France discourages Job Creation with a Short Workweek, Confiscatory Tax Rates and Banning Emails after 6 PM

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 12th, 2014

Week in Review

For socialism to work you need businesses to provide jobs.  Because without people working the government can’t have confiscatory tax rates to fund a massive socialist state.  You’ve got to have jobs.  Which confiscatory tax rates tend to discourage.  For business and rich investors don’t want to pay confiscatory tax rates.  François Hollande ran on a socialist platform in France.  Promising to raise taxes to bring down the deficit.  Which he did.  Raise taxes.  But it didn’t lower an unemployment rate stubbornly staying above 10%.

High taxes and a poor economy caused the socialists to lose elections.  So Hollande is putting together a tax-cutting package.  To reverse their electoral losses.  You’d think the socialists would have learned their lessons that the people want jobs.  And to have jobs you need a business-friendly environment.  Which something like this is not going to help (see France bans work e-mail after 6 p.m. by John Johnson, Newser, posted 4/11/2014 on USA Today).

France already has a 35-hour work week, and a new rule is designed to make sure that it doesn’t start shading toward 40 hours because of work-related e-mail.

The Guardian reports that the rule forbids workers from checking their phones or computers for work stuff after 6 p.m., and it forbids employers from pressuring them to do so.

The move apparently doesn’t affect all workers in France, but it does cover about 1 million workers in the tech industry — including French employees of Google and Facebook…

At Fox Business, a U.S. labor expert finds it hard to believe the IT industry can manage such a draconian shut-off time.

“There’s always something going wrong off the clock — when a computer goes down, it doesn’t go down between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m.”

It’s yet another thing to discourage business.  Things happen after hours.  Can you imagine a business wanting to open themselves to that kind of liability?  Having someone in the company send out an email without checking the clock first?  Or someone working late into the evening to catch up on a project.  Sending out a bunch of emails so people could read them first thing in the morning.  If someone else is working late do they read this email?  Perhaps this person was waiting for this email and would like to address it that evening to reduce his or her workload the following day.  Would this worker have been pressured into reading the email knowing his or her boss would have appreciated the extra effort?

There’s a reason why General Motors (GM) went bankrupt.  Well, there are a few of them.  But one of them was costly workplace rules.  Such as only allowing an electrician to change a light bulb at a work station.  Even if the person at that workstation could have changed that bulb in a couple of minutes.  Instead of waiting an hour or so for skilled trades to come around to unscrew the burnt out lamp and screw in a new lamp.

These little workplace rules add up.  And though seemingly harmless when you look at them one at a time in the aggregate they increase the cost of business.  A lot.  Just ask GM.  Something businesses look at when they are considering the location of a new factory.  Whether to expand production at an existing factory.  Or whether to shut down a factory and move production out of the country to a more business-friendly environment.  Thus killing job creation.  Jobs the socialists need for people to have so they can pay confiscatory taxes on their earnings.

A business unfriendly environment will never lower the unemployment rate.  As the socialists in France have proven.  And left-leaning governments everywhere have proven.  Confiscatory tax rates do not attract businesses.  Or rich investors.  They discourage them.  And encourage them to take their money and invest it elsewhere.  And create jobs elsewhere.  In another country that is a little kinder to business.  And job creation.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

The BLS Employment Situation Summary for December 2013

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 13th, 2014

Economics 101

The Labor Force Participation Rate has Fallen Steadily since President Obama became President

Ever since the recovery summer of 2010 the Obama administration has told us the recession was over.  And his policies were creating one heck of an economic recovery.  Backed up by all those glowing monthly jobs reports. Like the December 2013 jobs report (see Employment Situation Summary posted 1/10/2014 on the Bureau of Labor Statistics).

The unemployment rate declined from 7.0 percent to 6.7 percent in December, while total nonfarm payroll employment edged up (+74,000), the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today.

The unemployment rate is down.  And new jobs were created.  Again.  Jobs report after jobs report it’s the same thing.  The administration touts the falling unemployment rate and new job creation as confirmation that their economic policies are working.  Even though it’s been 5 years.  And the economy is still in the toilet.  Despite that falling unemployment rate.  For there is a reason why the unemployment rate is falling.  And it has nothing to do with an economic activity.

The civilian labor force participation rate declined by 0.2 percentage point to 62.8 percent in December… The labor force participation rate declined by 0.8 percentage point over the year…

In fact, the labor force participation rate has fallen steadily since President Obama became president.  This is not good.  In fact, it’s very bad.  Because it means that under President Obama’s economic policies more people have left the labor force than entered or remained in it.  Meaning that his economic policies have caused a net loss of jobs throughout his presidency.

The U-6 Unemployment Rate is Closer to the Bitter Sentiment of Job Seekers in the Current Economic Climate

In January of 2009 when President Obama began his presidency there were 80,507,000 people not in the labor force.  At the end of December 2013 that number grew to 91,808,000.  Subtracting one from the other and you get 11,301,000 people that have left the labor force since President Obama entered office.  Because his policies destroyed 11,301,000 jobs.  And because these people couldn’t find new jobs they just gave up looking.  Which is why the unemployment rate keeps falling.

So you can talk of new jobs created.  And a falling unemployment rate.  But those numbers don’t reflect the 11,301,000 jobs President Obama destroyed with his policies.  Which comes to 260,200 jobs lost per year.  Or 188,350 each month.  Which is a lot more than the 74,000 new jobs.  In fact, if you look at the change in the number of people not in the labor force from November to December of 2013 you’ll see that 525,000 people left the labor force.  So the December jobs lost is about 2.8 times the average jobs lost during the Obama presidency.  And giving a ratio of about 7 jobs lost for every new job created in December.  Making December a horrible month for jobs.  Much worse than the 6.7% unemployment rate would have us believe.

The funny thing about the official unemployment rate is that the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) doesn’t count people who quit looking for a job.  Or who are working part-time because they can’t find a full-time job.  If we want an alternative measure of labor underutilization (that counts more people who can’t find a full-time job) we should look at the U-6 unemployment rate.  We can find this number in the same BLS jobs report (in Table A-15).  Which was 13.1% for December 2013.  An unemployment rate much closer to the bitter sentiment of job seekers in the current economic climate.

We will have to Wait through many more Bad Jobs Reports before we can Enjoy a Healthy Economy Again

The Employment Situation Summary confirms the horrible economy.  Though misleading with these falling unemployment rates the real economic picture is still in these reports.  All you have to do is look for them.  And understand what they mean.  For example:

In December, job gains occurred in retail trade and wholesale trade…

Employment in retail trade rose by 55,000 in December. Within the industry, job gains occurred in food and beverage stores (+12,000), clothing and accessories stores (+12,000), general merchandise stores (+8,000), and motor vehicle and parts dealers (+7,000)…

In December, wholesale trade added 15,000 jobs. Most of the job growth occurred in electronic markets and agents and brokers (+9,000).

Note that of the 74,000 new jobs 70,000 (94.6%) of them were in retail and wholesale trade.  Which is not surprising when you consider what’s in December.  Christmas.  (While near-zero interest rates sold cars to people who would otherwise not buy them.)  The final sprint of retailers for the year.  And when many of them go firmly into the black.  But while the Christmas surge on employment was underway other sectors did not fare as well.

Within the [professional and business services] industry, temporary help services added 40,000 jobs in December, while employment in accounting and bookkeeping services declined by 25,000.

Businesses add temporary workers when they have a surge in sales they believe won’t last.  And don’t want to have more permanent workers on their payroll when that surge in sales ends.  For it is easier to let temps go than full-time workers.  And less costly.  Accounting and bookkeeping services aren’t the most glamorous of services.  When the economy is growing businesses have more accounting and bookkeeping work.  But when the economy is contracting businesses have less accounting and bookkeeping work.  So a decline here could indicate an economic contraction.

The December 2013 jobs report is bleak.  Just as the oncoming winter looks in December.  Knowing we’ll have to wait through a long and cold winter before we can enjoy the warmth of summer again.  Just as we know we will have to wait through many more bad jobs reports before we can enjoy a healthy economy again.  Thanks to the horrific economic policies of the Obama administration that have failed to work these past 5 years.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

The Politics of Jobs Data

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 8th, 2013

Economics 101

The Party of the Working Man misrepresents the Jobs Data and Lies to the People

Figures don’t lie but liars figure.  Something Mark Twain is said to have said.  Mark Twain is, of course, Samuel Langhorne Clemens.  But we know him by his pen name.  Mark Twain.  And the author of The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.  But he was also a science buff.  And close friend of Nikola Tesla.  The father of AC power.  And he thought that most Congress people were liars and thieves.  With personal agendas.  Who will lie about facts and figures to get what they want.  And what do people in government want?  What all people in governments throughout time have wanted.  Wealth.  And power.

Every king, noble and aristocrat has acted selfishly in history to acquire wealth and power.  The privileged few.  Or one.  They held the power.  Traded favors.   And worked together.  Landowners amassed great wealth thanks to peasants working their land.  The king maintained the system that limited land ownership to a privileged few.  And the privileged few paid back the king with a share of their wealth.  By working together they exploited the masses to amass wealth.  So they could live the good life.  Comfortable in their wealth.  With the power to do whatever they wanted.  And this hasn’t changed over time.  Well, it has in one respect.  With the advent of democracy it is a little more difficult to do what you want when in elected office.

Today no one leaves Congress poor.  They are set for life.  With a generous pension.  And benefits most workers never get while gainfully employed.  And how do they do this?  The same way that kings, nobles and aristocrats have always acquired wealth.  By using political power to exploit the masses.  And the key to this is growing government as large as possible.  To give them that power.  And the ability to grant favors.  Throwing a few handouts to the peasants to win their love and admiration.  Thus pleasing enough of the electorate to win elections.  But the policies they use to make this happen have a major drawback.  They are anti-business.  And kill jobs.  Putting people out of work.  Which can be a problem when you’re the party of the working man.  And working woman.  So you have to at times misrepresent the jobs data.  And lie to the people.

The United States and Kim Jong Un have an Obesity Problem while the North Korean People suffer Famine

History has shown that low taxes and limited government grow economies.  This is what made the United States the number one economic power in the world.  Which was able to happen because it happened before the era of Big Government in the United States.  Right now there are emerging economies in the world going through a similar phase.  And their stellar economic growth will sputter out once the size of their governments grow.  Just like they have in many advanced economies that have transitioned into a social democracy.  For there is nothing that stamps out economic growth like higher taxes and greater regulatory costs.  Which is why the Soviet Union, the countries behind the Iron Curtain in Eastern Europe, The People’s Republic of China (under Mao), North Korea, Cuba, etc., have never been great economic powers.  Instead these countries that practiced fairness and redistributive policies suffered some of the most abject poverty and the lowest standards of living.  Not to mention having some of the most brutal and oppressive police states to keep their people from fleeing their social utopias.

But when it came to economic production these nations all lied to their people.  If you listened to the Soviet propaganda machine communism had won.  There was no way free market capitalism could match the managed communist economy.  They were growing bumper crops.  Their factories were putting out more goods than they could use.  And life was just peachy in the Soviet police state.  A lot of people in the West believed this.  And fought to undermine capitalism so they, too, could install socialist utopias in the West.  But the people living in those socialist utopias had a little more trouble believing the lies.  For they were waiting hours in lines to buy soap and toilet paper.  They saw stores with empty shelves.  And stores with shelves full of things no one wanted to buy.  They had to wait years before it was their turn to buy a car.  Or get an apartment.  And forever speak in hushed tones for fear the secret police might hear them utter some dissatisfaction of the socialist system.  Lest they disappear to some reeducation camp in Siberia.

And while the people suffered those in power did not.  In socialism everyone was equal.  But like George Orwell said in Animal Farm, some were more equal than others.  North Korea suffers from recurring famine.  And depends on food imports to prevent future famines.  So your average North Korean is not going to have an obesity problem.  While the United States suffers an obesity crisis because their people eat too much food North Korea suffers through recurring famines where people starve to death.  But you know who isn’t starving to death?  Kim Jong Un.  The new ruler of North Korea.  Who not only appears to be well fed.  But even looks obese.  And this in a country that suffers from recurring famines.  And it’s been the same throughout history.  Those champions of the people always lived better than the people.  For those in the inner party in the Soviet Union went to the front of the line when it came to cars and apartments.

Kings, Nobles, Aristocrats and those in the Federal Government act Selfishly to acquire Wealth and Power

This is why people want political power.  Because it is a pathway to wealth.  Especially for those people who don’t have the ability to create wealth on their own.  Like a small business owner.  So they need to use political power.  Favor.  Privilege.  And deceit.  Which is an important tool for today’s politician’s in a democracy.  Deceit.  Such as when they figure with the economic figures.  The Obama administration has implemented some of the most business unfriendly policies that have just stamped out all economic growth.  Which is why we have been wallowing in a jobless recovery following the Great Recession.  While some would even say the Great Recession lingers on.  Despite what the economic data says.  For they have little faith in the numbers anymore.  For with every jobs report the Obama administration highlights the new jobs the economy created.  And how even though the numbers could be better we are definitely on the right path.  As the unemployment rate continues to fall.  Dropping below 8% just in time for the 2012 election.  As no president ever won reelection with an unemployment rate above 8%.  So it was rather convenient it fell just in time for the election.  Perhaps a little bit too convenient.  Especially when you look at the other economic numbers (see Table A-15. Alternative measures of labor underutilization and Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey).

U3 U6 Civilian Labor Force

The U3 unemployment rate is the official unemployment rate.  Which fell to 7.6% in March.  Yet another improvement.  But the U3 unemployment rate doesn’t count everyone who can’t find a full time job.  The U6 unemployment rate counts more people who can’t find a full-time job.  And it fell to 13.8% in March.  Which is an improvement.  But the number of people who can’t find a full time job is still in double digits.  And has moved little from around 14%.  One thing both the U3 and the U6 numbers have in common is that they have changed little in the last 6 months.  While the number of people in the civilian labor force has changed.  A lot.  So one of these numbers doesn’t appear to agree with the other two.  For if the unemployment rate was steady one would think the number of people in the civilian labor force would be steady, too.  Which makes one question the accuracy of the official unemployment rate.  And the constant reports of how the economy is improving.  How it’s on the right path.  As they talk about all the new jobs their policies have created.  Despite the stubbornly high unemployment numbers.  But if we look at that job creation and the changes in the size of the civilian labor force we get a different picture of that improving economy (see Employment Situation Archived News Releases).

Jobs Added Change in Civilian Labor Force

The latest jobs report shows 88,000 new jobs added to the economy.  Less than projected.  And a bit of a disappointment to those in the ‘the economy is on the right path’ crowd.  But they still find solace in the fact that the economy added jobs.  Just as it has for the previous 5 months.  If you add this job creation up during this 6-month period it totals 953,000 new jobs.  That’s about 1 million new jobs.  Not a strong recovery.  But not too shabby.  But if we look at the change in the civilian labor force we don’t see 1 million new jobs.  Over the same 6-month period we see a net LOSS of 28,000 people from the civilian labor force.  Which agrees more with the reality of the current economy.  And the U6 unemployment rate.  It’s bad.  People can’t find a full-time job.  And it’s because of the anti-business policies of the Obama administration.  But for the past 4 years or so they have massaged the jobs data to lead us to believe that they were creating jobs when they were actually destroying jobs.  Why?  Because kings, nobles, aristocrats and those in the federal government act selfishly to acquire wealth and power.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

FT164: “If the poor ever stopped being poor the Democrats would have trouble winning elections.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 5th, 2013

Fundamental Truth

There is no Greater Killer of Poverty than a Job-Creating Free Market Economy

A lot of people vote Democrat because of the perception that the Democrats are for the little guy.  The working man.  The poor.  The disenfranchised.  The sick.  The maimed.  Children.  Women.  Minorities.  Gays.  Lesbians.  Etc.  While Republicans are for rich white men, bankers, corporate executives, Wall Street investors, etc.  Democrats care about people.  While Republicans care about profits.  Democrats good.  Republicans bad.  At least, that’s the common perception in much of America.

The working man.  That’s who the Democrats are for.  The working man.  And what exactly does ‘the working man’ mean?  It means men who are working.  Obviously.  (We’re using the term ‘working man’ because it’s long been part of the lexicon of the Democrat Party.  But we include both men and women when using the expression ‘the working man’.)  The Democrats champion unions to protect the working man.  And to show their gratitude the unions put all their financial support behind Democrat candidates.  So putting people into good jobs is a very important mission for the Democrat Party.  At least that is the perception.

Jobs.  They are important.  For there is no greater killer of poverty than a job.  Countries that have advanced free market economies have plenty of good-paying jobs.  Where much of the populace lives well above poverty.  Like in Chile.  After Milton Friedman and the Chilean economists known as the ‘Chicago Boys’ ignited free market principles in Chile starting in 1973.  Countries that don’t have advanced free market economies have few good-paying jobs.  Where much of their populace lives in abject poverty.  Such as in Haiti.  And these prosperity/poverty levels impact more than just day-to-day life.

The United States has a High Standard of Living because of a Business-Friendly Environment

Chile suffered a magnitude 8.8 earthquake in 2011.  One of the largest earthquakes ever to be recorded in history.  It claimed approximately 525 lives.  Haiti suffered a magnitude 7.0 earthquake in 2010.  Less powerful than the Chilean earthquake.  Yet the Haitian earthquake claimed approximately 220,000 lives.  The difference between these two death tolls?  More people have good-paying jobs in Chile than they do in Haiti.  Giving Chile a more advanced free market economy.  And better building codes and standards.  Allowing them to survive a stronger earthquake with less loss of life.

This is what jobs give you.  Working people have money to spend.  And working people have money to pay taxes.  Which can lift people out of poverty.  And lift nations out of poverty.  Which is why the United States has such a high standard of living.  Their economy became the number one economy in the world because they had so many jobs.  Thanks to a very business-friendly environment.  The Americans encouraged entrepreneurship.  And supported it with a sound banking system that encouraged capital formation.  Thanks to all those workers saving some of their earnings for the future.  Savings that provided the capital that built America.

So jobs are good.  And providing jobs for the working man is even better.  Because that’s what a working man wants.  A job.  So the Democrats, then, should be all about job creation.  If they are for the working man.  As is the perception.  But is this perception correct?  Well, if you determine that by the number of jobs they’ve created, no.

The Obama Policies are Business Unfriendly to Keep People Poor so the Democrats have Someone to Champion

Before George W. Bush became president in 2001 there were 210,743,000 in the civilian non-institutional population (see Employment Situation Archived News Releases).  Basically those who could have a job.  Of those who could have a job there were 141,489,000 in the civilian labor force.  By the time Bush left office there were 154,587,000 in the civilian labor force.  An increase of 13,098,000 to the civilian labor force.  Which is an increase of 1,637,240 annually.  Or 136,438 monthly.  So this is what a Republican did for the working man.  Now let’s see what a Democrat did.

Before Barack Obama became president in 2009 there were 154,687,000 in the civilian labor force.  At the end of March 2013 there were 155,028,000 in the civilian labor force.  An increase of 441,000.  Which is an increase of 103,765 annually.  Or 8,647 monthly.  The Bush economy created more jobs in a month that the Obama economy created in a year.  In fact, for every job the Obama economy created the Bush economy created 15.8 jobs.  So if you determine who is for the working many by who gives the working man more of what he wants, jobs, it is clear that the Republican is for the working man.  Not the Democrat.

No, President Obama’s economic policies are not business-friendly.  They are decidedly unfriendly to business.  Even punitive.  Which is why there has been no real job creation with the Obama economic policies.  Wall Street may be doing well.  The stock market may be doing well.  But the working man sure isn’t.  In fact, those who are doing well in the Obama economy are rich white men, bankers, corporate executives, Wall Street investors, etc.  So if the Democrats are not for the working man who are they for?  Poor people.  In fact, they love poor people so much that they work hard at keeping them poor.  Giving them a meager government handout instead of a job.  Which is how they win elections.  By giving poor people free stuff.  And if the poor ever stopped being poor the Democrats would have trouble winning elections.  Which is why the Obama economic policies are so business unfriendly.  So there are always poor and impoverished people they can champion.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Disposable Income and GDP Growth

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 25th, 2013

Economics 101

With less Disposable Income there will be less New Economic Activity Created

The key to economic growth is disposable income.  For when we live from paycheck to paycheck economic growth is flat.  It’s when we have disposable income that we can spend money beyond our basic needs.  Such as on a vacation.  A new car.  A television.  New windows, carpeting, appliances, furniture, etc.  Movies, ball games, dinners, the theater, etc.  New clothes, jewelry, shoes, accessories, etc.  Tennis rackets, skis, baseball gloves, hiking boots, fishing gear, etc.  Smart phones, MP3 players, iPads, laptops, etc.  Jet skis, boats, motorcycles, mountain bikes, etc.  Radio-controlled cars/helicopters/planes, Game Boys, Xboxes, Wiis, PlayStations, multiplayer role-playing computer games, etc.

Buying these things creates a lot of economic activity.  But we can’t buy any of these things unless we have disposable income.  So the only way to increase economic activity is to increase disposable income.  Which means there is a direct relationship between GDP and disposable income.

There’s been a lot of talk about real incomes being flat.  Even falling during the Obama presidency.  Which is bad.  For if median incomes are falling people will have less disposable income.  And with less disposable income they will be buying less of all those things that create new economic activity.  The things we enjoy.  That make our lives more fun.  More enjoyable.  And less miserable.  Those things that increase our standard of living.  And the quality of life.  So a flat and falling median income reduces our standard of living.  And our quality of life.  As we live from paycheck to paycheck.  Making barely enough to meet our living expenses.  And sometimes not even making enough for that.  Having to turn to government assistance to make up the difference.

We add Disposable Income and Discounted Government Spending to get the Net Add to GDP

The key to disposable income and GDP growth is jobs.  And the more jobs the better.  So job creation is very important.  Which means we need a business-friendly environment.  With a minimum of costly regulations.  And low taxes.  To encourage employers to hire more people.  So more people have jobs.  Those who do use their income to meet their living expenses.  And use their disposable income to create new economic activity.  The more disposable income they have the more new economic activity they can create.  So what’s the best way to increase their disposable income?  The same way we encourage employers to hire more people.  Low taxes.  We can illustrate this in the following table which is based on assumptions and approximations.

GDP Discounted Required and Average Calculations

The effective tax rate a person pays includes all taxes he or she will pay.  Property tax, sales tax, gas tax, telecommunication tax, liquor tax, cigarette tax, import tariff, dog license tax, fishing license tax, luxury tax, watercraft registration tax, vehicle sales tax, state income tax, federal income tax, Social Security tax, Medicare tax, capital gains tax, etc.   Median income and living expenses are constants.  We subtract taxes from median income to get net income.  Subtracting living expenses from net income gives us disposable income.  We then calculate these numbers for additional effective tax rates that are multiples of 4%.

We add disposable income and stimulus together to get the net add to GDP.  What we call ‘stimulus’ is a percentage of all those taxes reentering the economy through government spending.  In our example 80% of those taxes find their way back into the economy.  While 20% is lost through waste and inefficiency.  This stimulus can pay for a government worker, a government contractor or a direct government benefit that helps people meet their living expenses.  This redistributed income is money that the income earner would have spent had it not been taxed away.  Instead, someone else will spend it.  But not as efficiently.  As it must first pass through an inefficient government bureaucracy.

Giving People Benefits does not Replace Disposable Income

We extend the table out to an effective tax rate of 52% and graph the results.  We see that as the effective tax rate increases disposable income falls.  As does GDP growth.  Showing that increasing taxation reduces GDP.  That said, average GDP growth has been approximately 3% during the latter half of the 20th Century.  Despite increasing taxation reducing GDP.  So how do we reconcile a falling GDP and a 3% GDP growth?  With aggressive increases in productivity.  And investments in capital equipment.  Allowing business to produce more with less.  Resulting in a rising real GDP growth rate.  As shown in the following graph.

GDP Discounted Required and Average

In order to maintain a 3% growth rate in GDP we need a rising real GDP growth rate (in one America doing very well despite government) to offset the falling discounted GDP growth rate due to falling disposable income (in another America not doing well because of government).  When we add the real and the discounted GDP growth rates together we get the constant 3% of average GDP growth.  Which is why businesses have never been more profitable despite stagnant economic growth during President Obama’s time in office.  They’re doing well because they’re producing more with less by exchanging people for new capital equipment.  Hence the higher profitability along with chronic high unemployment.  With more unemployed workers than available jobs there is a downward pressure on median income.  That combined with higher personal effective taxes has greatly reduced disposable income.  And new economic growth.  Which subtracts a lot away from that real GDP growth.

Giving people benefits does not replace disposable income.  For government assistance helps people meet basic living expenses.  While having a job offers the ability to earn disposable income.  Which is key for new economic growth.  If we bring the effective tax rate down the discounted GDP growth graph will flatten out.  As this happens the gains in productivity would remain.  Leaving real GDP growth unchanged.  With real GDP growth unchanged and discounted GDP growth decreasing the average annual GDP growth would therefore increase.  And approach real GDP growth.  With double digit GDP growth tax revenues would soar even at lower effective tax rates.  Requiring less borrowing.  Which would give us smaller deficits.  While reducing the growth in the federal debt.  Perhaps even reducing the debt.  Solving all of our financial problems.  By simply cutting taxes.  And the spending those taxes fund.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Tax Cuts, Roaring Twenties, Farm Prices, Smoot-Hawley Tariff, Stock Market Crash, New Deal, Great Depression and the Great Recession

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 6th, 2012

History 101

(Originally published March 20, 2012)

Tax Cuts and the Small Government Policies of Harding and Coolidge gave us the Roaring Twenties

Keynesians blame the long duration of the Great Depression (1929-1939) on the government clinging to the gold standard.  Even renowned monetarist economist Milton Friedman agrees.  Though that’s about the only agreement between Keynesians and Friedman.   Their arguments are that the US could have reduced the length and severity of the Great Depression if they had only abandoned the gold standard.  And adopted Keynesian policies.  Deficit spending.  Just like they did in the Seventies.  The decade where we had both high unemployment and high inflation.  Stagflation.  Something that’s not supposed to happen under Keynesian economics.  So when it did they blamed the oil shocks of the Seventies.  Not their orgy of spending.  Or their high taxes.  And they feel the same way about the Great Depression.

Funny.  How one price shock (oil) can devastate all businesses in the US economy.  So much so that it stalled job creation.  And caused high unemployment.  Despite the government printing and spending money to create jobs.  And to provide government benefits so recipients could use those benefits to stimulate economic activity.  All of that government spending failed to pull the country out of one bad recession.  Because of that one price shock on the cost of doing business.  Yet no one talks about the all out assault on business starting in the Hoover administration that continued and expanded through the Roosevelt administration.

Herbert Hoover may have been a Republican.  But he was no conservative.  He was a big government progressive.  And believed that the federal government should interfere into the free market.  To make things better.  Unlike Warren Harding.  And Calvin Coolidge.  Who believed in a small government, hands-off policy when it came to the economy.  They passed tax cuts.  Following the advice of their treasury secretary.  Andrew Mellon.  Which gave business confidence of what the future would hold.  So they invested.  Expanded production.  And created jobs.  It was these small government policies that gave us the Roaring Twenties.  An economic boom that electrified and modernized the world.  With real economic growth.

If an Oil Shock can prevent Businesses from Responding to Keynesian Policies then so can FDR’s all out War on Business

The Roaring Twenties was a great time to live if you wanted a job.  And wanted to live in the modern era.  Electric power was spreading across the country.  People had electric appliances in their homes.  Radios.  They went to the movies.  Drove cars.  Flew in airplanes.  The Roaring Twenties was a giant leap forward in the standard of living.  Factories with electric power driving electric motors increased productivity.  And reduced air pollution as they replaced coal-fired steam boilers that up to then powered the Industrial Revolution.  This modernization even made it to the farm.  Farmers borrowed heavily to mechanize their farms.  Allowing them to grow more food than ever.  Bumper crops caused farm prices to fall.  Good for consumers.  But not those farmers who borrowed heavily.

Enter Herbert Hoover.  Who wanted to use the power of government to help the farmers.  By forcing Americans to pay higher food prices.  Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve raised interest rates.  Thinking that a boom in the stock market was from speculation and not the real economic growth of the Twenties.  So they contracted the money supply.  Cooling that real economic growth.  And making it very hard to borrow money.  Causing farmers to default on their loans.  Small rural banks that loaned to these farmers failed.  These bank failures spread to other banks.  Weakening the banking system.  Then came the Smoot-Hawley Tariff.  Passed in 1930.  But it was causing business uncertainty as early as 1928.  As the Smoot-Hawley Tariff was going to increase tariffs on just about everything by 30%.  Basically adding a 30% tax on the cost of doing business.  That the businesses would, of course, pass on to consumers.  By raising prices.  Because consumers weren’t getting a corresponding 30% pay hike they, of course, could not buy as much after the Smoot-Hawley Tariff.  Putting a big cramp in sales revenue.  Perhaps even starting an international trade war.  Further cramping sales.  Something investors no doubt took notice of.  Seeing that real economic growth would soon come to a screeching halt.  And when the bill moved through committees in the autumn of 1929 the die was cast.  Investors began the massive selloff on Wall Street.  The Stock Market Crash of 1929.  The so-called starting point of the Great Depression.  Then the Smoot-Hawley Tariff became law.  And the trade war began.  As anticipated.

Of course, the Keynesians ignore this lead up to the Great Depression.  This massive government intrusion into the free market.  And the next president would build on this intrusion into the free market.  Ignoring the success of the small-government and tax cuts of Harding and Coolidge.  As well as ignoring the big-government free-market-intrusion failures of Herbert Hoover.  The New Deal programs of FDR were going to explode government spending to heights never before seen in peace time.  Causing uncertainty like never seen before in the business community.  It was an all out assault on business.  Taxes and regulation that increased the cost of business.  And massive government spending for new benefits and make-work programs.  All paid for by the people who normally create jobs.  Which there wasn’t a lot of during the great Depression.  Thanks to programs like Reconstruction Finance Corporation, Federal Emergency Relief Administration, Civilian Conservation Corps, Homeowners Loan Corporation, Tennessee Valley Authority, Agricultural Adjustment Act, National Industrial Recovery Act, Public Works Administration, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Glass–Steagall Act, Securities Act of 1933, Civil Works Administration, Indian Reorganization Act, Social Security Act, Works Progress Administration, National Labor Relations Act, Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, Surplus Commodities Program, Fair Labor Standards Act, Rural Electrification Administration, Resettlement Administration and Farm Security Administration, etc.  Oil shocks of the Seventies?  If an oil shock can prevent businesses from responding to Keynesian policies then an all out war on business in the Thirties could do the same.  And worse.  Far, far worse.  Which is why the Great Depression lasted 10 years.  Because the government turned what would have been a normal recession into a world-wide calamity.  By trying to interfere with market forces.

Only Real Economic Growth creates Jobs, not Government Programs

The unemployment rate in 1929 was 3.1%.  In 1933 it was 24.9%.  It stayed above 20% until 1936.  Where it fell as low as 14.3% in 1937.  It then went to 19.0%, 17.2% and 14.6% in the next three years.  These numbers stayed horrible throughout the Thirties because the government wouldn’t stop meddling.  Or spending money.  None of the New Deal programs had a significant effect on unemployment.  The New Deal failed to fix the economy the way the New Dealers said it would.  Despite the massive price tag.  So much for super smart government bureaucrats.

What finally pulled us out of the Great Depression?  Adolf Hitler’s conquering of France in 1940.  When American industry received great orders for real economic growth.  From foreign countries.  To build the war material they needed to fight Adolf Hitler.  And the New Deal programs be damned.  There was no time for any more of that nonsense.  So during World War II businesses had a little less uncertainty.  And a backlog of orders.  All the incentive they needed to ramp up American industry.  To make it hum like it once did under Harding and Coolidge.  And they won World War II.  For there was no way Adolf Hitler could match that economic output.  Which made all the difference on the battlefield.

Still there are those who want to blame the gold standard for the Great Depression.  And still support Keynesian policies to tax and spend.  Even today.  Even after 8 years of Ronald Reagan that proved the policies of Harding and Coolidge.  We’re right back to those failed policies of the past.  Massive government spending to stimulate economic activity.  To pull us out of the Great Recession.  And utterly failing.  Where the unemployment rate struggles to get below 9%.  The U-3 unemployment rate, that is.  The rate that doesn’t count everyone who wants full time work.  The rate that counts everyone, the U-6 unemployment rate, currently stands at 14.9%.  Which is above the lowest unemployment rate during the Great Depression.  Proving once again only real economic growth creates jobs.  Not government programs.  No matter how many trillions of dollars the government spends.

So much for super smart government bureaucrats.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Phillips Curve

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 17th, 2012

Economics 101

A High Savings Rate provides Abundant Capital for Banks to Loan to Businesses

Time.  It’s what runs our lives.  Well, that, and patience.  Together they run our lives.  For these two things determine the difference between savings.  And consumption.  Whether we have the patience to wait and save our money to buy something in the future.  Like a house.  Or if we are too impatient to wait.  And choose to spend our money now.  On a new car, clothes, jewelry, nice dinners, travel, etc.  Choosing current consumption for pleasure now.  Or choosing savings for pleasure later.

We call this time preference.  And everyone has their own time preference.  Even societies have their own time preferences.  And it’s that time preference that determines the rate of consumption and the rate of savings.  Our parents’ generation had a higher preference to save money.  The current generation has a higher preference for current consumption.  Which is why a lot of the current generation is now living with their parents.  For their parents preference for saving money over consuming money allowed them to buy a house that they own free and clear today.  While having savings to live on during these difficult economic times.  Unlike their children.  Whose consumption of cars, clothes, jewelry, nice dinners, travel, etc., left them with little savings to weather these difficult economic times.  And with a house they no longer can afford to pay the mortgage.

A society’s time preference determines the natural rate of interest.  A higher savings rate provides abundant capital for banks to loan to businesses.  Which lowers the natural rate of interest.  A high rate of consumption results with a lower savings rate.  Providing less capital for banks to loan to businesses.  Which raises the natural interest rate.  High interest rates make it more difficult for businesses to borrow money to expand their business than it is with low interest rates.  Thus higher interest rates reduce the rate of job creation.  Or, restated another way, a low savings rate reduces the rate of job creation.

The Phillips Curve shows the Keynesian Relationship between the Unemployment Rate and the Inflation Rate

Before the era of central banks and fiat money economists understood this relationship between savings and employment very well.  But after the advent of central banking and fiat money economists restated this relationship.  In particular the Keynesian economists.  Who dropped the savings part.  And instead focused only on the relationship between interest rates and employment.  Advising governments in the 20th century that they had the power to control the economy.  If they adopt central banking and fiat money.  For they could print their own money and determine the interest rate.  Making savings a relic of a bygone era.

The theory was that if a high rate of savings lowered interest rates by creating more capital for banks to loan why not lower interest rates further by just printing money and giving it to the banks to loan?  If low interests rates were good lower interest rates must be better.  At least this was Keynesian theory.  And expanding governments everywhere in the 20th century put this theory to the test.  Printing money.  A lot of it.  Based on the belief that if they kept pumping more money into the economy they could stimulate unending economic growth.  Because with a growing amount of money for banks to loan they could keep interest rates low.  Encouraging businesses to keep borrowing money to expand their businesses.  Hire more people to fill newly created jobs.  And expand economic activity.

Economists thought they had found the Holy Grail to ending recessions as we knew them.  Whenever unemployment rose all they had to do was print new money.  For the economic activity businesses created with this new money would create new jobs to replace the jobs lost due to recession.   The Keynesians built on their relationship between interest rates and employment.  And developed a relationship between the expansion of the money supply and employment.  Particularly, the relationship between the inflation rate (the rate at which they expanded the money supply) and the unemployment rate.  What they found was an inverse relationship.  When there was a high unemployment rate there was a low inflation rate.  When there was a low unemployment rate there was a high inflation rate.  They showed this with their Phillips Curve.  That graphed the relationship between the inflation rate (shown rising on the y-axis) and the unemployment rate (shown increasing on the x-axis).  The Phillips Curve was the answer to ending recessions.  For when the unemployment rate went up all the government had to do was create some inflation (i.e., expand the money supply).  And as they increased the inflation rate the unemployment rate would, of course, fall.  Just like the Phillips Curve showed.

The Seventies Inflationary Damage was So Great that neither Technology nor Productivity Gains could Overcome It

But the Phillips Curve blew up in the Keynesians’ faces during the Seventies.  As they tried to reduce the unemployment rate by increasing the inflation rate.  When they did, though, the unemployment did not fall.  But the inflation rate did rise.  In a direct violation of the Phillips Curve.  Which said that was impossible.  To have a high inflation rate AND a high unemployment rate at the same time.  How did this happen?  Because the economic activity they created with their inflationary policies was artificial.  Lowering the interest rate below the natural interest rate encouraged people to borrow money they had no intention of borrowing earlier.  Because they did not see sufficient demand in the market place to expand their businesses to meet.  However, business people are human.  And they can make mistakes.  Such as borrowing money to expand their businesses solely because the money was cheap to borrow.

When you inflate the money supply you depreciate the dollar.  Because there are more dollars in circulation chasing the same amount of goods and services.  And if the money is worth less what does that do to prices?  It increases them.  Because it takes more of the devalued dollars to buy what they once bought.  So you have a general increase of prices that follows any monetary expansion.  Which is what is waiting for those businesses borrowing that new money to expand their businesses.  Typically the capital goods businesses.  Those businesses higher up in the stages of production.  A long way out from retail sales.  Where the people are waiting to buy the new products made from their capital goods.  Which will take a while to filter down to the consumer level.  But by the time they do prices will be rising throughout the economy.  Leaving consumers with less money to spend.  So by the times those new products built from those capital goods reach the retail level there isn’t an increase in consumption to buy them.  Because inflation has by this time raised prices.  Especially gas prices.  So not only are the consumers not buying these new goods they are cutting back from previous purchasing levels.  Leaving all those businesses in the higher stages of production that expanded their businesses (because of the availability of cheap money) with some serious overcapacity.  Forcing them to cut back production and lay off workers.  Often times to a level below that existing before the inflationary monetary expansion intended to decrease the unemployment rate.

Governments have been practicing Keynesian economics throughout the 20th century.  So why did it take until the Seventies for this to happen?  Because in the Seventies they did something that made it very easy to expand the money supply.  President Nixon decoupled the dollar from gold (the Nixon Shock).  Which was the only restraint on the government from expanding the money supply.  Which they did greater during the Seventies than they had at any previous time.  Under the ‘gold standard’ the U.S. had to maintain the value of the dollar by pegging it to gold.  They couldn’t depreciate it much.  Without the ‘gold standard’ they could depreciate it all they wanted to.  So they did. Prior to the Seventies they inflated the money supply by about 5%.  After the Nixon Shock that jumped to about 15-20%.  This was the difference.  The inflationary damage was so bad that no amount of technological advancement or productivity gains could overcome it.  Which exposed the true damage inflationary Keynesian economic policies cause.  As well as discrediting the Phillips Curve.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Poverty is Down in Chile thanks to Job-Creation and Subsidies paid for by those Newly Created Jobs

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 29th, 2012

Week in Review

Job-creation reduces poverty in Chile.  And it goes back to the Seventies.  But you wouldn’t know it by reading this (see Poverty indicators decline posted 7/25/2012 on Economist Intelligence Unit).

Improvements in Chile’s poverty indicators in the past two decades are back on track after a setback in 2009. The proportion of the population living in poverty fell from 15.1% in 2009 to 14.4% in 2011, according to the latest Caracterización Socioeconómica Nacional (Casen) household survey. There was also a substantial drop in the proportion of people living in extreme poverty, from 3.7% in 2009 to 2.8% in 2011. The main factor explaining these trends was the strong level of job-creation recorded in Chile in the past two years, but well-targeted government subsidies also played an important role…

Within the IEF programme, the monthly bonuses under the “dignity” component, worth Ps6,000 (US$12.5) per person in the household, plus Ps13,000 per household, are targeted at those in extreme poverty, and will be unconditional. Beyond that, if the children in the household attend their mandatory healthcare check-ups and achieve a school attendance rate of at least 85%, the household will receive a monthly bonus of Ps8,000 per child. This yields Ps53,000 per month to a household with two adults and two children satisfying these conditions, or US$97 per month for one with one adult and two children.

Yes, job-creation was a strong factor.  Targeted government subsidies?  Not really.  First of all, you can’t do targeted subsidies if you don’t have a lot of jobs creating a lot of tax revenue.  You can have jobs without subsidies but you can’t have subsidies without jobs.  Because jobs pay for subsidies.

Paying people to have children?  Where have I heard this before?  Oh, yes.  LBJ’s Great Society.  That gave us AFDC.  Aid to Families with Dependent Children.  That destroyed poor families by encouraging single mothers to have more babies to collect more benefits.  Allowing men to father as many children as they pleased with as many women as they pleased because they don’t have to pay to raise their children.  The state became the father to these children (and husband to these women).  Raised them in crime-infested housing projects.  And sent them to broken, substandard schools.  Which these kids dropped out of and joined gangs.  Yeah, AFDC worked so well that Bill Clinton, a Democrat, reformed welfare to fix this ill-conceived policy.  Because even he knew you can’t fix problems by simply throwing money at them.  Jobs were better.  And families.  Where a child grew up with a mother and a father to nurture and discipline the child.  To put them on the right path.  Something the state just couldn’t do.

Missing from this piece is any mention of Milton Friedman.  The Chicago Boys.  El Ladrillo.  The economic plan put together by the Chilean economists who studied at the University of Chicago.  In the Chicago school of economics.  It was so thick they called it The Brick.  Or El Ladrillo.  Milton Friedman and these great Chilean economists, the Chicago Boys, turned the Chilean economy around.  The dictator Augusto Pinochet even invited Milton Friedman down to Chile to help.  Friedman went.  Gave some advice.  And Pinochet followed it.  Turning their horrible economy around (see Monetarism, Laissez-Faire Capitalism, Augusto Pinochet, Chile, Hyperinflation, El Ladrillo, Chicago Boys, Milton Friedman and Miracle of Chile).

He ditched the mercantilist policies.  Embraced laissez-faire capitalism.  Privatized the state industries.  Established free trade.  Cut government spending.  And stopped printing money.  Ending the hyperinflation.  Replacing it with a strict monetary policy… Friedman’s monetarism turned the Chilean economy around.  Creating a prosperous market economy.  With a growing middle class.  The strong economic growth led to some healthy tax revenue.  Which in later years funded antipoverty programs.  The Miracle of Chile even replaced the military junta with a democratic government.  Chile now has one of the healthiest and freest economies in the world.

It was these sound economic policies that created the Miracle of Chile in the Eighties.  Not targeted subsidies.  Real economic growth provides prosperity.  People with jobs.  Who earn money to spend in the economy.  And pay taxes.  That’s the way it always works.  Jobs first.  Then prosperity.  And then the tax revenue that funds government spending.  It just doesn’t work the other way around.  If it did Greece wouldn’t be in the trouble it’s in.  The United States wouldn’t still be lingering in the Great Recession.  And President Clinton wouldn’t have reformed welfare to end the family killer AFDC.  No.  Excessive government spending only creates great debt.  High inflation.  And a permanently impoverished underclass.  At least this is what history has shown us.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

The Canadian Provincial Governments are ever Vigilant in Cutting High Taxes and Costly Regulations

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 14th, 2012

Week in Review

How’s this for government?  A government that has a reputation of low taxes and sensible regulatory policies is attacked.  Not for raising taxes or passing more costly regulations.  But not being aggressive enough in cutting taxes and rolling back costly regulations.  How refreshing.  And how un-American of late (see Can Alberta regain its entrepreneurial advantage? By KATHERINE SCARROW posted 4/13/2012 on The Globe and Mail).

“At one time, Alberta was clearly a leader, whether it was tax reform, cutting red tape, or any other key issue affecting entrepreneurs. Unfortunately, in the past few years, the government has been stuck in neutral, as other provinces closed the gap.”

To restore the so-called ‘Alberta Advantage,’ Mr. Truscott proposes the following steps:

1. Long-term tax relief. He acknowledges that Alberta business owners have it pretty good overall, especially since they do not have to collect and administer provincial sales tax for the government. But But the fact that the other three Western provinces reduced their small business income tax rate leaves Alberta with a higher rate, eroding any advantage it may have had previously. “Staged reductions” in the small business income tax rate would go a long way, he suggests.

2. Commitment to cutting red tape. The province used to be a pioneer at ensuring rules and regulations made sense, and didn’t burden entrepreneurs, but the government has become complacent, emphasizing that the next leader must make regulatory reform a priority.

In Canada they understand that high taxes and excessive regulatory burdens on businesses hinder job creation.  And even though the tax burden on business owners was pretty good overall it still needs to be lowered.  Because other provinces had lowered their taxes.  In America those on the Left say that our taxes aren’t too high.  In fact they want to raise them further.  And cite the high taxes in Europe as their justification.  Instead of seeing it like the Canadians.  Who see NOT having the lowest tax rates is a disadvantage in job creation.

And while the Canadians worked at cutting red tape and worried about the affects of rules and regulations had on businesses the Obama administration has buried American small business under regulation after regulation.  The biggest one, of course, being Obamacare.  Which is scaring business owners out of hiring new employees.

It would appear the provincial governments in Canada understand business.  And the American federal government does not.  At least not the current one.  Based on its actions.  And its record.  So it’s no surprise that the Canadians have emerged from the Great Recession while the Americans still suffer in it.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Tax Cuts, Roaring Twenties, Farm Prices, Smoot-Hawley Tariff, Stock Market Crash, New Deal, Great Depression and the Great Recession

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 20th, 2012

History 101

Tax Cuts and the Small Government Policies of Harding and Coolidge gave us the Roaring Twenties

Keynesians blame the long duration of the Great Depression (1929-1939) on the government clinging to the gold standard.  Even renowned monetarist economist Milton Friedman agrees.  Though that’s about the only agreement between Keynesians and Friedman.   Their arguments are that the US could have reduced the length and severity of the Great Depression if they had only abandoned the gold standard.  And adopted Keynesian policies.  Deficit spending.  Just like they did in the Seventies.  The decade where we had both high unemployment and high inflation.  Stagflation.  Something that’s not supposed to happen under Keynesian economics.  So when it did they blamed the oil shocks of the Seventies.  Not their orgy of spending.  Or their high taxes.  And they feel the same way about the Great Depression.

Funny.  How one price shock (oil) can devastate all businesses in the US economy.  So much so that it stalled job creation.  And caused high unemployment.  Despite the government printing and spending money to create jobs.  And to provide government benefits so recipients could use those benefits to stimulate economic activity.  All of that government spending failed to pull the country out of one bad recession.  Because of that one price shock on the cost of doing business.  Yet no one talks about the all out assault on business starting in the Hoover administration that continued and expanded through the Roosevelt administration.

Herbert Hoover may have been a Republican.  But he was no conservative.  He was a big government progressive.  And believed that the federal government should interfere into the free market.  To make things better.  Unlike Warren Harding.  And Calvin Coolidge.  Who believed in a small government, hands-off policy when it came to the economy.  They passed tax cuts.  Following the advice of their treasury secretary.  Andrew Mellon.  Which gave business confidence of what the future would hold.  So they invested.  Expanded production.  And created jobs.  It was these small government policies that gave us the Roaring Twenties.  An economic boom that electrified and modernized the world.  With real economic growth. 

If an Oil Shock can prevent Businesses from Responding to Keynesian Policies then so can FDR’s all out War on Business

The Roaring Twenties was a great time to live if you wanted a job.  And wanted to live in the modern era.  Electric power was spreading across the country.  People had electric appliances in their homes.  Radios.  They went to the movies.  Drove cars.  Flew in airplanes.  The Roaring Twenties was a giant leap forward in the standard of living.  Factories with electric power driving electric motors increased productivity.  And reduced air pollution as they replaced coal-fired steam boilers that up to then powered the Industrial Revolution.  This modernization even made it to the farm.  Farmers borrowed heavily to mechanize their farms.  Allowing them to grow more food than ever.  Bumper crops caused farm prices to fall.  Good for consumers.  But not those farmers who borrowed heavily.

Enter Herbert Hoover.  Who wanted to use the power of government to help the farmers.  By forcing Americans to pay higher food prices.  Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve raised interest rates.  Thinking that a boom in the stock market was from speculation and not the real economic growth of the Twenties.  So they contracted the money supply.  Cooling that real economic growth.  And making it very hard to borrow money.  Causing farmers to default on their loans.  Small rural banks that loaned to these farmers failed.  These bank failures spread to other banks.  Weakening the banking system.  Then came the Smoot-Hawley Tariff.  Passed in 1930.  But it was causing business uncertainty as early as 1928.  As the Smoot-Hawley Tariff was going to increase tariffs on just about everything by 30%.  Basically adding a 30% tax on the cost of doing business.  That the businesses would, of course, pass on to consumers.  By raising prices.  Because consumers weren’t getting a corresponding 30% pay hike they, of course, could not buy as much after the Smoot-Hawley Tariff.  Putting a big cramp in sales revenue.  Perhaps even starting an international trade war.  Further cramping sales.  Something investors no doubt took notice of.  Seeing that real economic growth would soon come to a screeching halt.  And when the bill moved through committees in the autumn of 1929 the die was cast.  Investors began the massive selloff on Wall Street.  The Stock Market Crash of 1929.  The so-called starting point of the Great Depression.  Then the Smoot-Hawley Tariff became law.  And the trade war began.  As anticipated.

Of course, the Keynesians ignore this lead up to the Great Depression.  This massive government intrusion into the free market.  And the next president would build on this intrusion into the free market.  Ignoring the success of the small-government and tax cuts of Harding and Coolidge.  As well as ignoring the big-government free-market-intrusion failures of Herbert Hoover.  The New Deal programs of FDR were going to explode government spending to heights never before seen in peace time.  Causing uncertainty like never seen before in the business community.  It was an all out assault on business.  Taxes and regulation that increased the cost of business.  And massive government spending for new benefits and make-work programs.  All paid for by the people who normally create jobs.  Which there wasn’t a lot of during the great Depression.  Thanks to programs like Reconstruction Finance Corporation, Federal Emergency Relief Administration, Civilian Conservation Corps, Homeowners Loan Corporation, Tennessee Valley Authority, Agricultural Adjustment Act, National Industrial Recovery Act, Public Works Administration, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Glass–Steagall Act, Securities Act of 1933, Civil Works Administration, Indian Reorganization Act, Social Security Act, Works Progress Administration, National Labor Relations Act, Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, Surplus Commodities Program, Fair Labor Standards Act, Rural Electrification Administration, Resettlement Administration and Farm Security Administration, etc.  Oil shocks of the Seventies?  If an oil shock can prevent businesses from responding to Keynesian policies then an all out war on business in the Thirties could do the same.  And worse.  Far, far worse.  Which is why the Great Depression lasted 10 years.  Because the government turned what would have been a normal recession into a world-wide calamity.  By trying to interfere with market forces.

Only Real Economic Growth creates Jobs, not Government Programs

The unemployment rate in 1929 was 3.1%.  In 1933 it was 24.9%.  It stayed above 20% until 1936.  Where it fell as low as 14.3% in 1937.  It then went to 19.0%, 17.2% and 14.6% in the next three years.  These numbers stayed horrible throughout the Thirties because the government wouldn’t stop meddling.  Or spending money.  None of the New Deal programs had a significant effect on unemployment.  The New Deal failed to fix the economy the way the New Dealers said it would.  Despite the massive price tag.  So much for super smart government bureaucrats.

What finally pulled us out of the Great Depression?  Adolf Hitler’s conquering of France in 1940.  When American industry received great orders for real economic growth.  From foreign countries.  To build the war material they needed to fight Adolf Hitler.  And the New Deal programs be damned.  There was no time for any more of that nonsense.  So during World War II businesses had a little less uncertainty.  And a backlog of orders.  All the incentive they needed to ramp up American industry.  To make it hum like it once did under Harding and Coolidge.  And they won World War II.  For there was no way Adolf Hitler could match that economic output.  Which made all the difference on the battlefield.

Still there are those who want to blame the gold standard for the Great Depression.  And still support Keynesian policies to tax and spend.  Even today.  Even after 8 years of Ronald Reagan that proved the policies of Harding and Coolidge.  We’re right back to those failed policies of the past.  Massive government spending to stimulate economic activity.  To pull us out of the Great Recession.  And utterly failing.  Where the unemployment rate struggles to get below 9%.  The U-3 unemployment rate, that is.  The rate that doesn’t count everyone who wants full time work.  The rate that counts everyone, the U-6 unemployment rate, currently stands at 14.9%.  Which is above the lowest unemployment rate during the Great Depression.  Proving once again only real economic growth creates jobs.  Not government programs.  No matter how many trillions of dollars the government spends. 

So much for super smart government bureaucrats.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

« Previous Entries