have to coax out of you.  For you will probably not be able to explain why.  At least not as well an economist can.

The study of economics is all about choice.  And trying to determine what influences people’s choices.  So economists can offer economic policies to maximize economic activity.  By maximizing that thing we ultimately trade for.  Which is what?  Happiness.  We choose to increase our happiness.  Or utility in the parlance of economics.  The things we choose are the things that will give us the greatest happiness.  Or the greatest utility.  But if you’re like me you never saw ‘utility’ or ‘happiness’ expressed as units on a price tag in a store.  Price tags show only price.  Which tells us little how happy something will make us.  So how do we choose the things that will maximize our happiness?  Especially if you’re looking at two different things that have the same price?

Easy.  We don’t make our decision by looking at what we’re buying.  We make our decision based on what we’re not buying.  What we are giving up by buying this thing or that service?  What might have been had it not been for this purchase?  What opportunity we’re passing on to make this purchase?  What cost are we paying in lost opportunity by committing to this purchase?  In other words, when making any economic decisions we make our choice based on opportunity costs.  On an amount of happiness we’re giving up to acquire some other amount of happiness.  And whatever the number of our choices the end result is the same.  What we choose gives us more happiness than all other possible alternatives.  Regardless of price, quality or loyalty.  Though they could influence us when there is a tie.

Liberals make us Buy not what Increases our Happiness but what Increases their Happiness

You can’t put a price on happiness.  That’s what they say.  And they are right.  Whoever they are.  For example, luxury cars are nice.  But they are expensive.  Subcompacts are not as nice as luxury cars.  But they are not as expensive either.  So if you were choosing between these two cars which one would you choose?  I can’t tell because I don’t know your income.  But I can guess at your decision process.  You’re going to compare opportunity costs.  Driving a luxury car gives you enormous amounts of happiness.  For the limited time you spend driving it.  Enormous happiness for a limited amount of time.  Okay.  But what are the opportunity costs?

Let’s say your daily commute to and from work is one hour.  But when you get home you enjoy 4 hours between surfing the Internet and watching cable television.  When you’re not at work or home you like to use social media on your smartphone interacting with your friends.  And using your smart phone apps to maximize your fun in the evenings and on the weekend.  You like to spend your Sunday mornings at the coffee shop with you tablet reading the online Sunday papers.  The hours of driving happiness come to 10 hours a week.  And the hours of online/watching cable happiness comes to 32 hours a week.  Now being that you spend more time online or watching cable than driving then it’s safe to say that driving brings you less happiness than those other activities.  Because luxury cars are expensive they come with a high monthly payment and a high insurance premium.  Which means you will have to cut back on other spending to afford the luxury car.  So to afford the luxury car you have to give up your cable and home Internet access.  And cut back on your minutes on your smartphone.

The opportunity cost of the luxury car is giving up cable TV and cutting back on Internet access and smartphone minutes.  The opportunity cost of keeping those things is getting a subcompact car instead of a luxury car.  This is the ultimate decision we make in all of our economic decisions.  Which will cost us more in sacrificed happiness in the long run?  Which makes those decisions easy.  In the above example you would probably have never given the luxury car any serious thought.  This is why free markets work so well.  Why laissez faire capitalism works so well.  Because the economy is full of individuals making these decisions quickly.  Far quicker than any Soviet state planner.  And with far more insight into our own wants and desires than any Soviet state planner.  And in the aggregate this drives economic activity.  Bringing the things we want to market.  The things that give us the greatest amount of happiness.  The things that have the lowest opportunity costs.  Unlike Soviet central planning.  Or American liberal Democrat central planning. 

No.  These people try to change our purchasing decisions.  Making us buy not what increases our happiness.  But what increases their happiness.  Which is why when liberal Democrats are in power there is a general economic decline.  Because they do alter our purchasing decisions.  By increasing the opportunity costs of the things that increase our happiness.  So that we buy fewer of them.  But we don’t buy more of the things they want us to buy.  Because those things don’t increase our happiness.  When they subsidize hybrid cars (paid for with higher taxes from us) to get us to buy them it doesn’t make the hybrid cars give us any more happiness.  It just leaves us with less money because of the higher taxes.  So we buy less of everything else.  And in the aggregate this lowers economic activity.  Leaving us all less happy.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

FT110: “You can’t blame our dependence on foreign oil for high gas prices AND say that producing more domestic oil won’t lower gas prices.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 23rd, 2012

Fundamental Truth

The Combination of Low Demand and High Supply caused Oil Prices to Fall over 70% by 1986

The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) is a cartel.  Made up currently of Algeria, Angola, Ecuador, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Venezuela.  Their purpose is to set oil quotas for their oil-producing members.  To limit the amount of oil they bring to market.  To reduce supply.  And increase oil prices.  At least that’s the idea.  It’s been hard to keep the individual OPEC members from cheating, though.  And a lot do.  Often selling more than their quota.  Because when oil prices are high selling a few percentages above their quota can be very profitable.  Unless everyone else does so as well.  Which they usually do.  For their choice is either not to cheat and not share in any of those ‘excess’ profits (beyond their agreed to quota).  Or cheat, too.  Thereby increasing supply.  And lowering oil prices.  Not something any oil producer wants to do.  But it’s the only way to share in any of those ‘excess’ profits.

But that’s not the only problem OPEC has.  There are a lot of oil producers who aren’t members of OPEC.  Who can bring oil to market in any quantity they choose.  Especially when they see the high price OPEC is charging.  OPEC’s high price allows non-OPEC suppliers to sell a lot of oil at a slightly lower price and reap huge profits.  Which puts pressure on the OPEC target price.  Forcing them to lower their target price.  For if they don’t lower their price they will lose oil sales to those non-OPEC producers.  Which is exactly what happened in the late Seventies.  While OPEC was cutting back on production (to raise prices) the non-OPEC nations were increasing production.  And taking over market share with their lower prices.  Causing OPEC to reverse policy and increase production during the mid-Eighties.  Giving us the 1980s oil glut.

Of course, this rise in non-OPEC production was a direct result of the 1973 Oil Crisis.  Many of the OPEC members are Muslim nations.  Who don’t like the state of Israel.  In response to the West’s support of Israel in the Yom Kippur War (1973) OPEC announced an oil embargo on those nations who helped Israel.  Giving us the 1973 oil crisis.  Where this sudden reduction in supply caused the price of oil to soar.  Making the oil business a very profitable business.  Causing those non-OPEC producers to enter the market.  Then the Iranian Revolution (1979) disrupted Iranian crude production.  Keeping Iranian oil off the market.  This reduction in demand caused oil prices to rise.  Then Jimmy Carter broke off diplomatic relations with the Iranian state.  And boycotted their oil when it returned to the market.  Further encouraging the non-OPEC producers to bring more oil to market.  Meanwhile U.S. demand fell because of those high prices.  And our switch to smaller, 4-cyclinder, front wheel drive cars.  Saying goodbye to our beloved muscle cars of the Sixties and Seventies.  And the V-8 engine.  The combination of low demand and high supply caused oil prices to fall over 70% by 1986.  Giving us the oil glut of the 1980s.  When gasoline was cheap.  Enticing the V-8 engine back into the market.

Improved Fuel Economy AND Increased Oil Supplies can Reduce the Price at the Pump

So, yes, Virginia.  The amount of oil entering the market matters.  The more of it there is the cheaper it will be.  As history has shown.  When less oil entered the market prices rose.  When more oil entered the market prices fell.  And anything that can affect the supply of oil making it to market will affect the price of oil.  (And everything downstream of oil.  Jet fuel.  Diesel.  And gasoline.)  Wars.  Regional instability.  And governmental regulation. 

So what are things that will bring more oil to market?  Well there’s the obvious.  You drill for more oil.  This is so obvious but a lot of people refuse to accept this economic principle.  As supply increases prices fall.  The 1980s oil glut proved this.  Even John Maynard Keynes has graphs showing this in his Keynesian economics.  The economics of choice for governments everywhere.   Yet there are Keynesian politicians who avert their eyes to this economic principle.  So there’s that.  More drilling.  You can also make the permitting process easier to drill for oil.  You can open up federal lands currently closed to drilling.  And once you find oil you bring it to market.  As quickly as you can.  And few things are quicker than pipelines.  From the oil fields.  To the oil refineries.  (And then jet fuel, diesel and gasoline pipelines from the refineries to dispensing centers).  So before oil fields are ready to produce you start building pipelines from those fields to the refineries.  Or you build new refineries.

Improving fuel economy did help reduce our demand for imported oil in the Eighties.  As well as lowered the price for that imported oil.  But it wasn’t fuel economy alone.  The non-OPEC nations were increasing production from the mid-Seventies through the mid-Eighties.  Without that oil flooding the market oil prices wouldn’t have fallen 70%.  And they won’t fall again if we ONLY try to reduce our demand for foreign oil.  For reducing demand is marginal at best in reducing oil prices. 

Only if we Drill and Build Pipelines can we Reduce the Price at the Pump

For there are no electric airplanes.  The cost to electrify all railroad tracks is too prohibitive to consider.  The capital costs to build that electrical infrastructure.  The maintenance costs to maintain it.  And the electricity costs from the increased demand for electrical power while supply remains the same.  Or falls.  Because excessive regulation inhibits the building of new power plants.  And speeds up the shutdown of older plants.  Especially coal-fired because they pollute too much.  And hydro power.  Because of the environmental impact of dams.  Severely straining our electric grids.  And moving into electric cars will stress our electric grids even further.  Leading to brown outs.  And rolling blackouts.   Or worse.  Causing wires to overheat and sag, coming into contact with trees.  Shorting out.  Causing cascading blackouts as power plants disconnect from the grid to prevent damage from the resulting current surges.  Like they did in the Northeast Blackout of 2003.

You can’t replace oil with electricity.  In some cases there is just no electric equivalent.  Such as the airplane.  Or the cost of moving from oil to electricity is just prohibitive.  Such as updating the nation’s electrical infrastructure to meet an exploding demand.  Which leaves oil.  We need it.  And will keep using it.  Because there is no better alternative.  Yet.  So we need to produce it.  And do everything we can to help bring that oil to market.  Not fight against it.  And it all starts with drilling. 

We must drill.  Bring that oil up from under the ground.  Put it into a pipeline.  And pump it to a refinery.  If we do this enough we will be less dependent on foreign oil.  And have more control over the price at the pump.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

« Previous Entries   Next Entries »