Week in Review
If President Obama and the Democrats had their way do you know what they would do? All out Keynesian economics. To the max. Huge government stimulus upon huge government stimulus. Keeping interest rates at or below zero so they can borrow as much as they’d like to pay for their deficit spending. Or just printing the money to spend. That’s what they’d love to do. Because they don’t understand economics. All they know is the politics of Keynesian economics. Power. It allows the government to spend far more than any other economic system. And that lets them buy a lot of votes.
President Obama and the Democrats look at the Chinese with awe and reverence. They would love to have the power the Chinese communists have. So they could do whatever they wanted to do. Just like the Chinese communists do. And when Prime Minister Shinzo Abe revealed his three arrows of Abenomics the left was impressed. Large-scale government spending. Aggressive monetary easing (like all that quantitative easing Ben Bernanke was doing with the Federal Reserve). And structural reforms. Government just taking over the economy to fix it and correct all the failings of the free market. This is what the Democrats want to do in the United States. Because they are so conceited that only they are smart enough to fix the problems in the economy. So how has this Keynesian assault worked in Japan? Not so good (see Blow for Abenomics as Japan’s economy grows less than expected by Rebecca Clancy posted 3/10/2014 on The Telegraph).
Revised data from the government showed that gross domestic product growth was 0.2pc in the three months to December 31 and 1.5pc for 2013…
While the data still marked Japan’s best annual performance in three years, attention will now turn to the Bank of Japan’s monetary policy statement on Tuesday, as weakening growth before next month’s tax hike may push the central bank into a fresh batch of monetary easing measures.
“With Japanese data weaker than expected and their April consumption tax hike imminent, the state of the Japanese economy is cause for significant concern,” said Rebecca O’Keeffe, head of investment at stockbroker Interactive Investor…
Mr Abe swept into power in 2012 on a promise to catapult the Japanese economy out of a decades-long slump, but his policies have met with mixed success.
The weak data hit markets in Asia, with Japan’s Nikkei closing down 1pc at 15,120.14, while China’s Shanghai Composite plunged 2.9pc and the Hang Seng dropped 1.8pc…
While authorities blame the country’s holiday season for the weak results, they add to growing worries about the Chinese economy, with the latest surveys on its key manufacturing sector showing weakness.
Abenomics didn’t work. Because Keynesian economics doesn’t work. Government spending and artificially low interest rates just don’t create robust economic activity. All they create are cronyism. Malinvestments. Asset bubbles. And more painful and longer lasting recessions. As history has shown. Especially the deflationary spiral of Japan’s Lost Decade that they’re still trying to recover from. And the Chinese may follow suit. For they have nothing but exports. And you cannot build robust economic activity on exports alone. You need a thriving middle class. Which China doesn’t have.
History has shown over and over never to vote for Keynesians. For their policies never help the people. They only help those in power. And their crony friends. Who get richer while the people get poorer. The ruling Chinese communists are doing well but the majority of Chinese are still impoverished rural peasants living on subsistence farming. And President Obama and his crony friends (especially those on Wall Street) have all been doing very well thanks to a booming stock market. While median family income has fallen during his presidency. Proving yet again the mistake it is to vote for a Keynesian.
Tags: Abenomics, Democrats, government spending, government stimulus, interest rates, Japan, Keynesian, Keynesian economics, President Obama, quantitative easing, stimulus
Week in Review
The Keynesians were applauding Shinzō Abe’s economic plans for Japan. To end the never-ending deflationary spiral they’ve been in since the late Nineties. His Abenomics included all the things Keynesians love to do. And want to do in the United States. Expand the money supply through inflationary monetary policy. Devalue the yen to make their exports cheaper. Lower interest rates into negative territory. Quantitative easing. And lots of government spending. The kinds of things that just makes a Keynesian’s heart go pitter pat.
They kicked off Abenomics in 2013. And how are things about a year later? Not good (see Japan’s deficit hits record as economic growth slows posted 3/9/2014 on BBC News Business).
Japan’s current account deficit widened to a record 1.5tn yen ($15bn; £8.7bn) in January, the largest since records began in 1985.
In further bad news, the country’s economic growth figures were also revised downwards…
The sluggish growth and growing deficit come just before a planned sales tax increase, scheduled to take effect in April.
They did weaken the yen. Making it worth less than other currencies so those currencies could get more yen when they exchanged their currencies to buy those Japanese exports. Of course, when Japanese exchanged their yen for those other currencies they got less of those other currencies in return. Requiring more yen to buy those now more expensive imports. Thus increasing their trade deficit.
Japan is an island with a lot of people. They have to import a lot of their food, energy and natural resources as they have little on their island. So the weaker yen just made everything more expensive in Japan. Which, of course, lowered GDP. As those higher prices reduced the amount of buying their consumers could do.
Japan’s greatest problem is her aging population. And they have just about the oldest population in the world. As the youth have slammed the brakes on having children. So you have massive waves of people leaving the workforce the government is supporting in retirement. And fewer people entering the workforce to pay the taxes that support those retirees. Which, of course, forces higher tax rates on those remaining in the workforce. Further reducing the amount of buying their consumers can do. And no amount of Abenomics can change that.
Abenomics did not deliver what the Keynesians thought it would. Because Keynesian economics (aka demand-side economics) just doesn’t work. If it did Japan never would have had a Lost Decade to begin with. For it was Keynesian economics that gave Japan that asset price bubble in the first place. Which burst and deflated into the Lost Decade.
What Japan needs is a return to classical economic principles. Focusing more on the supply side. Lower tax rates and reduce regulation. Let the market set interest rates. Restore the policies that introduced ‘Made in Japan’ to the world. They need to make their capitalism more laissez-faire. If they do they can create the kind of economic activity that just might be able to support the generation who created the ‘Made in Japan’ label in their retirement. But you must have robust economic activity. So robust that lower tax rates can produce greater tax revenue. The supply-side economics way.
Tags: Abenomics, aging population, Consumers, currencies, deficit, exports, government spending, imports, interest rates, Japan, Japanese exports, Keynesian, Keynesian economics, lost decade, quantitative easing, retirees, Supply-side economics, taxes, trade deficit, workforce, yen
The Unemployment Rate is 13.6% when you count all Unemployed Workers
The economy is getting better and better. There are more new jobs. And the unemployment rate continues to fall. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). But this is little succor for the 10,948,000 who have lost their job since President Obama began trying to make the economy better. No matter what the BLS says (see the Employment Situation Summary posted 2/7/2014 on the Bureau of Labor Statistics).
Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 113,000 in January, and the unemployment rate was little changed at 6.6 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Employment grew in construction, manufacturing, wholesale trade, and mining…
Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (6.2 percent), adult women (5.9 percent), teenagers (20.7 percent), whites (5.7 percent), blacks (12.1 percent),and Hispanics (8.4 percent) showed little change in January. The jobless rate for Asians was 4.8 percent (not seasonally adjusted), down by 1.7 percentage points over the year. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.).
The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more), at 3.6 million, declined by 232,000 in January. These individuals accounted for 35.8 percent of the unemployed. The number of long-term unemployed has declined by 1.1 million over the year. (See table A-12.)
Once again there are more new jobs and the unemployment rate fell. Further proof the Obama administration says that their policies are working. But the low unemployment rate is misleading. As there are 91,455,000 people who are no longer in the labor force (see Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age). An increase of 10,948,000 since President Obama entered office. The BLS doesn’t count these unemployed people as unemployed in their calculation of the official unemployment rate. If you did that would raise the unemployment rate to 13.6%. Which is a lot higher than the official 6.6%. And better reflects public sentiment on the economy.
Ironically, the people hurt most by the Obama economic policies—teenagers, blacks and Hispanics—are also the biggest supporters of the president. Which tells us they obviously support him for reasons other than the economy. And apparently put those reasons above having a job. At least based their respective unemployment rates.
If we count all Unemployed and Underemployed the Current Economic Recovery would take more than 20 Years
Of the people they actually count as unemployed about a third of them have been unemployed for 27 weeks or more. So a large percentage of the unemployed are not suffering from frictional unemployment. That brief period of unemployment between jobs. No. These people have lost their jobs. And can’t find new ones. While others can find only part-time jobs.
The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers) fell by 514,000 to 7.3 million in January. These individuals were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find full-time work. (See table A-8.)
In January, 2.6 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, little changed from a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.) These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. (See table A-16.)
If you add the people up who want a full-time job but can’t get one that’s 9,900,000 who can’t find a full-time job. If we only add 113,000 jobs a month it will take over 87 months to get these people the full-time jobs they want. Or more than 7 years. If we count the last 5 years of the Obama presidency it will take the economic recovery out to 12 years. If we add the people who have left the labor force to the underemployed (the part-time workers looking for a full-time job) that would extend the economic recovery to 244 months. Or more than 20 years. Which is longer than the length of the economic recovery following the Great Depression.
The Obama administration still blames George W. Bush for causing the Great Recession. But one thing they do say over and over is that it was the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression. So they are saying that the Great Depression was worse than the Great Recession. Yet the current economic recovery is on track to last longer than the economic recovery following the Great Depression.
President Obama’s Economic Recovery is on Course to be the Worst Economic Recovery in U.S. History
The Great Depression and the Great Recession share something in common. In both the government used Keynesian economics to try and pull the nation out of the economic crisis. With huge government stimulus spending. You can see evidence of the FDR spending today. Such as the Hoover Dam. But you can see little evidence from President Obama’s stimulus spending. For there are no Hoover Dams anywhere. Just a lot of empty buildings that housed failed green energy industries. With no new jobs to show for it. Such as those good-paying jobs in the green energy industry that President Obama promised his stimulus spending would produce. But, alas, it did not. In fact, that’s just one thing this administration is not good at. Creating jobs. Even the jobs they created appear suspect.
Employment in manufacturing increased in January (+21,000). Over the month, job gains occurred in machinery (+7,000), wood products (+5,000), and motor vehicles and parts (+5,000). Manufacturing added an average of 7,000 jobs per month in 2013.
In January, wholesale trade added 14,000 jobs, with most of the increase occurring in nondurable goods (+10,000).
Mining added 7,000 jobs in January, compared with an average monthly gain of 2,000 jobs in 2013…
Employment in other major industries, including transportation and warehousing, information, and financial activities, showed little or no change over the month.
These numbers don’t make sense. Much like Keynesian economics. The economy created jobs in manufacturing (machinery, wood products, motor vehicles and parts). Wholesale trade added jobs. Mining added jobs. But this new economic activity required no new financing. Which is odd. For it takes money to make money. Also, there were no new jobs in transportation and warehousing. Which begs the question. What did they do with all the stuff they made from all those new manufacturing jobs? Did it ever leave these factories? Or is there another explanation? Did the people who entered the labor force just replace people who left it? For no net change? Perhaps.
The manufacturing workweek declined by 0.2 hour to 40.7 hours, and factory overtime edged down by 0.1 hour to 3.4 hours.
Or perhaps this explains how they could add jobs in an industry that required no additional financing, transportation or warehousing. Hiring new workers while shortening the workweek and cutting back on overtime. Or a combination of this and people leaving the labor force to net out any economic gain from these new jobs. Whatever the explanation is one thing is certain. The economy is not improving. And President Obama’s economic recovery is on track to be the worst economic recovery in U.S. history. Despite the glowing jobs reports showing new job creation month after month. And a continuing falling unemployment. Things they can only show by not counting the 10 million or so who are no longer employed.
Tags: blacks, BLS, economic crisis, economic recovery, economy, employment, Employment Situation Summary, full time job, Great Depression, Great Recession, Hispanics, jobs, Keynesian, Keynesian economics, labor force, part-time job, President Obama, stimulus, stimulus spending, teenagers, underemployed, unemployed, unemployment, unemployment rate
Week in Review
We are in the worst economic recovery since that following the Great Depression. Why? Because of Democrats. Who are all Keynesians. And that’s a big problem as all of our worst economic times were given to us by those who adhere dogmatically to Keynesian economics. That school of economics that gave us the Great Depression. The stagflation of the Seventies. The dot-com bubble. The bursting of the dot-com bubble. And the dot-com recession. As well as the subprime mortgage crisis and the Great Recession. In all of these events the Keynesians in power followed Keynesian economic policies to avoid recessions. And then to pull us out of recessions when their avoidance didn’t work. Then doubling down on the things that didn’t work previously. In particular artificially low interest rates. Which have been around zero for the last 5 years. And massive federal spending to stimulate the economy when the private sector wasn’t spending. Two pillars of Keynesian economics. Neither of which have done anything to help improve the worst economic recovery since that following the Great Depression.
This is the problem with all the ‘noted’ economists the government likes to cite. They embrace poor economic principles. Proven wrong over and over again. They can come up with some impressive looking charts and graphs but their analysis is all wrong. And the fact that we’re in the worst economic recovery since that following the Great Depression proves it better than any chart and graph. They’re wrong. And continue to be wrong. Yet they provide the economic policies for our country. Some of the greatest nonsense you will ever hear. Things you wouldn’t do in your business. Or in your personal life (see Student Loans Are A Drag On The Economy And Society by Josh Freedman posted 2/11/2014 on Forbes).
While loans are intended to expand college access to a broader population, the nature of risk that they entail also produces the opposite result. Low- and middle-income students worried about the consequences of taking out a loan will be more likely to decide that college attendance is not worth the risk…
Studies have found that high debt levels not only deter access at the beginning, but can also drive students away from completing college once they have already started… students who start college but do not graduate are stuck with loan repayments and no college degree. They still have to repay their loans but do not have the economic boost of a college degree to help them have enough income to cover this cost.
First of all, why is it when it comes to a college education no one ever demands that we lower the cost. Like we do with greedy oil executives who keep the price of gasoline high. Why is it no one attacks the greedy people in higher education that keep education so costly?
The problem is too many people are going to college for the wrong reason. There is a reason why there is a list of the best party colleges every year. Because a lot of these kids want to go to these schools. Which explains why colleges in Colorado are seeing a spike in out-of-state applications. Because these kids want to go to a college where they can party with legal marijuana. And to make that partying easier they’re majoring in easier degree programs that the college assured these kids would provide them a comfortable living after graduation. So they can get that profitable tuition out of these kids. Often times paid for by these kids’ student loan borrowings. So the colleges are misleading a lot of these kids to make a buck. Leaving them saddled with a lot of student loan debt if they quit. Or even more student loan debt if they stay in until graduation. While getting a degree that can’t get them a job.
A second issue with increasing levels of student loan debt is the effect on the economy… Individuals with more student loan debt were less likely than individuals without student loan debt to purchase homes or cars.
Yes, having too much debt is a bad thing. It reduces your disposable income. Preventing you from purchasing a house or a car. Yet these same economic advisors have no problem with raising taxes and devaluing the currency (i.e., printing money) to pay for all of the government’s stimulus spending. Higher taxes reduce our paychecks. And devaluing the currency raises real prices. Reducing what we can buy with our smaller paychecks. No, a Keynesian has no problem with debt at the federal level that affects everyone. But student loan debt is just a terrible thing for those kids who dropped out of college or who didn’t get a degree that an employer could use.
In the wake of the financial crash, households have been trying to deleverage, or pay down their debt so they can have a healthier financial outlook, reduce the amount of their income that they use to service their debt, and begin investing and consuming again…
A look at the data suggests that student loans have slowed down households in the process of paying down debt. Since 2008 — the peak level of household debt — households lowered their levels every type of debt except student loan debt. Student loans have continued to grow throughout this process of deleveraging.
Of course the one thing missing from this analysis is the horrible economy President Obama’s Keynesian policies have given us. Since he became president he has destroyed some 10,948,000 jobs. Based on the number that were out of the labor force in the January 2014 BLS jobs report (91,455,000) and how many were out of the labor force when he entered office (80,507,000). This is why people are struggling with debt levels. There are no jobs. If there was a robust economy flush with jobs people wouldn’t worry about taking on debt to invest in the future. As long as they got a useful college degree in a high-tech economy. And not something useless like women’s studies or poetry.
But aren’t people facing poor job prospects just taking out more loans to avoid working as baristas at coffee shops that drip the coffee super slowly for no apparent reason? This does not appear to be the case from the debt data. Student loan debt has grown at almost exactly the same rate since the crash as it had been the previous five years — i.e. steadily and without fail.
Student loan credit level has been steadily rising because the cost of a college education has been steadily rising. Again, where is the outrage at our greedy educators getting rich by loading up these kids with student loan debt for a degree they can’t use in a high-tech economy?
…the loan system allows colleges to raise prices, which causes more students to take out loans. States, facing budget pressures, have also pulled back on investment, putting even more risk on students and further increasing the need for loans.
Again, where is the outrage at our greedy educators who keep raising tuition, forcing these kids to take out more and more student loan debt?
The risk and burdens that come from forcing students to take out debt up front and pay it back later is problematic from head to toe (tassel to hem, one might say). To create a better system of higher education, we need to look at alternatives to the current debt-financed model.
So the solution is for the taxpayer to foot the bill for these useless college degrees at these party colleges? How is that going to solve any problem? All that will do is allow more people to go to a college in Denver where they can get high for 4 years. And then go to work as a barista at a coffee shop that requires no 4-year degree. How does that make anything better? Other than get more young people to vote Democrat. Then again, perhaps that is the only objective of Keynesian economics. Which is why those on the left embrace these failed policies with a religious fervor. Because it helps them win elections. Even while they’re destroying the economy.
Tags: borrowing, college, debt, Democrats, devaluing the currency, disposable income, economic recovery, Great Depression, Great Recession, greedy educators, high-tech economy, higher education, interest rates, jobs, Keynesian economics, Keynesian policies, Keynesians, loan, party colleges, spending, student, student loan, student loan debt, taxes, useless college degree, worst economic recovery
Politicians Lie because they will Lose Elections if they Tell the Truth
Politicians lie. Why? Simple. Politicians lie when telling the truth won’t help them win an election.
When President Obama lied the Lie of the Year he lied for a reason. People didn’t like the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare). They did not want national health care. And they believed that Obamacare would put them onto the path to national health care. To allay their concerns President Obama said, “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it. Period.” The statement that became the Lie of the Year. Because a lot of people lost the health care they had and wanted to keep. In fact, they wrote the Affordable Care Act to make sure that would happen. As they need to herd as many of the young and healthy into Obamacare as possible to make the thing work. People who would pay into the program while not collecting any benefits. So they could subsidize the old and sick.
Had the president told the people that they would lose the health care plan that they liked and wanted to keep there would have been a lot more opposition to the Affordable Care Act. With constituents pressuring their representatives to vote against it or they would vote against them in the next election. This is why politicians lie when they do things against the will of the people. Because they will lose elections if they tell the truth.
Having Victims is No Good unless you have someone to Blame for their Victimization
Democrats lie a lot. Because their policies have a long history of failure. Especially their economic policies. And that’s because Democrats embrace Keynesian economics with a religious fervor. Despite Keynesian economics giving us the Great Depression, the stagflation of the Seventies, the dot-com bubble recession and the Great Recession. No, these Keynesian disasters don’t give Democrats any reason to doubt their faith. Because at the heart of Keynesian economics is an activist government in the private sector economy.
Democrats like to fault capitalism. Saying unfettered capitalism is unfair. Unfeeling. Cruel. And just plain mean. So they involve themselves in the private sector economy to even the playing field. To unrig the rigged game. To remove the unfair, unfeeling, cruel and mean elements of unfettered capitalism. By fettering capitalism. And the first thing they do is identify victims of capitalism. A secretary who pays a higher tax rate than her boss. Warren Buffet. Minimum wage workers who can’t earn a living wage. And, of course, people who live in fear of losing everything because they don’t have health insurance.
Of course having victims is no good unless you have someone to blame for their victimization. Such as the 1% who are extremely wealthy but don’t pay their ‘fair share’ of taxes. Even though they pay over a third of all federal income taxes while totaling only 1% of the population. Greedy business owners who’d rather pocket millions while depriving their workers from earning a living wage. Even though most business owners are not millionaires and probably could earn more by working for someone else. And evil corporations who force people to work against their will or lose their health insurance and other benefits. Even though people tend to work where they receive the best pay and benefit package their skill and experience can get. And will leave one job in a heartbeat for a job with a better pay and benefit package elsewhere.
The Affordable Care Act is an Economic Model that cannot deliver on its Promise
Once they have their victims and their villains all they need to do is pull on the heartstrings. To generate sympathy for the victims. While getting these same people angry at the villains. Which they do by avoiding facts. Instead, they tune in to people’s emotions. Victims are sad. And we should do something to help them from their victimization. Villains are bad. And we should do something to punish them. So they demonize these villains. Getting the people to believe that punishing them, say, with higher taxes will somehow improve their lives. Which it won’t. In fact, they could take all the wealth away from the 1% and imprison them but it won’t make a difference in the lives of the 99%. For if the 1% are no longer creating wealth they would be unable to pay over a third of all federal income taxes anymore. Requiring higher taxes on the 99%. Or a drastic cutting of government benefits.
If people understood sound economic principles (and not the Keynesian nonsense our power-hungry politicians favor) they would not be so emotionally manipulated. In fact, if people had a solid understanding of history they would never vote for anyone attacking capitalism. As unfettered capitalism is the only economic system that allows people without privilege to be as successful as anyone else in the country. Whereas the most anti-capitalistic countries have had the greatest poverty and human rights abuses. Such as the former Soviet Union, the People’s Republic of China, the former Eastern Bloc countries, North Korea, Cambodia, Cuba, etc. So for emotional manipulation to work they need a not so educated public. Which is why the Democrats control public education and our universities. And champion pre-K. To get control of our kids as soon as possible. To dumb them down. And program them into good Democrat voters.
This is the formula the Democrats use to win elections. Victimization + Demonization + Emotion = Democrat Votes. For they can’t win by telling the truth. Or having informed voters. So they use their control of our educational system to make more emotionally pliable voters. Ones that are easier to lie to. And that they can sway with fiery rhetoric. Which is why we have Obamacare today. Because the Affordable Care Act is an economic model that cannot deliver on its promise. To provide a higher quality health care to more people while costing less. Which is impossible. Just as it is impossible to draw a square circle. It’s either a square. Or a circle. It cannot be both. Ditto for the promise of Obamacare. Which is why to get people to believe that it was possible to give them more for less required telling a lie so big that it was voted the Lie of the Year.
Tags: 1%, 99%, Affordable Care Act, business owners, capitalism, Democrat votes, Democrats, demonization, election, emotions, health care plan, health insurance, If you like your health care plan, Keynesian, Keynesian economics, lie of the year, living wage, National health care, Obamacare, politicians lie, President Obama, tell the truth, truth, unfettered capitalism, victimization, victims, villains
(Originally published December 24th, 2012)
Christians may not like the Crass Commercialization of Christmas but the Left Loves It
The Left does not have a war on Christmas per se. For they love the consumer spending part of Christmas. Which is pure Keynesian. People go into debt to spend more money at retailers. They love that part of Christmas. What they don’t like is the religious stuff. Especially Jesus.
They don’t like Jesus because He is the God the Christians worship. Their Lord and Savior. It’s these Christians that bother the Left. Because of their opposition to birth control (mostly Catholics), abortion and having fun in general. The kind of fun adults enjoy. The kind of things Christians frown on. Premarital sex. Gay love. Drinking and using drugs. Coarse language and sexual situations on television shows and in the movies. Things they champion on the Left. Which makes the Left hate Christianity. Which they see as nothing but a great killjoy.
It’s the moralizing the Left does not like. But the one thing Christians don’t like about Christmas, its crass commercialization, they do like. So the Left will try to band images of Christ from Christmas displays wherever they can. Despite Christmas being the celebration of Christ’s birth. But they will gather in Rockefeller Center to party when they light the Christmas tree. Though they would prefer that we call it the holiday tree.
Retailers often become Profitable for the Year only because of this Temporary Spending Surge at Christmas
So there are two Christmases. The one where Christians celebrate the birth of Christ. Wish for peace on earth. And good will towards man. And the other Christmas. The one marked by the orgy of consumer spending. Much of it funded by one-time Christmas bonuses. A celebration of demand-side Keynesian economics. Where people spend their hard earned money instead of saving it. And when their money runs out they spend even more using their credit cards.
Keynesians have a bunch of charts and graphs showing how great a stimulus this Christmas spending is to the economy. And mathematical formulas. They can tell you about the velocity of money. How fast money travels through the economy when it goes from consumer to seller. The seller then becomes consumer. And spends the money they just received. Then the person who receives this money in a sales transaction goes out and spends it as a consumer. And on and on it goes. Flying through though the economy at breakneck speed. Generating a whole lot of economic activity.
Retailers often become profitable for the year only because of this spending surge at Christmas. In fact, to handle this surge in business they hire a lot of people at Christmas time. Part-time people. Proving again that pumping money into the economy creates jobs. The main tenet of Keynesian monetary policy. Pump cash into the economy and people will spend it. Something the Keynesians have been doing since Richard Nixon decoupled the dollar from gold in 1971. Ending any semblance of responsible monetary policy. And recessions forever. At least, that was the plan.
Keynesian Stimulus is nothing more than an Orgy of Temporary Consumer Spending just like at Christmas Time
When the economy slows down and people stop buying stuff businesses have to lay off workers. So they won’t build stuff that no one will buy. Laid off workers no longer have money to buy things. Which causes other business to lay off workers. So THEY won’t build stuff that no one will buy. It’s a vicious cycle. In fact, we call it the business cycle. The boom-bust cycle. From expansion to contraction. From an economy hiring people to an economy laying off people.
Keynesian economics was supposed to remove the contraction side of the business cycle. By picking up the spending slack. When consumers stopped spending money the government would step in and replace their spending. We call it stimulus spending. Often spending money the government doesn’t have. So they run a deficit (i.e., borrow money). Or simply print money. Which they did a lot of in the Seventies. Unfortunately, as it turns out, you just can’t do that. For when you print money you devalue it. Which raises prices. As it takes more of these devalued dollars to buy what they once did.
And this is why Keynesian economics doesn’t work. Because a Keynesian stimulus is nothing more than an orgy of consumer spending. Just like at Christmas time. Which happens only for a limited time. Businesses hire temporary part-time workers at Christmas because this spending does not last. As it does not last during a Keynesian stimulus. It doesn’t create any full-time jobs. Because employers know it is only temporary. And they know that higher prices will soon follow. As they do after Christmas when the discounting ends. Which will reduce future economic activity. As it does after Christmas. Once the deals end so too ends the orgy of consumer spending. Leaving people to deal with the aftermath. Depleted bank accounts. A lot of credit card debt. And a little buyer’s remorse.
Tags: birth of Christ, business cycle, Christ, Christianity, Christians, Christmas, consumer spending, crass commercialization, Jesus, Keynesian, Keynesian economics, Keynesian stimulus, monetary policy, money, orgy of consumer spending, part-time workers, spending, stimulus, stimulus spending, temporary
A Fall in Economic Activity follows a Surge in Keynesian Stimulus Spending
The minimum wage argument is a political argument. Because it’s a partisan one. Not one based on sound economics. Such as the classical school of economics that made America the number one economic power in the world. Thrift. Savings. Investment. Free trade. And a gold standard. Then you have the politicized school of economics that replaced it. The Keynesian school. Which nations around the world accept as sacrosanct. Because it is the school of economics that says governments should manage the economy. Thus sanctioning and enabling Big Government.
Keynesian economics is all about consumption. Consumer spending. That’s all that matters to them. And it’s the only thing they look at. They completely ignore the higher stages of production. Above the retail level. They ignore the wholesale level. The manufacturing level. The industrial processing level. And the raw material extraction level. Which is why Keynesian stimulus fails. Just putting more money into consumers’ pockets doesn’t affect them. For they see the other side of that stimulus. Inflation. And recession. And they’re not going to expand or hire more people just because there is a temporary spike in consumer spending. Because they know once the consumers run through this money they will revert back to their previous purchasing habits. Well, almost.
Keynesian stimulus is typically created with an expansion of the money supply. As more dollars chase the same amount of goods prices rise. And people lose purchasing power. So they buy less. Which means following a surge in Keynesian stimulus spending there follows a fall in economic activity. Which is why the higher stages of production don’t expand or hire people. Because they know that for them the economy gets worse—not better—after stimulus spending.
A Stronger Economy would help Minimum Wage Workers more than Raising the Minimum Wage
Increasing the minimum wage shares the Keynesian goal of putting more money into consumers’ pockets. And many of the arguments for increasing the minimum wage mirror those arguments for Keynesian stimulus. Even to reverse the consequences of previous Keynesian policies (see Everything You Ever Needed to Know About the Minimum Wage by Jordan Weissmann posted 12/16/2013 on The Atlantic).
The federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour, which means that depending on the city you’re in, 60 minutes of work will just about buy you a Chipoltle burrito (without guac). By historical standards, it’s fairly low. Thanks to inflation, the minimum wage is worth about $3.26 less, in today’s dollars, than when its real value peaked in 1968.
It’s a Keynesian argument that says putting more money into people’s pockets will increase economic activity. That’s the rebuttal to the argument that a higher minimum wage will reduce economic activity (by raising prices with higher labor costs). For they will take those higher wages and spend them in the economy. More than offsetting the loss in sales due to those higher prices.
The whole concept of Keynesian stimulus is predicated on giving consumers more money to spend. Like raising the minimum wage. Either with stimulus money raised by taxes. From borrowing. Or printing. Their favorite. Which they have done a lot of. To keep interest rates low to spur housing sales in particular. But with this monetary expansion comes inflation. And a loss of purchasing power. So the Keynesian policies of putting more money into consumers’ pockets to stimulate economic activity has reduced the purchasing power of that money. Which is why the minimum wage in real dollars keeps falling.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1.57 million Americans, or 2.1 percent of the hourly workforce, earned the minimum wage in 2012. More than 60 percent of them either worked in retail or in leisure and hospitality, which is to say hotels and restaurants, including fast-food chains.
…Almost a third of minimum-wage workers are teenagers, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Some in retail sales get a commission added on to their hourly wage. Many in the food and leisure industry earn tips in addition to their hourly wage. So some of those who earn the minimum wage get more than the minimum wage. Those who don’t are either unskilled entry level workers. Such as students who are working towards a degree that will get them a higher-paying job. Those working part-time for an additional paycheck. Those who work because of the convenience (hours, location, etc.). Those who have no skills that can get them into a higher-paying job. Or because these entry-level jobs are the only jobs they can find in a bad economy.
A stronger economy could create better jobs. And higher wages. For it is during good economic times that people leave one job for a better job. And employers pay people more to prevent good employees they’ve already trained from leaving. So they don’t have to start all over again with a new unskilled worker. This would be the better approach. Creating a stronger economy to allow unskilled workers to move up into higher skilled—and higher paying—jobs. For you can’t have upward mobility if there are no better jobs to move up into.
On one side of the debate, you mostly have traditionalists who believe that increasing the minimum wage kills some jobs for unskilled workers, like teens…
On the other side, you have researchers who believe that increasing the minimum wage doesn’t kill jobs at all and may even give the economy a boost by channeling more pay to low-income workers who are likely to spend it.
The Automotive industry has long fought for tariff protection. For the high cost of their union labor made their cars costlier than their imported competition. The legacy costs of an aging workforce (health care for retirees and pensions) required a government bailout to keep General Motors and Chrysler from going belly-up. And it was this high cost of union labor that caused the Big Three to lose market share. Shedding jobs—and employees—as they couldn’t sell the cars they were making.
So higher wages raise prices. And reduce sales. Leading to layoffs. And reduced economic activity. The unions believe this. That’s why they fight so hard for legislation to protect themselves from lower-priced competition. You would have to believe that the economic forces that affect one part of the economy would affect another. And those economic forces say that higher wages kill jobs. They don’t increase economic activity. They just help the lucky few who have those high-paying jobs. While many of their one-time coworkers found themselves out of a job.
When the minimum wage goes up, the theory says, businesses shape up. Managers find ways to make their employees more productive. Turnover slows down, since people are happier with their paychecks, and the unemployed snap up jobs elsewhere in town. Meanwhile, Burger King and McDonald’s can raise their prices a little bit without scaring off customers.
Managers finding ways to make their employees more productive? Do you know what that means? It means how they can get more work out of fewer employees. No worker wants to hear management talk about productivity gains. For that usually means someone will lose their job. As the remaining workers can do more with less because of those productivity gains. So that’s a horrible argument for a higher minimum wage. Because fewer people will have those bigger paychecks. Made possible by reducing costs elsewhere. As in laying off some of their coworkers.
Based on data from 80s and early 90s, Daniel Aaronson estimated that a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage drove up the price of McDonald’s burgers, KFC chicken, and Pizza Hut’s pizza-like product by as much as 10 percent. Assuming that holds true today, it means that bringing the minimum wage to $10.10 would tack $1.60 onto the cost of your Big Mac.
McDonald’s will never win the award for having the healthiest food. And that’s fine. People don’t go there to eat healthy. They go there for the value. As it is one of the few places you can take a family of four out for about $25. Adding another $1.60 per burger could add another $6.40 to that dinner out. For a family living paycheck to paycheck that may be just too much for the weekly budget. Especially with inflation raising the cost of groceries and gasoline. Thanks to those Keynesian economic policies.
Raising the Minimum Wage will not Result in any of the Lofty Goals the Economic Planners Envision
There is a lot of anger at these minimum wage companies paying their employees so little. Some of their minimum workers have gone on strike recently to protest their low pay. As they are apparently not working at these companies because they love the work. So suffice it to say that no one is yearning to work at these companies. And that some may outright hate these jobs. So why in the world would we want to punish them by paying them more? Removing all ambition to leave the jobs they hate?
If you raise the minimum wage what happens to other jobs that pay what becomes the new higher minimum wage? Putting their earnings on par with unskilled entry-level jobs? Jobs that require greater skills than entry-level minimum wage jobs? Will they continue to work harder for the same wage as unskilled workers? Will they leave their more difficult jobs for an easier entry-level job? Will they demand a raise from their employer? Keynesians would say this is a good thing. As it will drive wages up. It may. But to pay these higher labor costs will require cost cuts elsewhere. Perhaps by shedding an employee or two.
Raising the minimum wage will not result in any of the lofty goals the economic planners envision. For if putting more money into consumers’ pockets is all we need to create economic activity then we wouldn’t have had the Great Recession. The stagflation of the Seventies. Or the Great Depression. Keynesian stimulus spending didn’t create new economic activity to prevent any of these. So why would a rise in the minimum wage be any different?
Tags: consumer spending, economic activity, entry level jobs, inflation, jobs, Keynesian, Keynesian economics, Keynesian stimulus, minimum wage, purchasing power, recession, stages of production, stimulus, stimulus spending, wages
Week in Review
Large governments like to control their economies. And their people. Because those in power always want one thing. More power.
The United States became the world’s number one economic power before the federal government grew into the thing it is today. Way too big. Reaching way too far into the private sector economy. Before Keynesian economics became all the rage to empower the growth of governments there was classical economics. With simple principles. Thrift. People thought long-term and saved their money instead of buying everything they wanted today. Banks collected their savings and transformed them into investment capital. The more people saved (i.e., the thriftier they were) the more capital there was available to loan to entrepreneurs. Thus lowering interest rates. There was also sound money. Backed by gold. In various forms of the gold standard. That held the value of money over time. And the federal government taxed little. Regulated little. And spent little. These classical economic principles stimulated strong economic growth. (Principles similar to the Austrian school of economics championed by Friedrich Hayek.) And it is these principles that we have moved away from as we turned to Keynesian economics. And a form of state-capitalism that we have today.
During the Nineties China turned to classical economic principles. As they slowly allowed people some economic liberty. But just a taste of it. For the ruling Chinese communists did not want what happened during the collapse of the Soviet Union to happen in China. The Chinese Communist Party would not collapse like it did in the former Soviet Union. While there were free thinkers that embraced the principles of Friedrich Hayek the state kept them on a short leash. A leash that appears to be even shorter these days (see A Lonely Passion: China’s Followers of Friedrich A. Hayek by DIDI KIRSTEN TATLOW published 10/30/2013 on The New York Times).
Hayek believed that economic planning by the state leads to a loss of individual liberty, and that a private economy run by people whose rights are protected and enlarged by good laws delivers the best life.
‘‘There is some distance between Hayek and the current realities’’ in China, Gao Quanxi, a prominent Chinese Hayekian and law professor at Beihang University in Beijing, said in an interview this week.
Mr. Gao was probably choosing his words carefully. The gap is enormous, as he explained last Friday in a talk at the Unirule Institute of Economics, a think tank in Beijing…
In his talk, titled ‘‘Reconsidering Hayek’s Theoretical Legacy,’’ Mr. Gao did not mince words: China is less free now than 10 years ago, at the end of the Jiang Zemin era. There is no ‘‘free market of ideas’’ in universities. Publishing on topics the authorities disapprove of has become more difficult. The state is on the march…
Capitalism, several participants said, functions in China according to the unwritten rules created by the power holders, not by good laws, as Hayek urged.
‘‘Communism has failed. Socialism has failed. What we have here is statism. And Hayek really opposed that. So how should we understand Hayek in the context of today’s China?’’ asked Mr. Gao…
Many economists, scholars and politicians believe that China is facing deep challenges to its economic model, that it needs to shift from a fixed investment-fueled economy, where the hand of the state is heavy, to one with more private enterprise and market forces.
President Obama and the Chinese communists share something in common. They both are trying to move their economies in the same direction. Only the Chinese communists don’t publicly bash capitalism as much as President Obama and his fellow Democrats do.
When China was enjoying double digit GDP growth the liberals in the United States wanted to do what the Chinese were doing. To manage the economy more. As they thought they were even more brilliant than communist state planners in China. And could even outperform the Chinese economy. If they could only control it. Decide what we make. Like solar panels. And electric cars. Of course, most of China’s economic growth produced exports. And they sold well because of China’s low wages. Which is pretty much all they had going for them. Their middle class did not grow. And with the worldwide decline in economic activity thanks to Keynesian economic policies by state planners everywhere who think they are smarter than the market their export market cooled. As it cooled so did their GDP growth.
China is suffering a little economic malaise now because they don’t have a thriving middle class of entrepreneurs starting small businesses. All they have are large state-run factories. That produce exports. Because they don’t have a thriving middle class to buy these products. Which is what happens when you don’t have individual liberty. Friedrich Hayek understood this. Pity the Chinese communists don’t. Or President Obama and his fellow Democrats. Then again, perhaps they do. But they know the price of individual liberty is less government power. And that’s just something anathema to communists. President Obama. And Democrats.
Tags: Austrian school of economics, capital, capitalism, China, Chinese communists, classical economics, Democrats, economic liberty, entrepreneurs, Friedrich Hayek, gold, Hayek, individual liberty, investment capital, Keynesian economics, middle class, money, power, President Obama, savings, Soviet Union, thrift
Although there were 204,000 New Jobs in October 720,000 Workers left the Labor Force
The worst economic recovery since that following the Great Depression continues (see Employment Situation Summary by the Bureau of Labor Statistics posted 11/8/2013).
Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 204,000 in October, and the unemployment rate was little changed at 7.3 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today…
Both the number of unemployed persons, at 11.3 million, and the unemployment rate, at 7.3 percent, changed little in October…
The civilian labor force was down by 720,000 in October.
If the Obama administration was an employment agency that found people jobs someone would have fired the management team by now with numbers like this. 204,000 new jobs for 11.3 million unemployed people is a success rate of 1.81%. Worse, although there were 204,000 new jobs 720,000 workers left the labor force. Which means that for every new job we lost 3.5 existing jobs. So for one step forward in fixing the economy the administration takes 3.5 steps backwards. Which means we’re moving in the wrong direction with the economy.
After a near-trillion dollar stimulus bill and quantitative easing up the wazoo what do we have to show for it? Not a whole hell of a lot. Other than more debt. And inflationary pressures just waiting to be unleashed. Taking us back to the stagflation and misery of the Seventies. The heyday of Keynesian economics.
Solid Economic Growth starts at Raw Material Extraction
Before John Maynard Keynes gave us Keynesian economics the economy hummed along based on classical economic principles. Including, but not limited to, thrift. Savings. Investment. A sound banking system. And a strong currency. People saved their money. Banks accumulated their savings into investment capital. Banks made this capital available to investors. And interest rates were determined by our savings rate. The more we saved (i.e., the more thrifty we were) the lower interest rates were. These are the economic principles that made the United States the number one economy in the world.
Another key concept of classical economics is the stages of production. From the extraction of raw materials to manufacturing to wholesale goods to retail goods. In a healthy economy there is growth at all stages. And solid economic growth starts at raw material extraction. For this feeds manufacturing. Which feeds wholesale goods. Which feeds retail goods. Where consumers spend their money. The fatal flaw of Keynesian economics is that it focuses only on consumer spending. Not at these higher-order stages of production. And when Keynesians try to end a recession while ignoring them they fail. And get job numbers like these.
Employment in retail trade increased by 44,000 in October, compared with an average monthly gain of 31,000 over the prior 12 months…
Manufacturing added 19,000 jobs in October, with job growth occurring in motor vehicles and parts (+6,000), wood products (+3,000), and furniture and related products (+3,000). On net, manufacturing employment has changed little since February 2013…
In October, employment showed little or no change elsewhere in the private sector, including mining and logging, construction, wholesale trade, transportation and warehousing, information, and financial activities.
This is not the picture of an improving economy. Consumers are spending money. Thanks to low interest rates and a record amount of government benefits. But the economic activity is greatest at the consumer level. As evidenced by the largest increase in jobs at the retail level. There are fewer job gains at manufacturing. And even less at the whole sale level and raw material extraction. Meaning the new economic activity is greatest at the consumer level. Because of cheap (and free) money. But there are no new jobs at the highest stage of production. Raw material extraction. Because they see no real economic recovery. Only Keynesian ‘hot’ money that will cause a surge in consumer spending. And a surge in inflation. Leading to a continued sluggish economic recovery. Or a fall back into recession. And the last thing they want should that happen is higher costs. Or more debt. So they don’t spend more or invest during periods of Keynesian stimulus.
President Obama’s Greatest Supporters are suffering some of the Greatest Unemployment
The October 2013 Employment Situation Summary paints a grim economic picture. People continue to leave the labor force. And the government’s efforts to stimulate economic activity isn’t stimulating anything above the consumer level. As the higher stages of production fear the coming inflation. And possible recession. This after 5 years of President Obama’s Keynesian economic policies. Further proving the futility of Keynesian economics. And the failure of the Obama administration. Whose policies have stalled new hiring. And pushed people from full-time to part-time.
The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers) was little changed at 8.1 million in October. These individuals were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job.
Those individuals who had their hours cut or can’t find a full-time job are in large part due to the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). Which is not only destroying any economic recovery. But the Affordable Care Act is also making health insurance unaffordable. Which will make these economic numbers worse as the carnage spreads to employer-provided health insurance. As people will have to both pay for health insurance AND pay for all of their health care out-of-pocket thanks to those high deductibles. Which won’t help the unemployment numbers. For as consumer spending falls so does hiring.
Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (7.0 percent), adult women (6.4 percent), teenagers (22.2 percent), whites (6.3 percent), blacks (13.1 percent), and Hispanics (9.1 percent) showed little or no change in October. The jobless rate for Asians was 5.2 percent.
It is interesting, or rather ironic, that the president’s greatest supporters are suffering some of the greatest unemployment. Teenagers. Blacks. And Hispanics. Who seem to never lose their faith. No matter how much President Obama’s policies favor old white men and women. And Asians. It’s not for the lack of spending, either. For the Obama administration has spent more domestically than any other president. But it is only his rich Wall Street cronies who are doing well. And other rich people. Not the rank and file Obama supporters. Yet they remain Obama supporters. So far, at least. These continual bad job numbers AND the unaffordable Affordable Care Act may change things. Especially when these continue to fall disproportionally on teenagers, blacks and Hispanics.
Tags: Affordable Care Act, blacks, capital, classical economics, consumer spending, debt, economic recovery, Employment Situation Summary, health insurance, Hispanics, inflation, interest rates, jobs, Keynesian, Keynesian economics, labor force, manufacturing, new jobs, Obama administration, Obamacare, raw material extraction, recession, retail goods, stages of production, stimulus, teenagers, unemployed people, unemployment rate, wholesale goods
Week in Review
Governments love Keynesian economics. As it’s a backdoor to a managed economy. The Soviet Union failed so we can’t have any more managed economies. But if we call things ‘stimulus’ and ‘investments’ we can pretend we don’t have a managed economy when we actually do. Which is why governments love Keynesian economics. It lets them, the brilliant people, use their superior intellect to make the economy better. Because they can figure out what we’re thinking. Even though Google can’t (see Google admits the human brain beats an algorithm by Eric Rosenbaum, CNBC, posted 11/9/2013 on Yahoo! Finance).
This past week, there was an old-school battle of wits that captured the world’s attention: a chess championship…
It was a good reminder that even with the overwhelming nature of the information economy and long past Garry Kasparov’s waving of the white flag against IBM’s chess-playing grandmaster machines, human ingenuity still has a role to play-and, in fact, even Google admitted as much this past week. There are just some tasks at which Google’s algorithms remain at a competitive disadvantage to actual human beings, one being personalized answers to questions that require expert assistance. And so Google announced its “helpouts” product, which the New York Times said was “an acknowledgement by the company that its search engine misses a lot of information that people want.”
People don’t say “I’ll use an Internet search engine to find that information.” No. They say “I’ll Google it.” Sometimes even when they’re using Yahoo or Bing. It’s like Kleenex came to mean tissue. And how Xerox came to mean photocopy. We tend to call things by the industry dominator of those things. And Google dominates the business of trying to figure out what other people are thinking. So they’re the best at trying to figure out what other people are thinking. But even they admit they can’t figure out what other people are thinking.
This is why Keynesian economics fail. No one can figure out what other people are thinking. Let alone hundreds of millions of people. Which is why America became the world’s number one economy when the government was NOT trying to figure out what people were thinking to manage the economy. That changed during the latter half of the 20th century. And now the American economy is not what it once was. Because Keynesians are no better than Soviet planners. And the more they try the more they risk suffering the same fate of the Soviet Union. For the Soviet Union wasn’t defeated by a superior military. They were defeated by a superior economic system.
Tags: American economy, figure out what other people are thinking, information, Keynesian, Keynesian economics, managed economy, Soviet, Soviet Union
« Previous Entries