It’s becoming Too Expensive to Raise a Family in Singapore so Fewer are Raising Families

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 7th, 2012

Week in Review

Raising a family is expensive.  Once upon a time you could do it on one income.  But now with huge welfare states requiring heavy taxation one income rarely cuts it anymore.  It takes two.  Childcare.  And more cooperative employers.  For without all of this young people just won’t be able to afford to raise a family (see Survey: 50% couples not have babies because ‘Money No Enough’ posted 10/6/2012 on TR Emeritus).

According to a recent survey conducted by voluntary welfare organisation ‘I Love Children’, about 1 in 2 couples (50%) said not having enough finances is the main reason for not having children…

‘I Love Children’ is a voluntary welfare organization set up in September 2005 with a purpose of keeping Singapore young — by advocating a higher priority to having children, and promoting a society where children are loved and mainstreamed. It hopes to inculcate the value and importance of parenthood and family among Singaporeans, as well as encourage a children-friendly environment in Singapore.

To keep Singapore young.  All nations would like to keep their nations young.  To have an expanding population growth rate.  So they have more young workers entering the workforce than older workers leaving the workforce.  Why?  To avoid the financial crises they’re having in Europe.  Japan.  The U.S.  And like they will probably soon have in China.  Where all of these nations have an aging population.  Where more people are leaving the workforce while fewer are entering it to replace them.  So the tax base is shrinking.  As is tax revenue.  And this at a time when government spending on pensions and health care for the elderly is rising.  Which means fewer and fewer people will have to support more elderly people in their retirement.  As the tax base dwindles governments replace that lost revenue with more and more borrowing.  Leading to those financial crises.

At the dialogue session, 26-year-old Ms Gillian Neo, said, “Currently, infant care in Singapore is still quite expensive. Even the more affordable ones, after government subsidies, is still $700 a month…”

During the the dialogue session, young parents also said that flexi-work arrangements are a major incentive as that will enable them to spend more time with their children…

However, there is still a lot of resistance in the mentality of some of the management of companies towards this mode of working.

“I was offered a full-time work from home arrangement with my previous employer… Six months into it, it really fell flat on the ground. One of the reasons was my immediate supervisor was really not supportive of the arrangement,” said Mandy Loh, a freelance writer…

She said, “In fact, there have been studies done by the employers federation, for instance, to show that for every dollar spent on flexi-work options, the return is S$1.68.”

Madam Halimah also suggested that flexi-work arrangements could be used to attract people to work for SMEs [small and medium-sized enterprise], which are currently facing a labour crunch.

The problem is not lack of affordable childcare.  The problem is that a high level of taxation (often to support an aging population) requires two incomes to raise a family.  Children are not supposed to be a nuisance that we dump off at childcare while we go to work.  They should be raised in a loving family with a full time stay-at-home parent.  A role typically filled by the mother.  The CEO of the house.  While the husband works full time to pay the bills.  Parenting is a team.  It takes two to raise a family.  A mother and a father.  Not a childcare facility.  And, no, this isn’t discriminatory to women because they can’t have a career and be a mother.  It’s what’s best for the children.

The working mom also comes with some baggage.  Especially if she is a key person on a project.  Because a snow day may pull her out of the office when they call an emergency meeting.  If a child falls ill she may be out of the office for a few critical days of the project.  If a meeting runs long because of a crisis she will still have to leave at 4:00 PM to pick up her kids from daycare.  If a project requires an emergency trip to another state she will not be able to go.  School holidays and half-days will take her out of the office, too.  These aren’t hypotheticals.  Many of us have probably experienced this in the workplace.  This is why employers are reluctant to hire single moms or single dads.  And a little reluctant to hire a married mom with young kids.  Because it is often the mother and not the father that will miss work for the kids.  As the father’s career will be more established because of less time missed for the birth of their children.  It’s not unfair.  Men and women are just different.  Women give birth.  Men don’t.

Emphasizing a woman’s career over her children has put more women into the workforce.  Which has allowed greater government spending.  This is why governments want state-provided childcare.  Because they want to get women back into the workforce as quickly as possible so they can resume paying taxes.  Which governments can never seem to collect enough of with an aging population.  Making it ever more difficult for young people to have the children governments want them to have.  To bring new taxpayers into the workforce.  So bringing women into the workforce probably hurts in the long run more than it helps.  For it allows the government to spend more.  But it also discourages young people from raising families.  Leading to fewer children.  An aging population.  And a shrinking tax base.  Which will probably be made up with more government borrowing.  As more nations join those in Europe, Japan, the U.S. and probably China who are suffering from the pressure of aging populations.  And the financial crises they cause.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Learning nothing from Europe’s Financial Crises, Obama pushes hard to increase the Debt

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 11th, 2011

No Economy is too Big to Fail

Having too much debt is a bad thing.  For one thing, you have to pay it back eventually.  And until you do, you have to service it.  Make interest payments.  Which can become very large if you have a lot of debt.

Greece has a lot of debt.  So much that they can’t sell any more.  And they can no longer service that debt.  Which is a big problem for the European Union (EU), in particular the Eurozone and its common currency the Euro.  Greece is small.  But the EU is big.  And Greece’s problem is now their problem because of that common currency (see Eurozone moves to stop Greek debt crisis by Gabriele Steinhauser, Associated Press, posted 7/11/2011 on USA Today).

Investors are concerned that the debt crisis, which has so far been contained to the small economies of Greece, Ireland, and Portugal, could soon drag down bigger countries like highly indebted Italy and unemployment-ridden Spain. The mere size of their economies could easily overwhelm the rescue capacity of the rest of the eurozone…

“The fact that contagion is spreading marks the failure of politicians to draw a line under the Euro-crisis to date,” Rabobank analyst Jane Foley said. “As yields rise and debt financing costs become even more exaggerated the difficulties of containing the crisis become even bigger.”

The Europeans crated the EU and the Eurozone to counter the economic prowess of the United States.  And it has.  Their economies run shoulder to shoulder.  Which is why the U.S. should be worried about what is happening in Greece.  And how scared the EU is that their contagion may spread.  For no economy is too big to fail from an overload of debt.

Excessive Government Debt making Investors Nervous

If you’re looking for confirmation on the size and reach of the Greek debt crisis, look no further than the world’s financial markets (see Markets Tumble on Debt Crisis by The Associated Press posted 7/11/2011 on The New York Times).

Wall Street and global stocks slid further Monday because of renewed concerns about the euro zone’s debt crisis and after a dismal jobs report in the United States last week rekindled concerns about the recovery in the world’s largest economy…

The downbeat sentiment in markets was worsened by indications that Europe’s debt crisis might be spreading beyond the three countries that have already received rescue packages. There have been mounting concerns that after Greece, Ireland and Portugal, much-larger Italy and Spain could need bailouts to manage its tremendous debt load.

Investors are nervous.  Both about Greece and the EU.  And the United States.  They’re worried about excessive government spending.  And excessive government debt.  Because the higher the debt the higher the interest paid on the debt.  And interest paid on the debt is money spent that results in nothing beneficial.  It’s just a drag on the economy (i.e., higher taxes are required to pay it).  Or worse.  As in borrowing money to service the debt.  Which makes a bad problem (too much debt) worse (more debt).  Which is a further drag on the economy.

The Children refuse to Eat their Peas

And speaking of debt, there was no progress on the budget debate to increase the debt limit.  As if anyone was surprised by this (see WRAPUP 9-Obama, lawmakers fall short on US debt deal by Steve Holland and Thomas Ferraro posted 7/11/2011 on Reuters).

U.S. President Barack Obama and top U.S. lawmakers fell short on Monday of finding enough spending cuts for a deal to avoid an Aug. 2 debt default and Republicans came under fresh pressure to agree to tax hikes.

The two sides achieved no breakthrough in a roughly 90-minute meeting and scheduled a third straight day of talks for Tuesday. This came after Obama, at a news conference, declared it is time for both Republicans and Democrats to “pull off the Band-aid, eat our peas” and make sacrifices.

I’m a grownup.  And I like peas.  I think a lot of grownups like peas.  That’s probably why I see a lot of peas in grocery stores.  But one thing I don’t see is kids begging their mother to buy more peas.  No.  Mothers have to tell them to eat their peas even though kids don’t want to.  Because kids just don’t know what’s good for them.  And mothers, being mothers and not diplomats, don’t discuss this.  They just dictate terms to their children.  Which is what Obama appears to be doing.  Trying to dictate terms to the children on the other side of the aisle.  To get them to accept what’s best for them.  Because he knows best.  Like Mother.

The Treasury Department has warned it will run out of money to cover the country’s bills if Congress does not increase its borrowing authority by Aug. 2. Failure to act could push the United States back into recession, send shock waves through global markets and threaten the dollar’s reserve status.

This ‘running out of money’ line is very strange.  The government is currently collecting some $2 trillion plus in cash a year.  Which comes out to about $180 billion a month.  And as long as your employer is withholding taxes from your paycheck, there’s money flowing into Washington.  So how exactly are they running out of money?

Back into recession?  Didn’t know we ever came out of recession.

Boehner also took issue with Democrats’ suggestion that most of the spending cuts should be concentrated out into future years, rather than beginning right away.

Smart man that Boehner.  He knows Democrats lie.  “Raise taxes now and we’ll make spending cuts later.  Promise.  $3 in cuts tomorrow for every new dollar in taxes today.”  Ronald Reagan fell for it.  George H. W. Bush, too.  But tomorrow never came.  And neither did those spending cuts.  The Democrats had their new taxes.  So they said, “Screw you, Republicans.  Suckers.”

Obama used the latest in a series of White House news conferences to urge lawmakers on both sides to stop putting off the inevitable and agree to tax increases and cuts in popular entitlement programs, trying to persuade Americans he is the grownup in a bitter summer battle over spending and taxes…

Obama is seeking to cast himself as a centrist in the bitter debate. His 2012 re-election hopes hinge not only on reducing America’s 9.2 percent unemployment but on his appeal to independent voters who are increasingly turned off by partisan rancor in Washington and want tougher action to get the country’s fiscal house in order.

And that’s what this debate is all about.  The 2012 election.  If he comes out of this smelling like a centrist he wins.  Even if he loses the debate.  Because he can campaign as a centrist.  Even though he’s the biggest leftist to have ever entered the Whitehouse.  Who tripled the deficit.  And put the U.S. on the road to national health care.

So how much exactly are they looking to raise the debt limit by to save the country?

They said Obama’s view was that without tax increases, the package would at best be little more than $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction, far short of the estimated $2 trillion needed to extend the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling through the end of 2012.

Hmmm, $2 trillion dollars.  Where can we find $2 trillion dollars?

You Repeal Obamacare and we’ll raise the Debt Limit by $2 Trillion

Here’s a thought.  How about repealing Obamacare?  If we need to live within our means and can’t muster the guts to reform entitlements, then Obamacare is a no-brainer.  It’s not an entitlement yet.  No one would miss it if they repeal it.  Because how can you miss something you don’t even have yet?  So how much money would this save?  Let’s take a look at some facts and figures from an interesting article (see Obamacare Tragedy Primed To Further Explode the Deficit by Peter Ferrara posted 7/6/2011 on The American Spectator)?

…close analysis of the CBO score and additional new data indicates that, quite to the contrary, Obamacare will likely add $4 to $6 trillion to the deficit over its first 20 years, and possibly more…

Of course, the deficit is not the biggest problem.  Even bigger is that regardless of the deficit, Obamacare involves trillions of increased government spending and taxes…

In the Wall Street Journal on June 8, Grace-Marie Turner, President of the Galen Institute, estimated based on the numbers in the McKinsey report that as many as 78 million Americans would lose their employer provided coverage.  If those workers ended up receiving the new Obamacare exchange handouts, the estimated costs for those subsidies in the first 6 years alone would soar by 4 times, adding nearly $2 trillion to the costs and deficits of Obamacare during that time…

Such draconian cuts in Medicare payments would create havoc and chaos in health care for seniors.  Doctors, hospitals, surgeons and specialists providing critical care to the elderly such as surgery for hip and knee replacements, sophisticated diagnostics through MRIs and CT scans, and even treatment for cancer and heart disease would shut down and disappear in much of the country, and others would stop serving Medicare patients.  If the government is not going to pay, then seniors are not going to get the health services, treatment and care they expect.

Yet, reversing these unworkable Medicare cuts would add $15 trillion to the future deficits caused by Obamacare.

So Obamacare isn’t going to reduce the deficit after all.  How about that?  You see, Boehner is right not to trust Democrats.  Because they lie.  And while they’re bitching and moaning about trying to raise the debt limit by $2 trillion Obamacare will add another $4 to $6 trillion, or more, to the deficit over its first twenty years.  And there’s a whole bunch of unpleasantness in addition to that.  78 million people losing their private insurance coverage.  And the gutting of Medicare that will destroy that program.  Which will add another $15 trillion to future deficits. 

This should be the Republican position.  This is the deal they should offer.  Raise the debt limit by $2 trillion.  And repeal Obamacare.  Final offer.  Take it or leave it.  Either eat your peas.  Or you, President Obama, can default on America’s debt obligations.  For it is your Obamacare that has put us in this position in the first place.

Too much Debt is a bad Thing

Having too much debt is a bad thing.  We see it in Europe.  The EU is worried about what’s happening in Greece spreading to larger countries in the Eurozone.  Markets are jittery about Europe’s financial crises.  Even on Wall Street.  Because too much debt is a bad thing.  And no economy is too big to fail from an overload of debt.

The whole world understands this.  That too much debt is a bad thing.  And yet what is the Obama administration doing?  Piling on to their debt.  And not in a little way.  They’re collecting some $2 trillion in cash each year but it’s not enough.  They need to borrow an additional $2 trillion this year to pay their bills.  I don’t know what’s going on in Washington but one thing for sure – it ain’t good governing.

Repeal Obamacare.  Solve a bunch of problems with one act of legislation.  And demonstrate some good governing for a change.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

The Costs of European Socialism Bankrupting the EU?

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 6th, 2010

European Socialism – Voting yourself the Treasury

The Left loves European Socialism.  They want it here.  They’ve been trying to get here.  All the while the Europeans are trying to move away from it there.

Socialism doesn’t work.  Once people learn they can vote themselves the treasury, they do.  It’s been the death knell of all democracies.  As those state benefits get bigger, they entice more people.  They say, “Work?  But why?”  Because many can live comfortably without working, many do.  And they sign up for those generous state benefits.

The problem is that there is no ‘secret stash’ of government money.  Everything they spend they take from us.  Those who work.  So taxes go up.  Working people get less.  And the government-dependent grows and becomes an important voting demographic.  And they vote.  They vote themselves the treasury.  And why not?  It’s not their money.  Not yet, at least.

The EU, the Euro and the ECB cannot Fix the Fundamental Flaw of Socialism

Eventually, the number of working people decrease.  And the number of those not working increase.  More and more people receive benefits.  And fewer and fewer people pay taxes to fund those benefits.  So they keep raising the taxes on those who work.  To pay those who don’t.  But they can only raise them so far.  Because people simply won’t work for free so their neighbor can live a better life.

And how is that European Socialism working?  Much like the people collecting those generous benefits.  It ain’t working either.  To compete against the economic power of the United States, they’re trying to become like the United States.  They created the European Union (EU).  A European Central Bank (ECB).  And a common currency (the Euro).  Because they thought bigger was better.  Because the United States is a big economic zone.

But the Europeans have a problem.  They’re still social democracies.  And the trends continued after the union and the Euro.  More people collecting benefits.  Fewer people paying taxes.  Some of these countries are going through debt crisis.  And as these countries implode in their financial crises, the affects are felt throughout the European Union (see Euro’s Worst to Come as Trichet Fails to Calm Crisis, Top Forecasters Say by Anchalee Worrachate posted 12/5/2010 on Bloomberg). 

The 16-nation currency’s [the Euro] first weekly gain against the dollar since Nov. 5 may prove short-lived amid mounting concern that more nations will need rescues. European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet delayed the end of emergency stimulus measures last week and stepped up government-debt purchases as “acute” market tensions drove yields on Spanish and Italian bonds to the highest levels relative to German bunds since the euro started in 1999.

“We’re going to get a continuation of the problems that Ireland, Portugal, Spain and others are suffering,” said Callum Henderson, Standard Chartered’s global head of foreign-exchange research in Singapore. “The fundamental issue is these are countries that have relatively large debts, large budget deficits, large current-account deficits, they don’t have their own currency and they can’t cut interest rates. The only way they can get out of this is to have significant recessions.”

Once upon a time Europe was ablaze in war. The growth of nationalism brought nations into conflict with each other over land, food and resources.  They redrew their borders in blood.  Nations did not give up their national sovereignty without a fight.  Which makes the European Union that much remarkable.  What they fought to the death to prevent they now give up voluntarily.  Of course, when your nation is on the brink of bankruptcy, what have you got to lose?  Having someone else bail you out of your financial mess?

Can the Euro and the ECB Survive European Socialism?

A weak currency helps a nation to export goods.  The more they export the more economic activity they have.  And the more jobs.  And the more people to tax.  So a weak currency can be a good thing.

But a weak currency also carries some baggage.  If a nation is ‘printing money’ to pay for excessive state benefits, that will not only make the currency weak, it will also increase prices; it’ll take more of those weak dollars (or Euros, or Pounds, or Yen, etc.) to buy things.  Even government benefits.  This is counterproductive.  People have less purchasing power.  And the government has to tax, borrow or print more because they, too, have less purchasing power.

The United States debased its currency.  Which helped the Euro gain some strength.

Just a month ago the euro reached $1.4282, the strongest level since January, as traders sold the dollar on speculation the Federal Reserve would debase the greenback by printing more cash to purchase $600 billion of Treasuries in so-called quantitative easing.

But the Euro wasn’t getting stronger.  The dollar was just getting weaker.  Both currencies are losing value.  And with more member nations in the EU getting weaker, the stronger ones may bail to save themselves.

Taylor [chairman of FX Concepts LLC, the world’s biggest currency hedge fund] predicted some nations may leave the common currency. Stronger members “have to say ‘enough, you guys, get out of the euro,’” he said. “The risk that Spain and Italy will get into trouble is going to cause the euro to get quite weak.”

Spain and Italy follows Ireland.  Which followed France.  Which followed Greece.  Nations are struggling under the weight of their debts.  Is there a limit to how much the ECB can help?

The ECB will keep offering banks as much cash as they want through the first quarter over periods of as long as three months at a fixed interest rate, Trichet said. That marks a shift from last month, when he said that the ECB could start limiting access to its funds.

Time will tell.  The trends are going the wrong way, though.  And there are more countries that can fail.  And they don’t have their own currencies.  So they need the ECB.  And the ECB needs to save them.  To save European Socialism.  Much like the Soviet Union tried to save Soviet communism.  Which, of course, they didn’t.

The problem with the Soviet Union was Soviet communism.  And the problem with the EC is European Socialism.  Great big governmental bureaucracies fail.  Always have.  And always will.

The Europeans know what they need to do, though.  And they are doing it.  Cutting their spending.  Despite the rioting and the burning of some of their cities.  Even with all of that, they are NOT increasing their spending.  Or trying to reduce their deficits by increasing taxes.

As the euro region’s most-indebted nations cut spending to bring their deficits under control, a weaker euro will be needed to cushion their economies, said Ian Stannard, a senior currency strategist in London at BNP Paribas SA, the fifth most accurate forecaster.

Of course, they want a weaker Euro for their exports.  So the EU can sell their export products cheaper than the domestic products of the import countries.  Which those import countries will not welcome with open arms.  Because they’re trying to grow their economies, too.  But that’s a whole other story (if you’re interested you can read about how international trade wars brought about the Great Depression).

It’s European

Meanwhile, on the other side of the pond, we’re having our own financial problems.  Large debts, large budget deficits, large current-account deficits.  Just like the Europeans.  Only difference is that the Obama administration is trying increase taxes and spending to fix our problems.  The Left calls this economic stimulus.  Rational people just call it stupid.

The political Left likes all things European.  In fact, they want to be European.  So I say let’s be European.  Let’s cut our spending like the Europeans.  I mean, if the Europeans don’t want to be like us (tax and spend), perhaps we should be like them (cut spending).  After all, if it’s European, even the Left should find it the fashionable thing to do.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Financial Crises: The Fed Giveth and the Fed Taketh Away

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 3rd, 2010

Great Depression vs. Great Recession

Ben Bernanke is a genius.  I guess.  That’s what they keep saying at least. 

The chairman of the Federal Reserve is a student of the Great Depression, that great lesson of how NOT to implement monetary policy.  And because of his knowledge of this past great Federal Reserve boondoggle, who better to fix the present great Federal Reserve boondoggle?  What we affectionately call the Great Recession.

There are similarities between the two.  Government caused both.  But there are differences.  Bad fiscal policy brought on a recession in the 1920s.  Then bad monetary policy exasperated the problem into the Great Depression. 

Bad monetary policy played a more prominent role in the present crisis.  It was a combination of cheap money and aggressive government policy to put people into houses they couldn’t afford that set off an international debt bomb.  Thanks to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buying highly risky mortgages and selling them as ‘safe’ yet high-yield investments.  Those rascally things we call derivatives.

The Great Depression suffered massive bank failures because the lender of last resort (the Fed) didn’t lend.  In fact, they made it more difficult to borrow money when banks needed money most.  Why did they do this?  They thought rich people were using cheap money to invest in the stock market.  So they made money more expensive to borrow to prevent this ‘speculation’.

The Great Recession suffered massive bank failures because people took on great debt in ideal times (low interest rates and increasing home values).  When the ‘ideal’ became real (rising interest rates and falling home values), surprise surprise, these people couldn’t pay their mortgages anymore.  And all those derivatives became worthless. 

The Great Depression:  Lessons Learned.  And not Learned.

Warren G. Harding appointed Andrew Mellon as his Secretary of the Treasury.  A brilliant appointment.  The Harding administration cut taxes.  The economy surged.  Lesson learned?  Lower taxes stimulate the economy.  And brings more money into the treasury.

The Progressives in Washington, though, needed to buy votes.  So they tinkered.  They tried to protect American farmers from their own productivity.  And American manufacturers.  Also from their own productivity.  Their protectionist policies led to tariffs and an international trade war.  Lesson not learned?  When government tinkers bad things happen to the economy.

Then the Fed stepped in.  They saw economic activity.  And a weakening dollar (low interest rates were feeding the economic expansion).  So they strengthened the dollar.  To keep people from ‘speculating’ in the stock money with borrowed money.  And to meet international exchange rate requirements.  This led to bank failures and the Great Depression.  Lesson not learned?   When government tinkers bad things happen to the economy.

Easy Money Begets Bad Debt which Begets Financial Crisis

It would appear that Ben Bernanke et al learned only some of the lessons of the Great Depression.  In particular, the one about the Fed’s huge mistake in tightening the money supply.  No.  They would never do that again.  Next time, they would open the flood gates (see Fed aid in financial crisis went beyond U.S. banks to industry, foreign firms by Jia Lynn Yang, Neil Irwin and David S. Hilzenrath posted 12/2/2010 on The Washington Post).

The financial crisis stretched even farther across the economy than many had realized, as new disclosures show the Federal Reserve rushed trillions of dollars in emergency aid not just to Wall Street but also to motorcycle makers, telecom firms and foreign-owned banks in 2008 and 2009.

The Fed’s efforts to prop up the financial sector reached across a broad spectrum of the economy, benefiting stalwarts of American industry including General Electric and Caterpillar and household-name companies such as Verizon, Harley-Davidson and Toyota. The central bank’s aid programs also supported U.S. subsidiaries of banks based in East Asia, Europe and Canada while rescuing money-market mutual funds held by millions of Americans.

The Fed learned its lesson.  Their easy money gave us all that bad debt.  And we all learned just how bad ‘bad debt’ can be.  They wouldn’t make that mistake again.

The data also demonstrate how the Fed, in its scramble to keep the financial system afloat, eventually lowered its standards for the kind of collateral it allowed participating banks to post. From Citigroup, for instance, it accepted $156 million in triple-C collateral or lower – grades that indicate that the assets carried the greatest risk of default.

Well, maybe next time.

You Don’t Stop a Run by Starting a Run

With the cat out of the bag, people want to know who got these loans.  And how much each got.  But the Fed is not telling (see Fed ID’s companies that used crisis aid programs by Jeannine Aversa, AP Economics Writer, posted 12/1/2010 on Yahoo! News).

The Fed didn’t take part in that appeal. What the court case could require — but the Fed isn’t providing Wednesday — are the names of commercial banks that got low-cost emergency loans from the Fed’s “discount window” during the crisis.

The Fed has long acted as a lender of last resort, offering commercial banks loans through its discount window when they couldn’t obtain financing elsewhere. The Fed has kept secret the identities of such borrowers. It’s expressed fear that naming such a bank could cause a run on it, defeating the purpose of the program.

I can’t argue with that.  For this was an important lesson of the Great Depression.  When you’re trying to stop bank runs, you don’t advertise which banks are having financial problems.  A bank can survive a run.  If everyone doesn’t try to withdraw their money at the same time.  Which they may if the Fed advertises that a bank is going through difficult times.

When Fiscal Responsibility Fails, Try Extortion

Why does government always tinker and get themselves into trouble?  Because they like to spend money.  And control things.  No matter what the lessons of history have taught us.

Cutting taxes stimulate the economy.  But it doesn’t buy votes.  You need people to be dependent on government for that.  So no matter what mess government makes, they NEVER fix their mess by shrinking government or cutting taxes.  Even at the city level. 

When over budget what does a city do?  Why, they go to a favored tactic.  Threaten our personal safety (see Camden City Council Approves Massive Police And Fire Layoffs Reported by David Madden, KYW Newsradio 1060, posted 12/2/2010 on philadelphia.cbslocal.com).

Camden City Council, as expected, voted Thursday to lay off almost 400 workers, half of them police officers and firefighters, to bridge a $26.5 million deficit.

There’s a word for this.  And it’s not fiscal responsibility.  Some would call it extortion.

It’s never the pay and benefits of the other city workers.  It’s always the cops and firefighters.  Why?  Because cutting the pay and benefits of a bloated bureaucracy doesn’t put the fear of God into anyone.

Here we go Again

We never learn.  And you know what George Santayana said.  “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”  And here we are.  Living in the past.  Again.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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