Why the Stock Market is so Good when the Economy is so Bad

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 31st, 2014

Economics 101

No One is going to get Rich by Buying and Selling only one Share of Stock

It takes money to make money.  I’m sure we all heard that before.  If you want to ‘flip’ a house you need money for a down payment to get a mortgage first.  If you want to start a business you need to save up some money first.  Or borrow it from a family member.  And if you want to get rich by playing the stock market you need money.  A lot of money.  Because you only make money by selling stocks.  And before you can sell them you have to buy them.

Stock prices may go up and down a lot.  But over a period of time the average stock price may only increase a little bit.  So if you bought one share of stock at, say, $35 and sold it later at, say, $37.50 that’s a gain of 7.14%.  Which is pretty impressive.  Just try to earn that with a savings account at a bank.  Of course, you only made a whopping $2.50.  So no one is going to get rich by buying and selling only one share of stock.

However, if you bought 10,000 shares of a stock at $35/share and then sold it later at $37.50 that’s a whole other story.  Your initial stock purchase will cost you $350,000.  And that stock will sell for $375,000 at $37.50/share.  Giving you a gain of $25,000.  Let’s say you make 6 buys and sells in a year like this with the same money.  You buy some stock, hold it a month or so and then sell it.  Then you use that money to buy some more stock, hold it for a month or so and then sell it.  Assuming you replicate the same 7.14% stock gain through all of these transactions the total gain will come to $150,000.  And if you used no more than your original investment of $350,000 during that year that $350,000 will have given you a return on investment of 42.9%.  This is why the rich get richer.  Because they have the money to make money.  Of course, if stock prices move the other way investors can have losses as big as these gains.

Rich Investors benefit most from the Fed’s Quantitative Easing that gives us Near-Zero Interest Rates

Rich investors can make an even higher return on investment by borrowing from a brokerage house.  He or she can open a margin account.  Deposit something of value in it (money, stocks, option, etc.) and use that value as collateral.  This isn’t exactly how it works but it will serve as an illustration.  In our example an investor could open a margin account with a value of $175,000.  So instead of spending $350,000 the investor can borrow $175,000 from the broker and add it to his or her $175,000.  Bringing the total stock investment to $350,000.  Earning that $25,000 by risking half of the previous amount.  Bringing the return on investment to 116.7%.  But these big returns come with even bigger risks.  For if your stock loses value it can make your losses as big as those gains.

Some investors borrow money entirely to make money.  Such as carry trades.  Where an investor will borrow a currency from a low-interest rate country to invest in the currency of a higher-interest rate country.  For example, they could borrow a foreign currency at a near zero interest rate (like the Japanese yen).  Convert that money into U.S. dollars.  And then use that money to buy an American treasury bond paying, say, 2%.  So they basically borrow money for free to invest.  Making a return on investment without using any of his or her money.  However, these carry trades can be very risky.  For if the yen gains value against the U.S. dollar the investor will have to pay back more yen than they borrowed.  Wiping out any gain they made.  Perhaps even turning that gain into a loss.  And a small swing in the exchange rate can create a huge loss.

So there is big money to make in the stock market.  Making money with money.  And investors can make even more money when they borrow money.  Making money with other people’s money.  Something rich investors like doing.  Something rich investors can do because they are rich.  For having money means you don’t have to use your money to make money.  Because having money gives you collateral.  The ability to use other people’s money.  At very attractive interest rates.  In fact, it’s these rich investors that benefit most from the Fed’s quantitative easing that is giving us near-zero interest rates.

People on Wall Street are having the Time of their Lives during the Obama Administration

We are in the worst economic recovery since that following the Great Depression.  Yet the stock market is doing very well.  Investors are making a lot of money.  At a time when businesses are not hiring.  The labor force participation rate has fallen to levels not seen since the Seventies.  People can’t find full-time jobs.  Some are working a part-time job because that’s all they can find.  Some are working 2 part-time jobs.  Or more.  Others have just given up trying to find a full-time job.  People the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) no longer counts when calculating the unemployment rate.

This is the only reason why the unemployment rate has fallen.  If you add the number of people who have left the labor force since President Obama took office to the number the BLS reports as unemployed it would bring the unemployment rate up to 13.7% ((10,459,000 + 10,854,000)/155,724,000) at the end of February.  So the economy is still horrible.  No secret to those struggling in it.  And the median family who has seen their income fall.  So why is the stock market doing so well when businesses are not?  When profitable businesses operations typically drive the stock market?  For when businesses do well they grow and hire more people.  But businesses aren’t growing and hiring more people.  So if it’s not profitable businesses operations raising stock prices what is?  Just how are the rich getting richer when the economy as a whole is stuck in the worst economic recovery since that following the Great Depression?

Because of near zero interest rates.  The Fed has lowered interest rates to near zero to purportedly stimulate the economy.  Which it hasn’t.  When they could lower interest rates no more they started their quantitative easing.  Printing money to buy bonds on the open market.  Flooding the economy with cheap money.  But people aren’t borrowing it.  Because the employment picture is so poor that they just aren’t spending money.  Either because they don’t have a job.  Only have a part time job.  Or are terrified they may lose their job.  And if they do lose their job the last thing they want when unemployed is a lot of debt they can’t service.  And then there’s Obamacare.  Forcing people to buy costly insurance.  Leaving them less to spend on other things.  And increasing the cost of doing business.  Another reason not to hire people.

So the economy is going nowhere.  And because of the bad economy businesses have no intentions of spending or expanding.  So they don’t need any of that cheap money.  So where is it going?  Wall Street.  The only people who are borrowing and spending money.  They’re taking that super cheap money and they’re using it to buy and sell stocks.  They’re buying and selling like never before.  Making huge profits.  Thanks to other people’s money.  This is what is raising stock prices.  Not profitable businesses operations.  But investors bidding up stock prices with borrowed money.  The people on Wall Street are having the time of their lives during the Obama administration.  Because the Obama administration’s policies favor the rich on Wall Street.  Whose only worry these days is if the Fed stops printing money.  Which will raise interest rates.  And end the drunken orgy on Wall Street.  Which is why whenever it appears the Fed will taper (i.e., print less money each month) their quantitative easing because the economy is ‘showing signs of improvement’ investors panic and start selling.  In a rush to lock in their earnings before the stock prices they inflated come crashing down to reality.  For without that ‘free’ money from the Fed the orgy of buying will come to an end.  And no one wants to be the one holding on to those inflated stocks when the bubble bursts.  When there will be no more buyers.  At least, when there will be no more buyers willing to buy at those inflated stock prices.  Which is why investors today hate good economic news.  For there is nothing worse for an investor in the Obama economy than a good economy.



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

Panic of 1907, Federal Reserve Act and Depression of 1920

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 17th, 2013

History 101

In 1907 the Heinze Brothers thought Investors were Shorting the Stock of their United Copper Company

Buying and selling stocks is one way to get rich.  Typically by buying low and selling high.  But you can also get rich if the stock price falls.  How you ask?  By short-selling the stock.  You borrow shares of a stock that you think will fall in price.  You sell them at the current price.  Then when the stock price falls you buy the same number of shares you borrowed at the lower price.  And use these to return the shares you borrowed.  You subtract the price you pay to buy the cheaper shares from the proceeds of selling the costlier shares for your profit.  And if the price difference/number of shares is great enough you can get rich.

In 1907 the Heinze brothers thought investors were shorting the stock of their United Copper Company.  So they tried to turn the tables on them and get rich.  They already owned a lot of the stock.  They then went on a buying spree with the intention of raising the price of the stock.  If they successfully cornered the market on United Copper Company stock then the investors shorting the stock would have no choice but to buy from them to repay their borrowed shares.  Causing the short sellers to incur a great loss.  While reaping a huge profit for themselves.

Well, that was the plan.  But it didn’t quite go as planned.  For they did not control as much of the stock as they thought they did.  So when the short-sellers had to buy new shares to replace their borrowed shares they could buy them elsewhere.  And did.  When other investors saw they weren’t going to get rich on the cornering scheme the price of the stock plummeted.  For the stock was only worth that inflated price if the short-sellers had to buy it at the price the Heinze brothers dictated.  When the cornering scheme failed the stock they paid so much to corner was worth nowhere near what they paid for it.  And they took a huge financial loss.  But it got worse.

The Panic of 1907 led to the Federal Reserve Act of 1913

After getting rich in the copper business in Montana they moved east to New York City.  And entered the world of high finance.  And owned part of 6 national banks, 10 state banks, 5 trusts (kind of like a bank) and 4 insurance companies.  When the cornering scheme failed the Heinze brothers lost a lot of money.  Which spooked people with money in their banks and trusts.  As these helped finance their scheme.  So the people rushed to their banks and pulled their money out.  Causing a panic.  First their banks.  Then their trusts.  Including the Knickerbocker Trust Company.  Which collapsed.  As the contagion spread to other banks the banking system was in risk of collapsing.  Causing a stock market crash.  Resulting in the Panic of 1907.

Thankfully, a rich guy, J.P. Morgan, stepped in and saved the banking system.  By using his own money.  And getting other rich guys to use theirs.  To restore liquidity in the banking system.  To avoid another liquidity crisis like this Congress passed the Federal Reserve Act (1913).  Giving America a central bank.  And the progressives the tool to take over the American economy.  Monetary policy.  By tinkering with interest rates.  And breaking away from the classical economic policies of the past that made America the number one economic power in the world.  Built on a foundation of thrift, savings, investment, free trade, the gold standard, etc.  Where people saved for the future.  The greater their savings the more investment capital there was.  And the lower interest rates were.

The Federal Reserve (the Fed) changed all of that.  By printing money to keep interest rates artificially low.  Giving us boom and bust cycles as people over invest and over build because of cheap credit.  Leading to bubbles (the boom) in asset prices that painful recessions (the bust) correct.  Instead of the genuine growth that we got when our savings determined interest rates.  Where there is no over-investing or over-building.  Because the limited investment capital did not permit it.  Guaranteeing the efficient flows of capital to generate real economic activity.

Warren Harding’s Tax Cuts ignited Economic Activity and gave us the Modern World

Thanks to the Fed there was a great monetary expansion to fund World War I.  The Fed cut the reserve requirements in half for banks.  Meaning they could loan more of their deposits.  And they did.  Thanks to fractional reserve banking these banks then furthered the monetary expansion.  And the Fed kept the discount rate low to let banks borrow even more money to lend.  The credit expansion was vast.  Creating a huge bubble in asset prices.  Creating a lot of bad investments.  Or malinvestments.  Economist Ludwig von Mises had a nice analogy to explain this.  Imagine a builder constructing a house only he doesn’t realize he doesn’t have enough materials to finish the job.  The longer it takes for the builder to realize this the more time and resources he will waste.  For it will be less costly to abandon the project before he starts than waiting until he’s built as much as he can only to discover he will be unable to sell the house.  And without selling the house the builder will be unable to recover any of his expenses.  Giving him a loss on his investment.

The bigger those bubbles get the farther those artificially high prices have to fall.  And they will fall sooner or later.  And fall they did in 1920.  Giving us the Depression of 1920.  And it was bad.  Unemployment rose to 12%.  And GDP fell by 17%.  Interestingly, though, this depression was not a great depression.  Why?  Because the progressives were out of power.  Instead of the usual Keynesian solution to a recession Warren Harding (and then Calvin Coolidge after Harding died in office) did the opposite.  There was no stimulus deficit-spending.  There was no playing with interest rates.  Instead, Harding cut government spending.  Nearly in half.  And he cut tax rates.  These actions led to a reduction of the national debt (that’s DEBT—not deficit) by one third.  And ignited economic activity.  Ushering in the modern world (automobiles, electric power, radio, telephone, aviation, motion pictures, etc.).  Building the modern world generated real economic activity.  Not a credit-driven bubble.  Giving us one of the greatest economic expansions of all time.  The Roaring Twenties.  Ending the Depression of 1920 in only 18 months.  Without any Fed action or Keynesian stimulus spending.

By contrast FDR used almost every Keynesian tool available to him to end the Great Depression.  But his massive New Deal spending simply failed to end it.  After a decade or so of trying.  Proving that government spending cannot spend an economy out of recession.  But cuts in government spending and cuts in tax rates can.  Which is why the Great Recession lingers on still.  Some 6 years after the collapse of one of the greatest housing bubbles ever.  Created by one of the greatest credit expansions ever.  For President Obama is a Keynesian.  And Keynesian policies only lead to boom-bust cycles.  Not real economic growth.  The kind we got from classical economic policies.  Built on a foundation of thrift, savings, investment, free trade, the gold standard, etc.  The economic policies that made America the number economic power in the world.



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

The August Jobs Report, Stuck between a Lie and a Hard Place

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 8th, 2013

Week in Review

The left has been lauding the good economic news jobs report after jobs report.  Always talking about all those new jobs created.  And the falling unemployment rate.  While not talking at all about the falling labor force participation rate.  For good reason.  For while new jobs and a falling unemployment rate are good people leaving the labor force is not.  And, sadly, the only thing making the jobs report look good is that people are simply disappearing from the labor force (see 169K New Jobs Last Month, 7.3% Unemployment: Conflicting Signals For The Fed by Abram Brown posted 9/6/2013 on Forbes).

Unemployment continues to fall, with joblessness reaching a 4-and-a-half-year low in August at 7.3%. Troublingly, the drop in unemployment comes from fewer people looking for jobs rather than a robust economy adding workers to open positions. The number of Americans participating in the labor market is at the lower [sic]point since August 1978.

Going forward, the Fed will need to decide how much stock to put in the unemployment number. It threatens to continue to fall while job creation stays meager–setting up a situation when the Fed could reduce its stimulus at a time when the recovery still isn’t firmly rooted. “People were not supposed to be dropping from the labor force this year,” says FTN Financial’s Chris Low. “While the Fed wrestles with this quandary, we’ll wait to see if it really meant what it said about the quality of improvement in the unemployment rate…At the Fed, there is a tendency to fall back on the unemployment rate as the best gauge of labor market health.” And he warns, “Markets will be unsettled.”

So what is a lying government to do?  After all of those years, and all those jobs reports, trumpeting the success of their economic policies based on the fall in the official unemployment rate, what do they say about the Fed who may raise interest rates because the official unemployment rate says the economy has recovered while the labor force participation rate says it’s still in the toilet?  When the only economic activity has been their friends on Wall Street taking the money the Fed was making and investing it?  Making money with money?  But making no jobs?  That’s something a Democrat administration is not supposed to do.  Helping rich people at the expense of the middle class.  So what is a lying government to do?

Tell the truth and admit that their economic policies have all failed?  To keep that cheap money tap open for their friends on Wall Street?  Or lie?  And say their economic policies have been successful?  And offer no rationale to keep the easy money tap open?  And let them close that tap?  Killing the only economic recovery?  That was enjoyed only by their friends on Wall Street?  Thus exposing the lie that their economic policies created any kind of economic recovery?

Quite the quandary for the Obama administration.



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

Rand Paul says Milton Friedman would oppose the Fed’s Bond Buying Program

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 17th, 2013

Week in Review

What’s the difference between hard money (gold, silver, etc.) and paper money?  You can’t print hard money.  Which is why big-spending governments hate hard money.  And love paper money.  They use lofty economic explanations like having the money supply grow at a rate to support an expanding economy.  But the real reason they love paper money is because there is no limit on what they can spend.

This is why some people would prefer bringing back the gold standard.  To make the government as responsible as the rest of us.  Governments and their liberal friends hate this kind of talk.  And try to dismiss it with all-knowing condescension.  Because they sound so learned in their defense of their monetary policies despite a long record of failure they get to keep trying the same failed policies of the past.

Now it’s Rand Paul talking about the gold standard.  Invoking the name of Milton Friedman.  A monetarist.  And receiving the expected criticism (see Rand Paul is dead wrong about Milton Friedman by James Pethokoukis posted 8/13/2013 on the guardian).

Friedman understood the power of monetary policy, for both good and ill. He would almost certainly have been aghast that the Fed blew it again in 2008 by its tight money policies that possibly turned a modest downturn into the Great Recession. And he almost certainly would have been appalled at Republicans pushing for tight money – or, heaven help us, a return to the gold standard – with the economy barely growing and inflation low. It is certainly inconvenient for Paul that Friedman – a libertarian, Nobel-laureate economist – would have little use for the senator’s supposedly Hayekian take on the Fed or monetary policy.

Although the Bernanke Fed has imperfectly executed its QE programs, they are a big reason why the US is growing and adding jobs – despite President’s Obama’s regulatory onslaught and tax hikes – and the EU (and the inflation hawk ECB) is back in recession. Paul is wrong on Friedman and wrong on the Fed. It’s not even close.

One of Friedman’s criticisms of the gold standard is that to maintain the international price of gold—and price stability—governments would have to give up control of their domestic policies.  As a gold standard would prevent them from expanding the money supply at will.  So they couldn’t print money and devalue their currency to increase government spending.  To give themselves an unfair trade advantage.  And to monetize their debt from past irresponsible government spending.  But governments being governments they will do these things even with a gold standard.  As Richard Nixon and the US government did in the 1970s.  Rapidly devaluing the dollar.  Causing a great outflow of gold from the US as our trading partners preferred to hold onto gold instead of devalued US dollars.

The idea of monetarism was to have something similar like a gold standard while having the ability to expand the money supply to keep up with the growth in GDP.  And this would work if responsible people were in charge.  Who would resist the urge to print money.  Like Ronald Reagan.  Under the advice from none other than Milton Friedman.  Who served on the President Reagan’s Economic Policy Advisory Board.  Reagan shared Friedman’s economic views.  Believed in a limited government that left the free market alone.  So Reagan cut taxes, reduced government spending (other than defense) and deregulated an overregulated free market wherever he could.  All things Friedman endorsed.

It is unlikely that Friedman would endorse any quantitative easing.  Because a lack of credit is not causing our economic woes.  It’s a complicated tax code.  High tax rates.  And way too much governmental regulation and interference into the free market.  Especially Obamacare.  That has frozen all new hiring.  And pushed full-time workers into part-time positions.  Or out of a job entirely.  More money in the economy is not going to fix this anti-business climate of the Obama administration.  In fact, the only people making any money now are rich people.  Who are using all that new money to make more money in the stock market.  And when the government shuts off the quantitative easing tap those rich people are going to bail out of the stock market.  To lock in their profits.  Causing the stock market to crash.  And putting an end to the phony illusion of an economic recovery.  And the worst economic recovery since that following the Great Depression will get worse.



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

Ben Bernanke defends QE3 before Congress even while Admitting it won’t Create any New Jobs

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 6th, 2012

Week in Review

Ben Bernanke, Federal Reserve Chairman, is a student of the Great Depression.  And of Milton Friedman.  Who he cited often to support his policies when speaking before Congress.  Insisting that their expansionary monetary policy will only stimulate growth.  Not inflation.  Of course, he has already tried quantitative easing one and two and they failed.  As demonstrated by the need of QE3.  Yet these Keynesians always go back to the tried and failed Keynesian policies.  Increase the money supply to lower interest rates.  To encourage people to build and sell new housing while the market is still flooded with homes left over when the housing bubble burst back in 2008.

Economics is not like trying to cure a hangover.  A little hair of the dog (drinking more alcohol to mitigate the effects of a hangover) doesn’t work in economics.  More bad monetary policy does not cure previous bad monetary policy.  At least, it hasn’t yet.  Nor does it appear that it ever will (see Bernanke presses Congress to support US economy by AFP posted 10/2/2012 on Channel News Asia).

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said on Monday he is confident the US economy will continue to expand, but he urged the US Congress and the White House to act to support stronger growth…

However, he said the economy is growing at a weak 1.5-2 percent rate, not fast enough to lower the employment rate, and that the Fed’s stimulus efforts need to be backed up by action from the rest of the government…

“Many other steps could be taken to strengthen our economy over time, such as putting the federal budget on a sustainable path, reforming the tax code, improving our educational system, supporting technological innovation, and expanding international trade,” Bernanke said.

“In particular, the Congress and the administration will soon have to address the so-called fiscal cliff, a combination of sharply higher taxes and reduced spending that is set to happen at the beginning of the year.

“According to the Congressional Budget Office and virtually all other experts, if that were allowed to occur, it would likely throw the economy back into recession,” he warned.

Bernanke is on to something here.  He acknowledges that the new taxes of the fiscal cliff could throw the economy back into recession.  So if more taxes will prolong or deepen the recession what can we infer from this?  Would not fewer taxes have the opposite effect?

This is the frustrating thing about all of these students of the Great Depression.  They only look at what the Fed did when they were contracting the money supply.  And nothing else.  They don’t talk about a massive increase in tariffs (the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930) in Congressional committee during 1929.  Before the Stock Market Crash of 1929.  Nor do they discuss the progressive policies of Republican Herbert Hoover.  And his interference into market forces.  Trying to raise prices everywhere to help farmers earn more and allow employers to pay their employees more.  And the near doubling of federal income tax rates.  Talk about your economic cold shower.

This was a 180-degree turn from the pro-business polices of the Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge administrations.  That let the Twenties roar with solid economic growth.  Yes, there were some inflationary monetary policies.  The Fed was no angel.  But the growth was strong even after the effects of inflation were factored in.  It was all those tax and tariff increases that turned a recession into a depression.  And then the bad Fed policy destroyed the banking industry on top of it.  Unfortunately, that’s the only part that any Keynesian ever sees.  What the Fed did.  Not the solid economic growth generated by low tax rates and a business-friendly environment.

The Fed’s artificially low interest rates pushed house prices into the stratosphere.  And because they were so high in 2008 they had a very long way to fall.  Which is why the Great Recession has been so painful and so prolonged.  Now they’re trying to stimulate the housing market again.  The very thing that got us into this mess in the first place.  Here’s another lesson the Keynesians need to learn.  Their expansionary policies make recessions longer and more painful.  And there is more to the economy than low interest rates.  For no matter how low they are if the environment is too business-unfriendly they won’t stimulate economic activity.  Lower tax rates and deregulation will.  But not lower interest rates.  That’s what Warren Harding/Calvin Coolidge did.  What JFK did.  What Ronald Reagan did.  What George W. Bush did.  Who all had much faster recoveries following bad recessions than President Obama is having under his Keynesian policies.

If only we could learn the objective lessons of history.  For as George Santayana (1905) said, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to fulfill it.”



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

After the Fed says they will Print More Money (QE3) Egan-Jones downgrades U.S. Sovereign Debt

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 16th, 2012

Week in Review

Back when the Congress and the White House were battling it out to raise the debt limit the final compromise to raise the limit caused Standard and Poor’s to lower the U.S. sovereign debt rating for the first time in history.  The Left blamed the Republicans for refusing to raise taxes.  As if the excessive spending had nothing to do with it.  Well, another credit agency is downgrading the U.S. sovereign debt rating.  And this happened after the Fed announced QE3.  And nothing else (see Egan-Jones downgrades U.S. rating on QE3 move by Wallace Witkowski posted 9/14/2012 on Market Watch).

Egan-Jones Ratings Co. said Friday it downgraded its U.S. sovereign rating to AA- from AA on concerns that the Fed’s new round of quantitative easing, or QE3, will hurt the U.S. economy. The ratings agency said the Fed’s plan of buying $40 billion in mortgage-backed securities a month and keeping interest rates near zero does little to raise GDP, reduces the value of the dollar, and raises the price of commodities.

QE3 is Keynesian stimulus.  Printing money.  Which according to Egan-Jones won’t help the economy.  Apparently the people at Egan-Jones aren’t Keynesians.  Like in the Obama administration.  And at the Fed.  QE3 will devalue the dollar and raise prices.  While it may cause some short-term stimulus it will only make things worse in the long run.  Because of that inflation.  And it doesn’t address the real drag on the economy.  The anti-business policies of the Obama administration.  The biggest one being Obamacare.  With Taxmageddon right up there with it.  It’s the high taxes and costly regulatory policies that are holding back economic growth.  And devaluing the dollar doesn’t help these problems.  It only compounds them.  By raising prices.

QE3 will take a bad economy and make it worse.  Making the recession longer.  And the eventual recovery more painful.  Just like every recovery after a long period of inflation.  Just like after the Seventies.  Just like after the Nineties after the dot-com bubble burst.  Just like now after the subprime mortgage crisis.  There is a pattern here.  Easy money leads to irrational exuberance.  (Reckless spending encouraged by cheap money.)  And very unpleasant recoveries.  We got out of the early Eighties recession by cutting taxes.  Not with inflationary monetary policies.  We got out of the early 2000s recession by cutting taxes.  Along with some inflationary monetary policy.  The recovery wasn’t as long lasting as it was following the Eighties.  Now they are only proposing inflationary monetary policy without any tax cuts.  Which is why the Great Recession lingers still.  Proving tax cuts stimulate.  Not inflationary monetary policy.



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

The Fed believes the Third Time’s the Charm when it comes to Printing Money so here comes QE3

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 16th, 2012

Week in Review

The Keynesians will print more money.  QE3 is on its way.  The third round of quantitative easing.  Because QE3 will pull this economy out of recession.  Just as they said QE2 would.  Just as they said QE1 would before that.  And just because they failed the last two times they tried this doesn’t mean it will fail this time, too (see Fed Pulls Trigger, to Buy Mortgages in Effort to Lower Rates by Jeff Cox, CNBC, posted 9/13/2012 on Yahoo! Finance).

The Fed said it will buy $40 billion of mortgage-backed securities per month in an attempt to foster a nascent recovery in the real estate market. The purchases will be open-ended, meaning that they will continue until the Fed is satisfied that economic conditions, primarily in unemployment, improve…

Enacting the third leg of quantitative easing will take the Fed’s money creation past the $3 trillion level since it began the process in 2008.

According to the Wall Street Journal the Fed balance sheet stood at just below $1 trillion prior to the Great Recession.  That is, pre QE1.  Since then the Fed has increased that to $2.8 trillion prior to QE3.  An increase of 180%.  QE3 will take that above $3 trillion.  And increase from the level before the Great Recession of over 200%.    Meaning the monetary base after QE3 will be more than three times the monetary base prior to QE1.  And all during the Obama presidency.  In less than four years.  And just like QE1 and QE2 this latest quantitative easing won’t work either.  For like so many are saying if quantitative easing worked there would not have been a need for QE2 let alone QE3.  So it won’t help the economy.  But it will have an effect.

In addition, he addressed concerns that savers are being penalized from low interest rates, saying that the policy has allowed for growth in other areas.

“While low interest rates impose some costs, Americans will ultimately benefit most from the healthy and growing economy that low interest rates promote,” he said.

Small business owners have no idea of the full impact of Obamacare on their businesses.  So they are not hiring anyone anytime soon.  And then there’s Taxmageddon.  The largest tax increase in history to occur 1/1/2013.  Environmental policy.  And so on.  These are the things preventing people from hiring new employees.  And no amount of cheap money will change that.  Some people understand this.  Keynesians don’t.  In fact, the only thing they understand is spending money.  The key to economic activity is putting as much money into the hands of spenders as possible.  So they spend it.  And the people that get this money spend it, too.  And the people that get this money spend it after they get it.  And so on.  According to the Keynesian multiplier.  Where spending begets more spending.  Spending is good.  But savings is not.  According to Keynesians.  They see saving as lost economic activity.  Leakage from the economy.  So they want people to save as little as possible.  So they like low interest rates.  Because it provides no incentive for people to save.  So Keynesian policies penalize savers.  They understand this.  And they approve of this.

Of course with all the money the Fed is printing there will be inflation.  It’s just a matter of time.  We’d have double digit inflation right now based on the growth of the monetary base if there weren’t worse economies than the U.S. economy.  Some Eurozone countries are so bad no one wants to invest in their economies.  So they’re parking their money in the U.S.  Even at these low interest rates.  Even paying banks (i.e., negative interest rates) to hold their money.  Because it is the safest alternative.  But how long can this last?

The stock market, which had been slightly positive prior to the decision, shortly after 12:30 p.m., surged while bond yields, particularly farther out on the curve, jumped higher. Gold and other metals gained at least 1 percent across the board while the dollar slid against most global currencies…

Washington conservatives have been critical of the central bank’s money creation, which has caused its balance sheet to swell to $2.8 trillion. They worry that the growing money supply will lead to inflation, which has reared its head in food and energy prices but has remained tame through the broader economy.

Bill Gross, who runs bond giant Pimco, said the new round of easing would take the Fed’s balance sheet up to nearly $3.5 trillion if the purchases continue for a year.

“That potentially is reflationary,” he told CNBC. “We’re just to have to see if it works.”

Bonds issued when interest rates were higher have increased in value.  Because you can’t buy bonds today at such a high interest rate.  So older bonds (with higher interest rates) are worth more than newer bonds (at lower interest rates).

Gold increases in value when the value of the dollar drops.  Because the price of gold is in dollars.  So when you put more dollars into the monetary base you depreciate the dollar.  And raise prices.  Because it takes more weaker-dollars to buy the same things the once stronger-dollars bought.

So far inflation has been confined to food and energy.  Where it is harder to hide.  Especially oil.  Because it’s sold by the barrel for dollars.  So when you make the dollar weaker you send up the price of oil.  And everything you make from oil.  Like gasoline.  Which is why gasoline prices are approaching record highs.  Not because of a booming economy.  But because of inflation.

There is inflation in food, too.  But you can hide this a little.  You can keep prices steady while reducing portion sizes.  So the price per unit portion sold is higher.  But people don’t notice this as much as they do the price at the pump.  Where they cannot reduce the portion size.  Because gas is sold by the gallon.  Which means the full effect of Keynesian inflation monetary policy is reflected in the gas price.  Which is why high gas prices anger us more than just about everything else.

So inflation is here.  And at the rate they’re printing money it’s going to explode sooner or later.  For they’re printing it at a far greater rate than they did during the stagflation of the Seventies.  Giving Jimmy Carter that high misery index (unemployment rate plus the inflation rate).  A policy that did not help Carter’s economy.  Nor will it help the current economy.  In fact, it will only take a bad economy and make it worse.

If printing money worked the Seventies would have been a decade of unprecedented growth.  But they weren’t.  In fact all nations that printed money suffered from high inflation.  And poor economic growth.  Yet they pursue the same policy today.  Why?  Because if they don’t it’s an admission that their policies have been failures.  At the same time admitting that the Republican policies are better policies.  And they would rather throw the country into another depression before admitting that.



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.



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

Federal Reserve System, Great Depression, Banking Crises, Gold Reserves, Gold Exchange Standard, Interest Rates and Money Supply

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 31st, 2012

History 101

The Gold Exchange Standard provided Stability for International Trade

Congress created the Federal Reserve System (the Fed) with the passage of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913.  They created the Fed because of some recent bad depressions and financial panics.  Which they were going to make a thing of the past with the Fed.  It had three basic responsibilities.  Maximize employment.  Stabilize prices.  And optimize interest rates.  With the government managing these things depressions and financial panics weren’t going to happen on the Fed’s watch.

The worst depression and financial panic of all time happened on the Fed’s watch.  The Great Depression.  From 1930.  Until World War II.  A lost decade.  A period that saw the worst banking crises.  And the greatest monetary contraction in U.S. history.  And this after passing the Federal Reserve Act to prevent any such things from happening.  So why did this happen?  Why did a normal recession turn into the Great Depression?  Because of government intervention into the economy.  Such as the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act that triggered the great selloff and stock market crash.  And some really poor monetary policy.  As well as bad fiscal policy.

At the time the U.S. was on a gold exchange standard.  Paper currency backed by gold.  And exchangeable for gold.  The amount of currency in circulation depended upon the amount of gold on deposit.  The Federal Reserve Act required a gold reserve for notes in circulation similar to fractional reserve banking.  Only instead of keeping paper bills in your vault you had to keep gold.  Which provided stability for international trade.  But left the domestic money supply, and interest rates, at the whim of the economy.  For the only way to lower interest rates to encourage borrowing was to increase the amount of gold on deposit.  For with more gold on hand you can increase the money supply.  Which lowered interest rates.  That encouraged people to borrow money to expand their businesses and buy things.  Thus creating economic activity.  At least in theory.

The Fed contracted the Money Supply even while there was a Positive Gold Flow into the Country

The gold standard worked well for a century or so.  Especially in the era of free trade.  Because it moved trade deficits and trade surpluses towards zero.  Giving no nation a long-term advantage in trade.  Consider two trading partners.  One has increasing exports.  The other increasing imports.  Why?  Because the exporter has lower prices than the importer.  As goods flow to the importer gold flows to the exporter to pay for those exports.  The expansion of the local money supply inflates the local currency and raises prices in the exporter country.  Back in the importer country the money supply contracts and lowers prices.  So people start buying more from the once importing nation.  Thus reversing the flow of goods and gold.  These flows reverse over and over keeping the trade deficit (or surplus) trending towards zero.  Automatically.  With no outside intervention required.

Banknotes in circulation, though, required outside intervention.  Because gold isn’t in circulation.  So central bankers have to follow some rules to make this function as a gold standard.  As gold flows into their country (from having a trade surplus) they have to expand their money supply by putting more bills into circulation.  To do what gold did automatically.  Increase prices.  By maintaining the reserve requirement (by increasing the money supply by the amount the gold deposits increased) they also maintain the fixed exchange rate.  An inflow of gold inflates your currency and an outflow of gold deflates your currency.  When central banks maintain this mechanism with their monetary policy currencies remain relatively constant in value.  Giving no price advantage to any one nation.  Thus keeping trade fair.

After the stock market crash in 1929 and the failure of the Bank of the United States in New York failed in 1930 the great monetary contraction began.  As more banks failed the money they created via fractional reserve banking disappeared.  And the money supply shrank.  And what did the Fed do?  Increased interest rates.  Making it harder than ever to borrow money.  And harder than ever for banks to stay in business as businesses couldn’t refinance their loans and defaulted.  The Fed did this because it was their professional opinion that sufficient credit was available and that adding liquidity then would only make it harder to do when the markets really needed additional credit.  So they contracted the money supply.  Even while there was a positive gold flow into the country.

The Gold Standard works Great when all of your Trading Partners use it and they Follow the Rules

Those in the New York Federal Reserve Bank wanted to increase the money supply.  The Federal Reserve Board in Washington disagreed.  Saying again that sufficient credit was available in the market.  Meanwhile people lost faith in the banking system.  Rushed to get their money out of their bank before it, too, failed.  Causing bank runs.  And more bank failures.  With these banks went the money they created via fractional reserve banking.  Further deflating the money supply.  And lowering prices.  Which was the wrong thing to happen with a rising gold supply.

Well, that didn’t last.  France went on the gold standard with a devalued franc.  So they, too, began to accumulate gold.  For they wanted to become a great banking center like London and New York.  But these gold flows weren’t operating per the rules of a gold exchange.  Gold was flowing generally in one direction.  To those countries hoarding gold.  And countries that were accumulating gold weren’t inflating their money supplies to reverse these flows.  So nations began to abandon the gold exchange standard.  Britain first.  Then every other nation but the U.S.

Now the gold standard works great.  But only when all of your trading partners are using it.  And they follow the rules.  Even during the great contraction of the money supply the Fed raised interest rates to support the gold exchange.  Which by then was a lost cause.  But they tried to make the dollar strong and appealing to hold.  So people would hold dollars instead of their gold.  This just further damaged the U.S. economy, though.  And further weakened the banking system.  While only accelerating the outflow of gold.  As nations feared the U.S. would devalue their currency they rushed to exchange their dollars for gold.  And did so until FDR abandoned the gold exchange standard, too, in 1933.  But it didn’t end the Great Depression.  Which had about another decade to go.



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

Obama Looking less George W. Bush and more Jimmy Carter/LBJ

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 1st, 2011

Construction Spending down despite all those Shovel-Ready Projects

Some days it just sucks to be Obama (see February construction spending down 1.4% by Steve Goldstein posted 1/1/2011 on MarketWatch).

February construction spending fell 1.4% to a seasonally-adjusted annual rate of $760.6 billion, the lowest level in more than 11 years, the Commerce Department said Friday. January spending was revised lower to a decline of 1.8% from a previous estimate of a 0.7% fall. Economists polled by MarketWatch had forecast a 0.1% rise.

Construction is the last to enter recession.  And it’s the last to emerge from recession.  Because it takes a long time to go from design to completion.  But after all those shovel-ready projects bought and paid for by the stimulus bill back in 2009, construction should not be the worse it has been in 11 years.  That means the economy is still a mess.  And it may very well get messier.

First bad Fiscal and Monetary Policy, then Inflation

Yes, we’re still mired in recession.  But recession may soon be joined with something we haven’t seen since the 1970s.  At least, not during a recession (see Fed Is Likely to Raise Rates By End of the Year: Lacker by CNBC.com and Reuters posted 1/1/2011 on CNBC).

Richmond Federal Reserve President Jeffrey Lacker told CNBC Friday that he “wouldn’t be surprised” if the central bank raised interest rates before the end of the year…

He said his greater concern is rising inflation and controlling it in the next nine months “will be critical for us.”

Jimmy Carter must be smiling.  Many say he was the worst president.  Mainly because of the stagflation of the 1970s.  High unemployment and high inflation.  Normally, you don’t get the two together unless you really managed to make a mess of the economy.  And now it looks like Obama may go all Jimmy Carter on us.  We still have record unemployment.  And the Fed, while they’re still planning to go ahead with more quantitative easing in June:

At its last meeting, the Fed voted unanimously to continue as planned with its $600 billion bond purchase program, designed to lower interest rates and stimulate growth, which is scheduled to end in June.

is already talking about battling the inflation their previous actions have given us.  Which they did in a futile attempt to counter Obama’s job-killing fiscal policies.  No doubt Carter is grateful he has lived to see this day.  When another president has ruined the economy greater than he did.

TARP bails out Libyan Owned Bank

But it gets better.  For Carter, that is (see Libya-Owned Arab Banking Corp. Drew at Least $5 Billion From Fed in Crisis by Donal Griffin and Bob Ivry posted 1/1/2011 on Bloomberg).

Arab Banking Corp., the lender part- owned by the Central Bank of Libya, used a New York branch to get 73 loans from the U.S. Federal Reserve in the 18 months after Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. collapsed.

The bank, then 29 percent-owned by the Libyan state, had aggregate borrowings in that period of $35 billion — while the largest single loan amount outstanding was $1.2 billion in July 2009, according to Fed data released yesterday. In October 2008, when lending to financial institutions by the central bank’s so- called discount window peaked at $111 billion, Arab Banking took repeated loans totaling more than $2 billion…

Arab Banking reported a loss of $880 million in 2008 as it took a $1.1 billion charge tied to structured investment vehicles and derivative products known as collateralized debt obligations. Arab Banking recovered during the next two years, posting profits totaling $265 million.

So, Arab Banking Corp., part-owned by the Central Bank of Libya, the country we’re currently bombing now to ‘encourage’ regime change, was ‘bailed out’ in our TARP program.  That hurts in so many ways.  Our tax dollars that our Congress authorized to purchase trouble assets (i.e., all those Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac subprime mortgages) not only bailed out Obama’s friends on Wall Street, they bailed out foreign banks.  Even helped a Libyan dictator.  Who we’re now trying to ‘accidentally’ kill.  I mean, you can’t make this stuff up.  Meanwhile, Carter looks like a better president with each day that passes by.  Who’d’ve thunk it?

Liberal Base says Obama is Worse than George W. Bush

And speaking of that Libyan…thing…that’s not a war but has all the bombing and killing of a war…how’s that going?  Not so good with the president’s base (see Liberals outraged by Libya intervention posted 1/1/2011 on UPI).

Liberal Democrats, key to Barack Obama’s election as U.S. president, are some of the loudest critics on his strategy on Libya, a review of reaction indicates…

“In two years we have moved from President [George W.] Bush’s doctrine of preventive war to President Obama’s assertion of the right to go to war without even the pretext of a threat to our nation,” Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, an anti-war liberal, said Thursday during a House floor speech. “This is a clear and arrogant violation of our Constitution. Even a war launched for humanitarian reasons is still a war — and only Congress can declare war.”

Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., said Congress and the White House have argued for years over the division of power in wartime, but “the Constitution grants sole authority to the Congress to commit the nation to battle in the first instance.”

That sounds like they’re saying that Obama is worse than George W. Bush.  Wow.  At least Bush had the pretext of weapons of mass destruction.  What’s Obama got?  Well, had he not acted, there may have been another civil war in the world.  As bad as that is, it isn’t an imminent risk to American security.  Which means the president did not have the Constitutional authority to do what he did.  Unlike George W. Bush in Iraq.

The Military doesn’t want Obama’s Libyan War

So he’s losing his liberal base.  But he’s still got the military establishment, doesn’t he?  As the Left well knows, they don’t care about right or wrong.  They just like to kill people and blow things up.  Right?  Not exactly.  You see, actually knowing a thing or two about war, they are not all that eager to go to war (see U.S. Military Not Happy Over Libya by Leslie H. Gelb posted 1/31/2011 on The Daily Beast).

Pentagon civilian leaders and the military brass see nothing but trouble looming as the Obama administration takes one step after another into the Libyan morass. The next step appears to be arming the Libyan rebels, a move that would inevitably entail pressures to send U.S. trainers and even more potent arms—and a move that Defense Secretary Robert Gates flat-out rejected in testimony before Congress on Thursday. “What the opposition needs as much as anything right now is some training, some command and control, and some organization,” Gates said. As for providing weapons, that is “not a unique capability for the United States, and as far as I’m concerned, somebody else can do that.”

Libyan morass?  Wow.  That’s some heavy criticism.  That’s the kind of language they used back in the day of the Vietnam War.  Which was an unwinnable morass.  Interesting, too, that liberal presidents with aggressive domestic agendas created both of these morasses.  But can Obama win his war?  Even though LBJ couldn’t win his?  Or will Obama follow LBJ’s example and not seek nor accept his party’s nomination for a second term as president?  Guess time will tell.

U.S. aircraft took the lead in junking a good chunk of the Libyan Air Force and launched devastating attacks against Libyan tanks, artillery, and other ground forces. Despite the severity of these attacks, Libyan forces survived, regained the offensive, and are now moving back toward rebel strongholds in eastern Libya. And the expectation of U.S. intelligence is that without having to face U.S. air power, Gaddafi’s troops will build further momentum. So, U.S. military officials haven’t stopped worrying about being dragged yet again into the air war.

You know, this is a lot like the Vietnam War.  Every time we pulled back the enemy advanced.  Then we’d pound them back with our superior airpower.  Until Congress stopped paying for that superior airpower.  And then you know what happened?  No?  Not familiar with our actions to protect South Vietnam?  Okay.  Look on a current map for South Vietnam to find out how that turned out.  But don’ spend too much time looking for it. Because it’s not there anymore.

The rebels won’t be able to use most arms, even relatively simply ones like anti-tank rockets and rifles, without extensive training…

Remember, underneath everything happening now are the two driving goals that President Obama set: to protect populations and to oust Colonel Gaddafi. In all likelihood, U.S. coalition partners cannot achieve these goals without U.S. jets resuming combat missions. Even with more U.S. air power, it probably won’t be possible to stop Gaddafi without using some coalition ground forces. So, pressures to do more and more will continue to lurk. All the Pentagon can do, then, is to raise tough questions (Who are those rebels we’re determined to help, could they be Muslim extremists?) to diffuse pressures on the U.S. military to do more.

If you ever wondered how Vietnam happened, here’s a good teachable moment.  JFK sent in military advisors to train the Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN).  These were the ‘good guys’ in South Vietnam.  But when the very well trained and well supported North Vietnamese Army (NVA) threw them back we needed more than advisors.  We started supporting the ARVN.  Then the ARVN started supporting us as we took over more and more of the war.  Next thing we knew hundreds of thousands of U.S. ground troops were fighting it out in the jungles of Vietnam.  And the rest is history.

Barack Obama makes Jimmy Carter look Good

The last month or so hasn’t been too good for our president.  The economy is still mired in recession.  Inflation is about to join those high unemployment numbers to give us some good old-fashioned Jimmy Carter misery.  Our taxpayer TARP money found its way to Libya.  Instead of buying our troubled assets.  The Liberal base is abandoning him.  The Libyan war is less Constitutional than Bush’s Iraq War.  And appears about as winnable as the Vietnam War.

Yup.  Sucks to be him.  When he’s not on vacation, that is.



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