The Pilgrims and Thanksgiving

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 3rd, 2013

History 101

Queen Elizabeth hated the Puritans more than the Catholics

The Pilgrims landing at Plymouth Rock were God-fearing people.  Who had left England to escape religious persecution.  The Pilgrims were members of the new Protestant faith.  Less than a century old at that time.  With Henry VIII, King of England, turning Catholic England Protestant in the 1530s.  Which didn’t go over well with England’s Catholics.  Becoming a thorn in Henry’s daughter’s side.  Queen Elizabeth.  (The first Queen Elizabeth.  Not the current one.)  Who she persecuted.  But they weren’t the only people she persecuted.

The Church of England swung between Catholicism and Protestantism through the years.  Trying to please both Catholic and Protestant.  In time becoming neither Catholic nor Protestant but something in between.  Pleasing neither Catholic nor Protestant.  Queen Elizabeth, the head of the Church of England, settled the matter.  By persecuting those dissatisfied with the Church of England.  The Catholics who said it was too Protestant.  And the Protestant ‘extremists’ who said the Protest Church of England was too Catholic.

It was these Protestant ‘extremists’ that really irked Elizabeth.  No, the Church of England wasn’t good enough for them.  Because it didn’t strip every last vestige of Catholicism from it.  It was impure.  Corrupted with Catholicism.  Vestments.  Icons.  Altars.  It was just downright obscene.  That’s why she turned on these ‘Puritans’ with a vengeance.  And persecuted them like Catholics.  Even worse at times.

The Pilgrims suffered Three Years of Poor Harvests and Famines because of Socialism

Things didn’t get any better under James I.  Who followed Elizabeth’s lead.  With the political climate turning against the ‘Puritans’ they skedaddled.  Leaving England.  And resettled in Leiden, Holland.  Where they had the freedom to worship as they pleased.  But the different language and culture became a problem for the congregation.  Their children were becoming less like their parents and more like the Dutch.  Who enjoyed the pleasures in life a little more freely than they thought proper for a ‘Puritan’.  If their children became Dutch it would ultimately mean the end of the congregation.  So they boarded a ship.  No, not that one.  They took the Speedwell to England.  Then boarded THAT ship.  The Mayflower.  Crossed the Atlantic Ocean.  And landed at Plymouth Rock.

Now the Pilgrims landing at Plymouth Rock were God-fearing people.  But they had a little in common with the hippies of the Sixties.  Not the sex and drugs.  But how they lived.  For the Pilgrims lived like the hippies wanted to live.  As communists.  The Pilgrims worked but didn’t own anything.  Everything they produced belonged to everyone.  Produced by those according to ability.  And taken by those according to need.  The perfect communist society.  And truly authentic to the yet unknown communist philosophy.  Right down to the recurring famines.

The harvest of 1620 was poor.  Making the first winter hard.  And there was famine.  It was so bad that half of them died.  The Indians then taught them how to grow corn.  Things were looking up.  They celebrated the first Thanksgiving.  But the harvest of 1621 was just as bad as the harvest of 1620.  And they suffered another famine.  Another poor harvest followed in 1622.  And another famine.  Why?  Because people were lazy.  The most able-bodied of them did not want to work according to their ability.  Just so the lazy could enjoy the fruit of their labors.  And draw from the common stores according to their need.  Without contributing anything to the common stores.  Because they had better things to do than work.  Besides, it was easier just to steal what others grew than working hard in the fields.

All of the Things that made America Great were born in Plymouth Colony

Jamestown was suffering the same fate.  The socialist utopia of living in a commune just didn’t work.  The most able-bodied men refused to work according to their ability to support other men’s wives and children.  For they had their own wives and children to support.  So those with ability did the minimum.  Because doing any more didn’t help them in any way.  Or their families.  It was like asking people to work an extra two hours at work for free.  So others with large families to support could work two hours less and go home early.  So one group of workers work 10 hours for 8 hours of wages.  While another group work for 6 hours for 8 hours of wages.  Which is socialism.  Redistribution.  From those according to ability to those according to need.  It was this economic philosophy many settlements used.  Giving them poor harvests.  And famines.

But that all changed in 1623 for the Pilgrims at Plymouth Colony.  William Bradford, governor of the colony, changed the economic system.  He abolished socialism.  And replaced it with free market capitalism.  He parceled out the common land.  Giving each household a parcel of land.  Saying it was their property.  It belonged to them.  As did anything they grew on it.  Which meant the more they grew the more they could eat.  Or trade for other things they needed.  Which unleashed the energies in the able-bodied.  And they worked their behinds off.  Growing as much as they possibly could.  Soon the harvests everywhere they implemented free market capitalism were bountiful.  Even in Jamestown.  And there was no famine in Plymouth Colony following the 1623 harvest.  Things were different.  And never would be the same again.

Finally the Pilgrims had a reason to be thankful.  Free markets.  The best medicine there is for famine.  Thanks to free market capitalism the colonies prospered.  And a new nation arose.  This economic liberty would go on to make the United States the greatest nation in the world.  Religious freedom.  Private property.  Limited government.  All of those things that made America great were born there in Plymouth Colony.  Thanks to William Bradford.  Who saw the futility of socialism.  And abolished it.  Things were difficult in the beginning.  But their decision to leave England ultimately provided the better life they were seeking.  And as it turned out they got out when the getting was good.  For the religious climate didn’t improve in England.  As the conflict between Catholics and Protestants would lead to civil war in 1642.  And it wasn’t pleasant.  Missing the horror of that gave the Pilgrims another thing to be thankful for.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

The Greatest Threat to an Oppressive Dictatorship is Free Market Capitalism

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 22nd, 2013

Week in Review

When people enter economic exchanges voluntarily everybody wins.  For example, let’s say one person has a hundred dollars of spare cash.  And another person owns a mountain bicycle that sells for $350 new.  The one with the money wants to buy a mountain bicycle.  The one with the mountain bicycle needs cash and wants to sell the bike. These two people meet.  And exchange the $100 for the bicycle.  And both walk away with something they valued more.  The person originally with the $100 valued the bicycle more than the $100.  And the person originally with the bicycle valued the $100 more than the bicycle.  Each person wins in this voluntary economic exchange.

Now contrast that to a managed economy.  Where a few decide for everyone else.  Such as in socialism.  Or communism.  Say, in the former Soviet Union.  Where the economic planners decide to make more tractor parts and less toilet paper and laundry detergent.  Resulting in shelves full of tractor parts no one wanted to buy.  And empty shelves where there was once toilet paper and laundry detergent.  As you can see, when you have forced economic exchanges no one wins.

Countries with economic systems based on free market capitalism where people enter economic exchanges voluntarily have historically had the highest standards of living.  Whereas countries with managed economic systems have had the lowest standards of living.  Liberty and prosperity are synonymous with the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Australia and Hong Kong.  Which were once all part of the British Empire.  Which ruled the world and kept the peace for a hundred years or so.  The Pax Britannica.  She was able to do this because of her wealth.  Generated from free market capitalism.  The rule of law.  Representative government.  Sound money.  And free trade.  Things that today give these nations immigration problems.  Because everyone wants to go to these nations for a better life.

In capitalist nations people live better because there is a profit incentive.  Whereas the countries these immigrants left typically put people before profits.  Where instead of letting market forces set prices and allocate limited resources that have alternative uses the government decides.  Like they did in the former Soviet Union.  And the more government interferes with these market forces the more these economic decisions become political.  Where friends of the ruling power get those limited resources first and at favorable prices.  Allowing them and the ruling powers to profit handsomely from this political favoritism.  At the expense of the people who have to do with less.

The profit incentive puts people first.  Because in free market capitalism market forces are the people.  Hundreds of millions of people coming together to make voluntary economic exchanges.  Where each individual person looks out for his or her best interests.  But when a ‘caring’ government manages the economy to put the people first that government interferes with those market forces.  And goes against the will of the people.  Making the people worse off.  Which is why immigration is always from a country where there is less free market capitalism to a country where there is more free market capitalism.  Because the quality of life increases with increasing amounts of capitalism.  So we should be careful what we ask for when we ask to put people first.  Even when the Pope joins the ‘put the people first’ choir (see Pope condemns idolatry of cash in capitalism by Lizzy Davies posted 9/22/2013 on theguardian).

Pope Francis has called for a global economic system that puts people and not “an idol called money” at its heart, drawing on the hardship of his immigrant family as he sympathised with unemployed workers in a part of Italy that has suffered greatly from the recession…

“Where there is no work, there is no dignity,” he said, in ad-libbed remarks after listening to three locals, including an unemployed worker who spoke of how joblessness “weakens the spirit”. But the problem went far beyond the Italian island, said Francis, who has called for wholesale reform of the financial system…

Sardinia, one of Italy’s autonomous regions with a population of 1.6 million, has suffered particularly badly during the economic crisis, with an unemployment rate of 20%, eight points higher than the national average, and youth unemployment of 51%.

Last summer the island’s hardship became national news when Stefano Meletti, a 49-year-old miner, slashed his wrists on television during a protest aimed at keeping the Carbosulcis coal mine open.

There was one other thing these nations born of the British Empire shared.  Judeo-Christian values.  They lived by the Ten Commandments.  And the Golden Rule.  The good Christians of the British Empire followed the teachings of Christ.  “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”  These Judeo-Christian values went hand-in-hand with free market capitalism.  It’s what made us choose to live by the rule of law.  To honor the contracts we made with one another.  To voluntarily enter economic exchanges instead of just stealing and pillaging our neighbors.

Money doesn’t have value.  It’s a temporary storage of value.  It is our human capital that has value.  Our ability to create things that have value.  Things that other people will voluntarily enter into economic exchanges to trade for with things of value they created.  Whether it be a physical good.  Or money from a paycheck they earned creating value for an employer who uses it to produce a service or good.

Capitalists don’t worship money.  For money only makes those economic exchanges more efficient.  By eliminating the search costs of the barter system.  It’s human capital that capitalists are interested in.  This is what they worship.  People.  Unlocking the latent talent in all of us.  To bring incredible things into existence.  Sanitation.  Waste water treatment plants.  New farming advancements.  Coal-fired power plants.  Things that allowed greater groups of people to live together in growing cities.  Where we have food, clean water and shelter.  Things we take for granted in capitalists nations.  Things that are luxuries in North Korea.  An anti-capitalist country that puts people before profits.  Where people worship the ruling dictator (primarily to avoid imprisonment, torture and death).  And the only people that do well are those close to the ruling power.

We don’t need a new financial system.  We just need to return to what it was before governments intervened into the free market economy to put people first.  Before we completely forget the Ten Commandments.  And the Golden Rule.  For once we use the power of government to nullify contracts to help their crony friends we no longer have a nation of laws.  But one of political favors.  Where the friends of power do well.  While those with no power live at the mercy of those in power.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

There is Great Income Inequality on the Set of the Big Bang Theory

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 21st, 2013

Week in Review

It is hard to explain economic fundamentals to the public.  To explain how free market capitalism made this country great.  And how supply and demand set prices.  How unskilled workers are in less demand than highly skilled workers.  So highly skilled people earn more money than unskilled workers.  Which is why doctors earn more money than those working in fast-food.  Because there always seems to be a shortage of doctors.  While there is no shortage of minimum wage jobs.  So doctors are worth more because they are in greater demand.

Those on the left want a living wage for everyone.  Regardless of their skill level.  Unions are trying to unionize fast-food workers and Wal-Mart employees.  So they can force these businesses to pay them more than the market price for their labor.  As determined by the laws of supply and demand.  Like they do everywhere else.  Computer programmers were in high demand during the dot-com bubble.  Raising the salary of computer programmers.  And people went to college to learn how to be computer programmers to get those high salaries.

But try to explain this to the layperson when the left demonizes Republicans.  Calls them greedy.  Saying they want to take food away from children and the poor.  And throw Grandma off the cliff.  That they’re in the pockets of the big, evil corporations.  And that unfettered capitalism is corrupt, unfair and just plain mean.  What makes it especially difficult to explain these economic fundamentals is that the left controls the public schools and our universities and colleges.  And the entertainment industry.  So they’re teaching our children to hate free market capitalism.  And Republicans.  While the entertainment industry mocks and ridicules anyone who tries to advance sound economic policies instead of expanding the welfare state.  Instead they preach egalitarianism.  Where everyone should get a living wage regardless of their skill level.  And where we treat people fairly and with dignity.  Transferring and distributing wealth fairly.  From those according to ability to those according to need.

It sounds nice.  Caring.  And kind.  Despite every country that has ever tried that became a horrible place to live.  For that’s what they did in the former Soviet Union.  The People’s Republic of China.  The former East Germany.  North Korea.  Cuba.  Nations that had to use a brutally oppressive police state to prevent their people from escaping the kind of egalitarianism the left is constantly trying to bring to the United States.

Perhaps the most frustrating thing in trying to teach economic fundamentals to lay people is that their heroes in the entertainment industry are always campaigning for the left.  They attend fundraisers for the left.  Help them win elections.  And they constantly mock and ridicule those on the right.  Despite indulging in some of the most unfettered free market capitalism themselves (see ‘Big Bang Theory’ Stars Seeking Hefty Pay Raises by Lesley Goldberg, The Hollywood Reporter, posted 9/17/2013 on Yahoo! TV).

Sources tell THR that Emmy winner Parsons (Sheldon), Galecki (Leonard) and Cuoco (Penny) will negotiate together — as they did in 2010 — and are looking for a considerable bump in pay from their current deal. According to a TV Guide Magazine report, the trio currently earns $325,000 per episode and may seek up to $1 million an episode…

The new deals for Bialik and Rauch, who joined the series midway through its run and were promoted from recurring to regulars, will see their salary jump from $20,000-$30,000/episode to the $60,000 ballpark, with increases each year taking them to $100,000 per episode by the end of their new contracts.

One million an episode versus $100,000 an episode?  Wow.  Talk about your income disparity.  There is no egalitarianism on the set of the Big Bang Theory.  There’s no fairness.  And just think how much food this could have bought for the children.  And the poor.  If these people were corporate officers they would be hated and despised for their greed.  Especially when the median household income (the income that supports an entire family) has been languishing around $53,000.  And here are actors making more than that each episode they film.  Is that fair?  When others have so little?

Yes, it is unfair.  But is it wrong?  No.  This is free market capitalism.  This is the top-rated comedy on television.  It has great writing.  And great characters.  Which the writers created.  But if you watch an early episode and then a later one you will see how these actors have evolved these characters.  In the first episodes Penny was the pretty neighbor Leonard was smitten with.  But watch her now.  And all the things she doesn’t say.  Her body language and facial expressions.  The little nuances that have transformed Penny into a real life person we look forward to seeing every week.  Kaley Cuoco has made Penny into what she is today.  As Jim Parsons has made Sheldon into what he is.  And Johnny Galecki has made Leonard into what he is.  The rest of the cast is probably the best ever fielded on a sitcom.  But it is the interactions they have with these three that make this show the number one comedy on television.

So, no, we don’t begrudge them from getting these unfair contracts.  More power to them to get as much as they can get.  Sure, it’s unfair to the actors that came before them.  When things were very egalitarian.  Where the actors made far less than they do today.  Even if that show went on forever in syndication.  Like Gilligan’s Island.  Making a lot of money for the owners of that show.  But not the actors.  No, they didn’t get a dime from that syndication.  Worse, none of them made close to a million dollars an episode.  They didn’t get paid a lot.  But everyone made closer to what everyone else made.  Because back then actors were more equal.  Unlike today.  Where there is great income inequality between actors.

So there is nothing wrong with Parsons, Galecki and Cuoco making these huge sums of money.  Or anyone else in the entertainment community.  It would be nice, though, if this community wasn’t publically against the very thing that they benefit so handsomely from.  Free market capitalism.  Which has been very good to them.  As it is very good to everyone.  But yet the entertainment community generally endorses the left.  And attacks the right.  Which helps the left raise taxes and burden business with more costly regulations.  Things that hurt the economy.  And keeps the median household income from rising.  Harming the middle class.  But making no impact on these superrich.  This is the problem we have with the entertainment community.  They’re hogging all the free market capitalism for themselves.  While forcing us to live in the miserable social democracy they helped to create with their endorsement of the left.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

China’s Continuing Credit Expansion is Starting to Worry the IMF

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 15th, 2013

Week in Review

As the U.S. fiscal year draws to a close the Republicans and Democrats are digging in their heels over the upcoming debt ceiling debate.  The Republicans want to cut spending and taxes to rein in out-of-control spending.  So they don’t have to keep borrowing money.  Running up the national debt.  The Democrats, on the other hand, say, “Who cares about the debt?  We’ll be dead and buried when the nation collapses under the weight of this mammoth debt load.  As long as we get what we want why should we care about future generations?”  At least, that’s what their actions say.

A lot of leading economists on the left, Keynesians economists, see no problem in running up the debt.  Print that money, they say.  Keep that expansion growing.  What could possibly go wrong?  Especially when the federal government has the power to print money?  Just look at what the Japanese did in the Eighties.  And what the Chinese are doing now (see As the West Faltered, China’s Growth Was Fueled by Debt by Christina Larson posted 9/12/2013 on Bloomberg Businessweek).

As demand for Chinese exports diminished in the wake of the financial meltdown, the Chinese economy kept humming at more than 9 percent annual gross domestic product growth each year from 2008 to 2011. The trick? “A huge monetary expansion and lending boom,” says Patrick Chovanec, chief strategist at Silvercrest Asset Management and a former professor at Tsinghua University’s School of Economics and Management in Beijing. With bank lending restrictions loosened in late 2008, “Total debt accelerated from 148 percent to 205 percent of GDP over 2008-12,” according to a May 2013 report from research firm CLSA Asia-Pacific Markets. When Beijing tried to rein in the banks beginning in late 2010, shadow banking—lending outside the formal sector—exploded. Today “China is addicted to debt to fuel growth,” according to the CLSA report, with the economy hampered by “high debt and huge excess capacity with only 60 percent utilization.”

The Beijing-based firm J. Capital Research dubbed 2012 the “Year of the (White) Elephant” in a report detailing some of China’s questionable infrastructure build-out. To take one example, 70 percent of the country’s airports lose money, yet more are being built in small and remote cities. At the shiny new Karamay Airport in far western Xinjiang province, there are four check-in counters serving two flights daily. Local governments have splurged on “new towns” and “special zones,” many of which have already fallen into disrepair. The $5 million Changchun Zhenzhuxi Park, intended as a scenic area, is now a large public garbage dump, as the local landscaping bureau never agreed to provide maintenance. Near the southern city of Hangzhou, a forlorn replica of the Eiffel Tower overlooks a faux Paris—the ersatz arrondissement attracted hardly any residents, and local media have dubbed it a ghost town.

“In China, you often hear people say they’re building for the future,” explains Chovanec. “But if you build something and it’s empty for 20 years, does that make any sense? By that point, it may already be falling apart.”

The classic Keynesian argument for economic stimulus is the one about paying people to dig a ditch.  Then paying them to fill in the ditch they just dug.  The ditch itself having no economic value.  But the people digging it and filling it in do.  For they will take their earnings and spend it in the economy.  But the fallacy of this argument is that money given to the ditch-diggers and the fillers-in could have been spent on something else that does have economic value.  Money that was pulled out of the private sector economy via taxation.  Or money that was borrowed adding to the national debt.  And increasing the interest expense of the nation.  Which negates any stimulus.

If that money was invested to expand a business that was struggling to keep up with demand that money would have created a return on investment.  That would last long after the people who built the expansion spent their wages.  This is why Keynesian stimulus doesn’t work.  It is at best temporary.  While the long-term costs are not.  It’s like getting a 30-year loan to by a new car.  If you finance $35,000 over 5 years at a 4.5% annual interest rate your car payment will be $652.51 and the total interest you’ll pay will be $4,018.95.  That’s $39,018.95 ($35,000 + 4,018.95) of other stuff you won’t be able to buy because of buying this car.  If you extend that loan to 30 years your car payment will fall to $177.34.  But you will be paying that for 30 years.  Perhaps 20-25 years longer than you will actually use that car.  Worse, the total interest expense will be $23,620.24 over those 30 years.  That’s $58,620.24 ($35,000 + 23,620.24) of stuff you won’t be able to buy because of buying this car.  Increasing the total cost of that car by 50.2%.

This is why Keynesian stimulus does not work.  Building stuff just to build stuff even when that stuff isn’t needed will have long-term costs beyond any stimulus it provides.  And when you have a “high debt and huge excess capacity with only 60 percent utilization” bad things will be coming (see IMF WARNS: China Is Taking Ever Greater Risks And Putting The Financial System In Danger by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, The Telegraph, posted 9/13/2013 on Business Insider).

The International Monetary Fund has warned that China is taking ever greater risks as surging credit endangers the financial system, and called for far-reaching reforms to wean the economy off excess investment…

The country has relied on loan growth to keep the economy firing on all cylinders but the law of diminishing returns has set in, with the each yuan of extra debt yielding just 0.20 yuan of economic growth, compared with 0.85 five years ago. Credit of all types has risen from $9 trillion to $23 trillion in five years, pushing the total to 200pc of GDP, much higher than in emerging market peers…

China’s investment rate is the world’s highest at almost 50pc of GDP, an effect largely caused by the structure of the state behemoths that gobble up credit. This has led to massive over-capacity and wastage.

“Existing distortions direct the flow of credit toward local governments and state-owned enterprises rather to households, perpetuating high investment, misallocation of resources, and low private consumption. A broad package of reforms is needed,” said the IMF.

Just like the miracle of Japan Inc. couldn’t last neither will China Inc. last.  Japan Inc. put Japan into a deflationary spiral in the Nineties that hasn’t quite yet ended.  Chances are that China’s deflationary spiral will be worse.  Which is what happens after every Keynesian credit expansion.  And the greater the credit expansion the more painful the contraction.  And with half of all Chinese spending being government spending financed by printing money the Chinese contraction promises to be a spectacular one.  And with them being a primary holder of US treasury debt their problems will ricochet through the world economy.  Hence the IMF warning.

Bad things are coming thanks to Keynesian economics.  Governments should have learned by now.  As Keynesian economics turned a recession into the Great Depression.  It gave us stagflation and misery in the Seventies.  It gave the Japanese their Lost Decade (though that decade actually was closer 2-3 decades).  It caused Greece’s economic collapse.  The Eurozone crisis.  And gave the U.S. record deficits and debt under President Obama.

The history is replete with examples of Keynesian failures.  But governments refuse to learn these lessons of history.  Why?  Because Keynesian economics empowers the growth of Big Government.  Something free market capitalism just won’t do.  Which is why communists (China), socialists (the European social democracies) and liberal Democrats (in the United States) all embrace Keynesian economics and relentlessly attack free market capitalism as corrupt and unfair.  Despite people enjoying the greatest liberty and economic prosperity under free market capitalism (Great Britain, the United States, Canada, Australia, Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea, etc.).  While suffering the most oppression and poverty under communism and socialism (Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, the communist countries behind the Iron Curtain in Eastern Europe, the People’s Republic of China under Mao, North Korea, Cuba, etc.).

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Vietnamese Coffee Industry suffers because Communist Vietnam puts People before Profits

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 17th, 2013

Week in Review

The American left wants more government intervention into the free market.  Because they hate and don’t trust corporations.  Because they are motivated by profit.  Even putting profits before people.  Whereas government puts people before profits.  So everything is better when government intervenes.  Which is why the left loved Hugo Chávez in Venezuela.  They love Cuba.  They loved the former Soviet Union.  Because they were all socialist utopias.  Where they put people before profits.  Of course, people are robbing women of their hair in Venezuelan streets.  Cubans have risked their lives crossing the ocean to reach Florida on just about anything that floats.  And the Soviet Union is no more.  Because they couldn’t provide for their people.  Despite putting their people before profits.

Another communist country the left likes is Vietnam.  Especially since the communists got the Americans to give up and go home.  Vietnam is still communist.  But like China they add a sprinkling of capitalism to the communist stew.  A sort of state-capitalism.  Capitalism with the heavy hand of the government involved.  The way the American left likes it.  And how are things there?  Well, they are having quite the problem in their coffee industry (see Crippling debts brew a coffee crisis in Vietnam by Nguyen Phuong Linh, Ho Binh Minh and Lewa Pardomuan posted 8/15/2013 on The Globe and Mail).

But its coffee industry is now in crisis, plagued by tax evasion, mismanagement, insolvency, high interest rates and a credit squeeze. Many coffee operators are trapped with crippling debt and banks are reluctant to lend them more money.

Vietnam’s credit crunch is blamed largely on state-owned enterprises that borrowed big during the economic boom of the past decade and squandered cash on failed investments, which has left banks crippled by one of Asia’s highest bad-debt ratios…

Few coffee exporters are willing to talk about their financial problems. In communist Vietnam, people are often reluctant to speak publicly about politics and business, especially to foreign media…

Vietnam’s 2013-2014 coffee crop is forecast to be a bumper harvest, around 17 million to 29.5 million 60-kg bags, based on a Reuters poll. This will add to a global oversupply and pressure coffee prices which have lost about 10 per cent since October…

A government assessment of the coffee industry paints a bleak picture. The value of non-performing loans or debts in the sector likely to go unpaid stands at 8 trillion dong ($379-million), or 60 per cent of all coffee industry loans, said a July circular signed by the Deputy Agriculture Minister Vu Van Tam…

Unscrupulous middlemen have also played a part in the crisis, cheating exporters by selling them weighted coffee bags and inferior beans which are difficult to sell or fetch lower prices.

“What I found out is the market there is quite dirty. Middlemen often sell poor beans to exporters. They even put metal bolts in the bags to outweigh them,” said Joyce Liu, an investment analyst at Phillip Futures in Singapore.

You don’t have middlemen putting bolts into bags to make them heavier in free market capitalism.  For any inferior product in a free market doesn’t remain long in a free market.  As people will simply stop buying an inferior product.  And it could take years for a company to rebuild its tarnished image.  If they ever can.  This is what happens when you put profits before people.  People win.

So who caused the credit crunch?  State-owned enterprises.  As people in government are horrible at business.  For if they were good at it they would be in it.  But they’re not so they regulate it.  Or run a state-owned business.  Not because of their business acumen.  But because they had friends in higher places in government than anyone else.

Loans are important in any agricultural business.  Because all of your expenses come long before you can sell anything.  So they take on big debts at the beginning of the season.  That they plan on repaying after the harvest.  As long as prices don’t fall because there is a bumper crop.  But if they do they may not be able to earn enough to repay their bank loans.  Which is why 60% of all coffee industry loans will likely go unpaid.  And why bankers don’t want to loan them any more money.  Or charge a really high interest rate when they do.  For if a banker knows that every other loan he or she writes will never be repaid it makes a banker very reluctant to loan any money.  And what they do loan has to have such high interest rates to cover the loans that are never paid back.

This is why governments should not interfere with free markets.  For when they do they just make everything worse.  Because they’re just not good at it.  Unlike oppressing their people.  That they’re very good at.  Which is why people are “reluctant to speak publicly about politics and business, especially to foreign media.”  Something unheard of in free market economies.  But quite common in these socialist utopias.  Yet the left still favors them over free market capitalism.  Go figure.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Keynesian Economics Destroyed Good Lending Practices at our Banks and gave us the Subprime Mortgage Crisis

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 11th, 2013

Week in Review

In the days of classical economics, before Keynesian economics, people put their money into a bank to earn interest.  The banks gathered all of these deposits together and created a pool of investment capital.  People and businesses then went to the banks to borrow this capital to invest into something.  A house to start a new family in.  Or a factory.  And the more people saved the more money there was to loan to investors.  Which kept the cost of borrowing that money reasonable.  And created booming economic activity.

It was a beautiful system.  And one that worked so well it made the United States the number one economic power in the world.  Then John Maynard Keynes came along and ruined that proven system.  By telling governments that they should intervene into their economies.  That they should manipulate the interest rates.  By printing money.  Which changed the banking system forever (see The Housing Market Is Still Missing a Backbone by GRETCHEN MORGENSON posted 8/10/2013 on The New York Times).

Yet with the government backing or financing nine out of 10 residential mortgages today, it is crucial to lure back private capital, with no government guarantees, to the home loan market. Mr. Obama contended that “private lending should be the backbone” of the market, but he provided no specifics on how to make that happen.

This is a huge, complex problem. In fact, there are many reasons for the reluctance of banks and private investors to fund residential mortgages without government backing.

For starters, banks have grown accustomed to earning fees for making mortgages that they sell to Fannie and Freddie. Generating fee income while placing the long-term credit or interest rate risk on the government’s balance sheet is a win-win for the banks.

A coming shift by the Federal Reserve in its quantitative easing program may also be curbing banks’ appetite for mortgage loans they keep on their own books. These institutions are hesitant to make 30-year, fixed-rate loans before the Fed shifts its stance and rates climb. For a bank, the value of such loans falls when rates rise. This process has already begun — rates on 30-year fixed-rate mortgages were 4.4 percent last week, up from 3.35 percent in early May. This is painful for banks that actually hold older, lower-rate mortgages.

In other words, the federal government’s intervention into the private sector economy caused the subprime mortgage crisis.  And the Great Recession.  By removing all risk from the banking industry by transferring it to the taxpayer.  This created an environment that encouraged lenders to adopt poor lending standards.  Because they made their money on loan initiation fees.  No matter how risky those loans were.  And not by managing a portfolio of performing mortgages.  Which kept the bank honest when writing a loan.  As they would feel the pain if the borrower did not make his or her loan payments.  But if they sold those loans and broomed them off of their balance sheets what would they care if these people ever serviced their loans?

This is what you get with government intervention into the free market.  Distortions of the free market.  Keynesian economics was supposed to get rid of recessions.  By cutting away half of the business cycle.  And just keeping the inflationary side of it.  Trading permanent inflation for no recessions ever.  But since the Keynesians began intervening we’ve had a Great Depression.  A subprime mortgage crisis.  And a Great Recession.  All because they tried to improve the free market.  Which also, coincidentally, enabled Big Government.  The ultimate goal of Keynesian economics.  To get smart government planners in control of our lives.  Just like they were in the former Soviet Union.  But revolutions are messy.  So the government planners bided their time.  And slow-walked their way to power.  First they took control of the banks.  And now they have health care.  Which they will destroy.  Just as they destroyed good lending practices.  Which have given us the worst economic recovery since that following the Great Depression.

Anytime you move away from capitalism things get worse.  When this nation embraced free market capitalism we became the number one economic power in the world.  And the destination for oppressed people everywhere in the world.  For the better life that was available in America.  While the nations that chose the state planning of socialism and communism became those places oppressed people wanted to flee.  And life in those nations only got better with a move towards capitalism.  China may soon become the world’s number one economic power.  But they’re not doing this by adhering strictly to their state-planning ways of Mao’s China.  No.  They are doing this by moving away from the state-planning of Mao’s China.  To something called state-capitalism.  Pseudo-capitalism.  Just hints and traces of capitalism simmering in state-planning stew.  Where communist planners still control the people’s lives.  A direction America is slow-walking itself to.  Slowly.  But surely.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Hong Kong’s Free Market Capitalism makes Safer Baby Formula than China’s State Capitalism

Posted by PITHOCRATES - May 11th, 2013

Week in Review

Kids coming out of American schools learn that capitalism is unfair.  And that greedy businesses will put their customers at great risk to make a buck.  For capitalism puts profits before people.  Which is why we need a government with expanding regulatory powers.  For government puts people before profits.  Like they do in China.  A favorite of those on the left who urge more government intervention into the private sector economy.  Like they do in China.  Where they have a booming economy thanks to wise government bureaucrats.  And safe and happy people because the government prevents those nasty profit-seeking businesses from ever harming a soul (see China’s Parents Crave Illegally Imported Baby Formula by Liza Lin and Julie Cruz posted 5/2/2013 on Bloomberg Businessweek).

For Hong Kong customs agents, baby formula is the new heroin. On March 1 a law went into effect limiting the amount of powdered milk travelers can carry out of Hong Kong to two 2-pound cans each. Since then, more people have been arrested for smuggling baby formula than were caught all of last year with heroin and cocaine…

Many Chinese parents are desperate to get their hands on foreign-made baby formula after numerous food safety scandals in recent years. In 2008 at least 22 Chinese companies were found to have sold dairy products containing melamine, a toxic chemical that can make diluted milk appear to have a higher protein content. Six babies died as a result. In 2011, China’s largest milk producer, China Mengniu Dairy, said in a statement that moldy cattle feed led to excessive toxin levels in its milk. Last year another large milk producer, Inner Mongolia Yili Industrial Group, recalled formula tainted with mercury. “Chinese consumers are so frightened and so sensitive to safety issues with milk powder that they are willing to pay a higher premium than consumers anywhere else,” says James Roy, a Shanghai-based senior analyst at China Market Research Group.

That willingness to pay has led to baby formula shortages in Hong Kong, where food safety standards are higher. The surge in Chinese demand has even hit foreign markets, where baby formula is often cheaper than in China. Over the past year, stores in Germany, the U.K., and New Zealand have put limits on all bulk purchases of formula, such as Danone’s (BN) Aptamil and Mead Johnson Nutrition’s (MJN) Enfamil.

Hong Kong favors free market capitalism.  While China prefers state capitalism.  Where the state regulates the private sector economy with the heavy hand of the government.  So, in Hong Kong you have the economic system that American schools teach students is bad.  Because they put profits before people.  While China has the economic system that the American schools teach is good.  Because they put people before profits.  And which one is better?  Well, food safety standards are higher in High Kong than in China.  Despite putting profits before people.

Or you could say that food safety standards are higher in High Kong BECAUSE they put profits before people.  Because if babies start dying after drinking a company’s baby formula people will exercise their free choice and buy another company’s baby formula.  A very strong incentive NOT to kill babies.  Because it would be bad for business.  And bad for profits.

Whereas in the ‘people before profits’ state capitalism of China if a company kills babies with its baby formula it’s no big deal.  For the state will just force their people to buy the tainted baby formula by putting import restrictions on safe baby formula.  So there is no incentive NOT to kill babies in China.

So which system is better?  If you base it on which protects their people better you have to go with Hong Kong.  For they’re not killing babies with their baby formula.  While the Chinese are.  Which is a lesson the American schools should be teaching.  Instead of the anti-capitalistic curriculum written by those Sixties’ radicals who actually preferred China the way it was under Chairman Mao.  Before state capitalism.  A time of true communist collectivism.  Where tainted baby formula was the least of their problems.  As they were busy setting famine records with their agricultural policies of forced collectivism.  Where they really put people before profits.  For there were no profits.  So things are better in China today.  For they do allow some profits.  But things aren’t as good as they are in Hong Kong.  Where they allow all the profit you can make.  And by putting profits before people the people come out ahead.  As do their babies.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

A Weak Currency may Boost Exports but it will Raise all Prices Businesses and Consumers Pay

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 24th, 2013

Week in Review

China created a booming economy thanks to a healthy export market.  In part because of their cheap labor.  An in part by keeping their currency weak.  For when you buy goods from China you first have to exchange your currency for theirs.  If your currency is stronger than theirs is you will get a lot more of theirs in exchange for yours.  Allowing you to buy a lot more Chinese goods with your stronger currency.  This is why China likes to have a weak currency.  And takes actions to keep it artificially weak.  Something her trading partners don’t like.  For their weaker currency tends to make the net flow of goods in international trade with China flowing from China to everyone else.  Thus giving China a healthy export market.  At the expense of everyone else’s export market.

But China is a developing economy.  Things change when you become an advanced economy.  Because you don’t have impoverished masses filling your factories manufacturing goods for export.  You have a thriving middle class.  With a high standard of living.  With good jobs giving them disposable income.  And few of them work in the export economy.  So despite all the talk about unfair trade practices of China most people in an advanced economy don’t worry that much about trade deficits.  For they’re buying a lot of imported goods.  From smartphones to coffee beans.  And a weak currency makes these items more expensive.

So there are two sides to the value of your currency.  If you have impoverished masses filling factories to build export goods a weak currency is good.  It lets the state sell more of those export goods.  In an export-dominated economy.  And provides a lot of low-paid factory jobs.  If you have a thriving middle class a strong currency is good.  For it lets the people buy a lot of stuff.  Creating a lot of better paying non-factory jobs.  In a non-export-dominated economy.  Basically the difference between free market capitalism.  And mercantilism (see Is the World on the Brink of a Currency War? by Michael Sivy posted 2/21/2013 on Time).

Currency wars – and trade wars generally – have their origins in a 17th and 18th century economic theory known as mercantilism. The idea was that a country’s wealth comes from selling more than it buys. A colonial empire could achieve this positive balance of trade by acquiring cheap raw materials from its colonies and then ensuring that it exported more finished goods than it imported. This was usually accomplished with tariffs that made imports very expensive.

Such an approach couldn’t work in the modern world. Countries don’t get cheap raw materials from colonies anymore. They have to buy them – especially oil – on the open market. So while currency devaluation makes exports cheaper for foreign buyers, it also makes essential imports more expensive. For Europe in particular, which imports so much of its energy, devaluation isn’t necessarily a plus…

The Federal Reserve’s quantitative easing – buying bonds to swell the money supply – is aimed principally at stimulating domestic demand. European advocates of a cheaper euro currency, meanwhile, are hoping to make national debt easier to finance, not trying to pump up exports. In fact, the continent’s greatest exporter, Germany, is the country least amenable to currency devaluation…

So forget all the talk of a currency war. What’s going on has nothing to do with trade and everything to do with debt and growth and inflation. If the global economy is in danger of reliving the past, it will not be a repeat of the 1930s. Rather, it will be a repeat of the 1970s, when the Federal Reserve expanded the money supply to offset the economic slowdown caused by the oil crisis – and ended up encouraging double-digit inflation.

The double-digit inflation of the Seventies really devalued the currency.  Raised prices.  Greatly limiting the amount of stuff people could buy.  Even though printing money then didn’t work these nations believe it will work now.  Because it will make their exports cheaper for foreigners to buy.  Despite making everything more expensive inside their own country.

But there is another reason they love to print money.  It lets them spend more.  And it makes old debt easier to pay off.  We call it monetizing the debt.  For example, if a nation has a GDP of $1 million and a debt of $500,000 that debt is huge.  It’s 50% of GDP.  But if we turn on the printing presses and devalue the currency to one tenth of its original value that GDP is now $10 million ($1 million divided by 1/10).  Making that outstanding debt only 5% of GDP.  And a whole lot easier to repay.  But what is one person’s debt is another person’s retirement savings.  So not only does inflation increase prices it destroys our retirement savings.  And all this just so we can boost the small sliver of our economy we call exports.

If this is so bad on so many levels why do governments print money then?  For one simple reason.  To get people to vote for them.  Because all the people see is the free stuff the politicians are giving them.  The damage it causes comes later.  And they can always blame that on Republicans.  Who refuse to raise tax rates on rich people to make them pay their fair share.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Double Entry Bookkeeping, Trial Balance, Financial Statements, Financial Ratios, Italian City-States and Capitalism

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 8th, 2013

History 101

The Government Finances are a Train Wreck because they have the Power to Tax and to Print Money

President Obama averaged a deficit of $1.3 trillion for each of his first 4 years in office.  Bringing the national debt up to $16.4 trillion at the end of 2012.  And there will be another drop-down, drag-out fight to raise the debt limit in a couple of months.  Why does the government spend this kind of money?  Because they can.  And because they can they can buy a lot of votes by giving stuff away.  Stuff paid for with all of that spending.

When the government implemented Social Security and Medicare there was still an expanding birthrate.  More people were entering the workforce than were leaving it.  Providing an ever expanding tax base.  And a rising level of tax revenue.  Without ever having to increase tax rates.  And the smart government planners thought the good times would just keep rolling.  But they didn’t.  Thanks to birth control and abortion.  Which reversed the equation.  The population growth rate slowed down.  Fewer people entered the workforce than left it.  Resulting in a declining tax base.  And falling tax revenue.  Pushing Social Security and Medicare to the brink of bankruptcy.

The government finances are a train wreck.  And they keep digging their hole deeper.  Because they can.  For they have the power to tax.  And to print money.  Something private businesses can’t do.  Which is why few corporations’ finances are train wrecks.  Except those with unionized workforces with defined-benefit pension plans.  Something long discontinued by most in the private sector.  As it’s a failed economic model.  Just like Social Security.  And Medicare.  Over time more people move from being contributors to being beneficiaries.  Pushing defined-benefit pension plans, too, to the brink of bankruptcy.

At the End of each Accounting Period they run a Trial Balance to Verify the Total of Debits Equals the Total of Credits

The difference between private sector businesses and the federal government is that private sector businesses have to be responsible while the federal government does not.  The federal government focuses on what’s politically expedient.  While private sector businesses must focus on the bottom line.  Spending only the money they have.  Because they can’t tax or print money to fix their messes.  Like the government can.  And does.  A lot.  So they have to avoid making messes in the first place.  They can’t kick the can down the road.  Because in the private sector there is accountability.  And that accountability begins with getting their hands around their business numbers.  So they can understand what their businesses are doing.  And when it’s time to take appropriate actions.  To prevent a financial train wreck.  And it all begins with double-entry bookkeeping.

Double-entry bookkeeping includes debits and credits.  Each transaction is posted to the accounting records with at least one debit and at least one credit.  The dollar amount of debits equals the dollar amounts of credits.  If they don’t equal after recording a transaction they were posted incorrectly.  For example, when someone pays cash for something at a retail store there are two debits and two credits to post.  First we debit cash $20 and credit sales revenue $20.  Then we debit cost of goods sold $18 (the cost of the item sold) and credit inventory $18 (the cost of the item in inventory).   If posted correctly the total debits equal $38.  And the total credits equal $38.  If, for example, someone debited sales revenue instead of crediting sales revenue the total debits would equal $58 while the total credits would equal $18.  Because they don’t balance we know something was posted incorrectly.  And can go back, find the error and correct it.

A business accounts for every penny that flows through their business.  Each accounting period will have thousands of such entries.  And at the end of each accounting period they will run a trial balance to verify that the total of debits equals the total of credits.  When they do they can be pretty sure that the financial information they recorded fairly represent the financial activity of the business at the end of that accounting period.  Then they prepare the financial statements (the income statement, the balance sheet, the statement of cash flows and the statement of retained earnings and stockholders’ equity).  Businesses study these statements to assess the health of their businesses.  They calculate financial ratios to assess the liquidity, long-term debt-paying ability and profitability of the business.  As well as calculate ratios for investor analysis.  To make sure they are satisfying the owners of the company.  The stockholders.

The First Use of Double-Entry Bookkeeping dates back to the Italian City-States of Florence, Genoa and Venice

This is a lot of valuable information.  Courtesy of that double-entry bookkeeping.  Something that can be so mundane and mind-numbing at the data entry point.  Especially if you’re trying to figure out why your trial balance doesn’t balance.  But when it does balance.  And the financial information is fairly represented.  Business owners and managers can make informed decisions to avoid doing what our federal government does.  Including making the hard decisions that permit these businesses stay in business for a decade or more.  Even a century or more.  Thanks to merchant banking.  And the Italian city-states.

For those of you who hate bookkeeping blame the Italians.  Some of the Florentines were using it as early as the 13th century.  The Genoese were using it shortly thereafter.  Soon Florence, Genoa and Venice were using double-entry bookkeeping.  This mastering of economic data made these city-states the dominant economic powers of the Mediterranean.  Making them masters of trade.  And merchant banking.  To manage that trade.  This system of accounting even made it into textbooks in the late 1400s.  Helping to spread good business practices.  Where they were picked up by other great traders.  The Europeans.

With double-entry bookkeeping businesses were able to grow.  First with the help of government.  Mercantilism.  Then without.  Free market capitalism.  Which created the British Empire.  And gave us the Industrial Revolution.  Then the United States came into their own in the late 19th century.  And surpassed the British Empire.  Economic activity exploded in the United States.  Because they were able to get their hands around all of those financial numbers.  And thanks to free market capitalism they focused on the bottom line.  And made the necessary decisions.  No matter how painful they were.  Something that the federal government just can’t do.  Because those decisions aren’t politically expedient.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

The Horse, Waterwheel, Steam Engine, Electricity, DC and AC Power, Power Transmission and Electric Motors

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 26th, 2012

Technology 101

(Original published December 21st, 2011)

A Waterwheel, Shaft, Pulleys and Belts made Power Transmission Complex

The history of man is the story of man controlling and shaping our environment.  Prehistoric man did little to change his environment.  But he started the process.  By making tools for the first time.  Over time we made better tools.  Taking us into the Bronze Age.  Where we did greater things.  The Sumerians and the Egyptians led their civilization in mass farming.  Created some of the first food surpluses in history.  In time came the Iron Age.  Better tools.  And better plows.  Fewer people could do more.  Especially when we attached an iron plow to one horsepower.  Or better yet, when horses were teamed together to produce 2 horsepower.  3 horsepower.  Even 4 horsepower.  The more power man harnessed the more work he was able to do.

This was the key to controlling and shaping our environment.  Converting energy into power.  A horse’s physiology can produce energy.  By feeding, watering and resting a horse we can convert that energy into power.  And with that power we can do greater work than we can do with our own physiology.  Working with horse-power has been the standard for millennia.  Especially for motive power.  Moving things.  Like dragging a plow.  But man has harnessed other energy.  Such as moving water.  Using a waterwheel.  Go into an old working cider mill in the fall and you’ll see how man made power from water by turning a wheel and a series of belts and pulleys.  The waterwheel turned a main shaft that ran the length of the work area.  On the shaft were pulleys.  Around these pulleys were belts that could be engaged to transfer power to a work station.  Where it would turn another pulley attached to a shaft.  Depending on the nature of the work task the rotational motion of the main shaft could be increased or decreased with gears.  We could change it from rotational to reciprocating motion.  We could even change the axis of rotation with another type of gearing.

This was a great step forward in advancing civilization.  But the waterwheel, shaft, pulleys and belts made power transmission complex.  And somewhat limited by the energy available in the moving water.  A great step forward was the steam engine.  A large external combustion engine.  Where an external firebox heated water to steam.  And then that steam pushed a piston in a cylinder.  The energy in expanding steam was far greater than in moving water.  It produced far more power.  And could do far more work.  We could do so much work with the steam engine that it kicked off the Industrial Revolution.

Nikola Tesla created an Electrical Revolution using AC Power

The steam engine also gave us more freedom.  We could now build a factory anywhere we wanted to.  And did.  We could do something else with it, too.  We could put it on tracks.  And use it to pull heavy loads across the country.  The steam locomotive interconnected the factories to the raw materials they consumed.  And to the cities that bought their finished goods.  At a rate no amount of teamed horses could equal.  Yes, the iron horse ended man’s special relationship with the horse.  Even on the farm.  Where steam engines powered our first tractors.  Giving man the ability to do more work than ever.  And grow more food than ever.  Creating greater food surpluses than the Sumerians and Egyptians could ever grow.  No matter how much of their fertile river banks they cultivated.  Or how much land they irrigated.

Steam engines were incredibly powerful.  But they were big.  And very complex.  They were ideal for the farm and the factory.  The steam locomotive and the steamship.  But one thing they were not good at was transmitting power over distances.  A limitation the waterwheel shared.  To transmit power from a steam engine required a complicated series of belts and pulleys.  Or multiple steam engines.  A great advance in technology changed all that.  Something Benjamin Franklin experimented with.  Something Thomas Edison did, too.  Even gave us one of the greatest inventions of all time that used this new technology.  The light bulb.  Powered by, of course, electricity.

Electricity.  That thing we can’t see, touch or smell.  And it moves mysteriously through wires and does work.  Edison did much to advance this technology.  Created electrical generators.  And lit our cities with his electric light bulb.  Electrical power lines crisscrossed our early cities.  And there were a lot of them.  Far more than we see today.  Why?  Because Edison’s power was direct current.  DC.  Which had some serious drawbacks when it came to power transmission.  For one it didn’t travel very far before losing much of its power. So electrical loads couldn’t be far from a generator.  And you needed a generator for each voltage you used.  That adds up to a lot of generators.  Great if you’re in the business of selling electrical generators.  Which Edison was.  But it made DC power costly.  And complex.  Which explained that maze of power lines crisscrossing our cities.  A set of wires for each voltage.  Something you didn’t need with alternating current.  AC.  And a young engineer working for George Westinghouse was about to give Thomas Edison a run for his money.  By creating an electrical revolution using that AC power.  And that’s just what Nikola Tesla did.

Transformers Stepped-up Voltages for Power Transmission and Stepped-down Voltages for Electrical Motors

An alternating current went back and forth through a wire.  It did not have to return to the electrical generator after leaving it.  Unlike a direct current ultimately had to.  Think of a reciprocating engine.  Like on a steam locomotive.  This back and forth motion doesn’t do anything but go back and forth.  Not very useful on a train.  But when we convert it to rotational motion, why, that’s a whole other story.  Because rotational motion on a train is very useful.  Just as AC current in transmission lines turned out to be very useful.

There are two electrical formulas that explain a lot of these developments.  First, electrical power (P) is equal to the voltage (V) multiplied by the current (I).  Expressed mathematically, P = V x I.  Second, current (I) is equal to the voltage (V) divided by the electrical resistance (R).  Mathematically, I = V/R.  That’s the math.  Here it is in words.  The greater the voltage and current the greater the power.  And the more work you can do.  However, we transmit current on copper wires.  And copper is expensive.  So to increase current we need to lower the resistance of that expensive copper wire.  But there’s only one way to do that.  By using very thick and expensive wires.  See where we’re going here?  Increasing current is a costly way to increase power.  Because of all that copper.  It’s just not economical.  So what about increasing voltage instead?  Turns out that’s very economical.  Because you can transmit great power with small currents if you step up the voltage.  And Nikola Tesla’s AC power allowed just that.  By using transformers.  Which, unfortunately for Edison, don’t work with DC power.

This is why Nikola Tesla’s AC power put Thomas Edison’s DC power out of business.  By stepping up voltages a power plant could send power long distances.  And then that high voltage could be stepped down to a variety of voltages and connected to factories (and homes).  Electric power could do one more very important thing.  It could power new electric motors.  And convert this AC power into rotational motion.  These electric motors came in all different sizes and voltages to suit the task at hand.  So instead of a waterwheel or a steam engine driving a main shaft through a factory we simply connected factories to the electric grid.  Then they used step-down transformers within the factory where needed for the various work tasks.  Connecting to electric motors on a variety of machines.  Where a worker could turn them on or off with the flick of a switch.  Without endangering him or herself by engaging or disengaging belts from a main drive shaft.  Instead the worker could spend all of his or her time on the task at hand.  Increasing productivity like never before.

Free Market Capitalism gave us Electric Power, the Electric Motor and the Roaring Twenties

What electric power and the electric motor did was reduce the size and complexity of energy conversion to useable power.  Steam engines were massive, complex and dangerous.  Exploding boilers killed many a worker.  And innocent bystander.  Electric power was simpler and safer to use.  And it was more efficient.  Horses were stronger than man.  But increasing horsepower required a lot of big horses that we also had to feed and care for.  Electric motors are smaller and don’t need to be fed.  Or be cleaned up after, for that matter.

Today a 40 pound electric motor can do the work of one 1,500 pound draft horse.  Electric power and the electric motor allow us to do work no amount of teamed horses can do.  And it’s safer and simpler than using a steam engine.  Which is why the Roaring Twenties roared.  It was in the 1920s that this technology began to power American industry.  Giving us the power to control and shape our environment like never before.  Vaulting America to the number one economic power of the world.  Thanks to free market capitalism.  And a few great minds along the way.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

« Previous Entries   Next Entries »