The Austrian School of Economics

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 3rd, 2014

Economics 101

(Originally published February 27th, 2012)

Because of the Unpredictable Human Element in all Economic Exchanges the Austrian School is more Laissez-Faire

Name some of the great inventions economists gave us.  The computer?  The Internet?  The cell phone?  The car?  The jumbo jet?  Television?  Air conditioning?  The automatic dishwasher?  No.  Amazingly, economists did not invent any of these brilliant inventions.  And economists didn’t predict any of these inventions.  Not a one.  Despite how brilliant they are.  Well, brilliant by their standard.  In their particular field.  For economists really aren’t that smart.  Their ‘expertise’ is in the realm of the social sciences.  The faux sciences where people try to quantify the unquantifiable.  Using mathematical equations to explain and predict human behavior.  Which is what economists do.  Especially Keynesian economists.  Who think they are smarter than people.  And markets.

But there is a school of economic thought that doesn’t believe we can quantify human activity.  The Austrian school.  Where Austrian economics began.  In Vienna.  Where the great Austrian economists gathered.  Carl Menger.  Ludwig von Mises.  And Friedrich Hayek.  To name a few.  Who understood that economics is the sum total of millions of people making individual human decisions.  Human being key.  And why we can’t reduce economics down to a set of mathematical equations.  Because you can’t quantify human behavior.  Contrary to what the Keynesians believe.  Which is why these two schools are at odds with each other.  With people even donning the personas of Keynes and Hayek to engage in economic debate.

Keynesian economics is more mainstream than the Austrian school.  Because it calls for the government to interfere with market forces.  To manipulate them.  To make markets produce different results from those they would have if left alone.  Something governments love to do.  Especially if it calls for taxing and spending.  Which Keynesian economics highly encourage.  To fix market ‘failures’.  And recessions.  By contrast, because of the unpredictable human element in all economic exchanges, the Austrian school is more laissez-faire.  They believe more in the separation of the government from things economic.  Economic exchanges are best left to the invisible hand.  What Adam Smith called the sum total of the millions of human decisions made by millions of people.  Who are maximizing their own economic well being.  And when we do we maximize the economic well being of the economy as a whole.  For the Austrian economist does not believe he or she is smarter than people.  Or markets.  Which is why an economist never gave us any brilliant invention.  Nor did their equations predict any inventor inventing a great invention.  And why economists have day jobs.  For if they were as brilliant and prophetic as they claim to be they could see into the future and know which stocks to buy to get rich so they could give up their day jobs.  When they’re able to do that we should start listening to them.  But not before.

Low Interest Rates cause Malinvestment and Speculation which puts Banks in Danger of Financial Collapse

Keynesian economics really took off with central banking.  And fractional reserve banking.  Monetary tools to control the money supply.  That in the Keynesian world was supposed to end business cycles and recessions as we knew them.  The Austrian school argues that using these monetary tools only distorts the business cycle.  And makes recessions worse.  Here’s how it works.  The central bank lowers interest rates by increasing the money supply (via open market transactions, lowering reserve requirements in fractional reserve banking or by printing money).  Lower interest rates encourage people to borrow money to buy houses, cars, kitchen appliances, home theater systems, etc.  This new economic activity encourages businesses to hire new workers to meet the new demand.  Ergo, recession over.  Simple math, right?  Only there’s a bit of a problem.  Some of our worst recessions have come during the era of Keynesian economics.  Including the worst recession of all time.  The Great Depression.  Which proves the Austrian point that the use of Keynesian policies to end recessions only makes recessions worse.  (Economists debate the causes of the Great Depression to this day.  Understanding the causes is not the point here.  The point is that it happened.  When recessions were supposed to be a thing of the past when using Keynesian policies.)

The problem is that these are not real economic expansions.  They’re artificial ones.  Created by cheap credit.  Which the central bank creates by forcing interest rates below actual market interest rates.  Which causes a whole host of problems.  In particular corrupting the banking system.  Banks offer interest rates to encourage people to save their money for future use (like retirement) instead of spending it in the here and now.  This is where savings (or investment capital) come from.  Banks pay depositors interest on their deposits.  And then loan out this money to others who need investment capital to start businesses.  To expand businesses.  To buy businesses.  Whatever.  They borrow money to invest so they can expand economic activity.  And make more profits.

But investment capital from savings is different from investment capital from an expansion of the money supply.  Because businesses will act as if the trend has shifted from consumption (spending now) to investment (spending later).  So they borrow to expand operations.  All because of the false signal of the artificially low interest rates.  They borrow money.  Over-invest.  And make bad investments.  Even speculate.  What Austrians call malinvestments.  But there was no shift from consumption to investment.  Savings haven’t increased.  In fact, with all those new loans on the books the banks see a shift in the other direction.  Because they have loaned out more money while the savings rate of their depositors did not change.  Which produced on their books a reduction in the net savings rate.  Leaving them more dangerously leveraged than before the credit expansion.  Also, those lower interest rates also decrease the interest rate on savings accounts.  Discouraging people from saving their money.  Which further reduces the savings rate of depositors.  Finally, those lower interest rates reduce the income stream on their loans.  Leaving them even more dangerously leveraged.  Putting them at risk of financial collapse should many of their loans go bad.

Keynesian Economics is more about Power whereas the Austrian School is more about Economics

These artificially low interest rates fuel malinvestment and speculation.  Cheap credit has everyone, flush with borrowed funds, bidding up prices (real estate, construction, machinery, raw material, etc.).  This alters the natural order of things.  The automatic pricing mechanism of the free market.  And reallocates resources to these higher prices.  Away from where the market would have otherwise directed them.  Creating great shortages and high prices in some areas.  And great surpluses of stuff no one wants to buy at any price in other areas.  Sort of like those Soviet stores full of stuff no one wanted to buy while people stood in lines for hours to buy toilet paper and soap.  (But not quite that bad.)  Then comes the day when all those investments don’t produce any returns.  Which leaves these businesses, investors and speculators with a lot of debt with no income stream to pay for it.  They drove up prices.  Created great asset bubbles.  Overbuilt their capacity.  Bought assets at such high prices that they’ll never realize a gain from them.  They know what’s coming next.  And in some darkened office someone pours a glass of scotch and murmurs, “My God, what have we done?”

The central bank may try to delay this day of reckoning.  By keeping interest rates low.  But that only allows asset bubbles to get bigger.  Making the inevitable correction more painful.  But eventually the central bank has to step in and raise interest rates.  Because all of that ‘bidding up of prices’ finally makes its way down to the consumer level.  And sparks off some nasty inflation.  So rates go up.  Credit becomes more expensive.  Often leaving businesses and speculators to try and refinance bad debt at higher rates.  Debt that has no income stream to pay for it.  Either forcing business to cut costs elsewhere.  Or file bankruptcy.  Which ripples through the banking system.  Causing a lot of those highly leveraged banks to fail with them.  Thus making the resulting recession far more painful and more long-lasting than necessary.  Thanks to Keynesian economics.  At least, according to the Austrian school.  And much of the last century of history.

The Austrian school believes the market should determine interest rates.  Not central bankers.  They’re not big fans of fractional reserve banking, either.  Which only empowers central bankers to cause all of their mischief.  Which is why Keynesians don’t like Austrians.  Because Keynesians, and politicians, like that power.  For they believe that they are smarter than the people making economic exchanges.  Smarter than the market.  And they just love having control over all of that money.  Which comes in pretty handy when playing politics.  Which is ultimately the goal of Keynesian economics.  Whereas the Austrian school is more about economics.


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

Keynesian Economists are Narcissists who don’t know the First Thing about Economics

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 2nd, 2014

Week in Review

There was a sketch on the Benny Hill Show that reminds me of Keynesian economists.  Benny was singing a song and they were showing the unrequited love around him.  They showed one woman who loved a man.  But that man loved another woman.  Who loved Benny.  And who did Benny love?  The camera remained on Benny.  Because that’s who he loved.

Keynesian economists are a lot like that.  They like to sound erudite.  They like to write things with impressive economic jargon in it.  The layman can’t understand a thing they say or write.  But that’s okay.  As they are writing to impress their peers.  People who are as narcissistic as they are.  And they tell each other how brilliant they are with all of their demand-side pontificating.  Pinching each other’s cheeks and saying, “Who’s a good economist?  You are.  You’re a good economist.  Yes you are.”  Even though they are always wrong.  Reminding me of another television show.  Hogan’s Heroes.  Where Colonel Hogan and Colonel Klink were disarming a bomb in the compound.  They’re down to two wires.  One disarms the bomb.  The other detonates it.  Colonel Hogan asks Colonel Klink which wire to cut.  He picks one.  And just as he’s about to cut it Colonel Hogan changes his mind and cuts the other wire.  Disarming the bomb.  Colonel Klink asks him if he knew which wire to cut why did he ask him.  And he replied that he wasn’t sure but he knew for sure that Colonel Klink would pick the wrong wire.

This is just like a Keynesian economist.  Ask them what to do to help the economy and you can be sure they’ll pick the wrong thing to do.  Because they love their demand-side economics with all their charts and graphs and equations.  For it feeds into their superiority complex.  As they can baffle people with their bull s***.  Well, the truth is that the economic data doesn’t support demand-side economics.  For all of the stimulus spending Keynesians have encouraged governments to do have never pulled an economy out of a recession.  It has only extended a recession.  And made it more painful.  For if you want to help the economy you have to work on the supply side.  Make it easier for people to be creative and bring things to market.  Things people will buy.  Even if they had no idea that they existed before seeing them in the market (see How Taco Bell’s Lead Innovator Created The Most Successful Menu Item Of All Time by Ashley Lutz posted 2/26/2014 on Business Insider).

The Doritos Locos Taco is one of the most successful fast food innovations of all time.

Taco Bell released the product in 2012 and sold more than a billion units in the first year. The fast food company had to hire an estimated 15,000 workers to keep up with demand…

The team went through more than 40 recipes, and Gomez told Business Insider he sometimes felt like the idea would never come to fruition.

“Execution was so difficult,” he said.

Gomez was eventually able to perfect the shell by using the same corn masa found in Doritos. He also discovered a process that would evenly distribute the seasoning on the shells. And the company found a way to contain the cheese dust in the production process.

Even after Gomez created the ultimate shell, he still had to design production facilities that would make millions of them.

But for Gomez, the years of effort was worth it.

“When we shared the idea with our consumers, they loved it,” Gomez said. “I was blown away with how immediately popular Doritos Locos Tacos became.”

The taco is the most popular menu item in the fast food chain’s 50-year history.

This wasn’t demand-driven.  As Keynesians believe everything is.  Get more money into the hands of consumers and they will demand things.  Thus increasing economic activity.  But not a single consumer was demanding the Doritos Locos Taco.  As there was no such thing to demand.  And giving them more money wasn’t going to bring it to market.  Only creative people with an idea and an indefatigable passion brought this to market.  Spending a lot of years and lots of money to bring to market something people weren’t demanding.  And might not even like.  But they did.  And it was a big success.  This is how you create economic activity.  On the supply side.  Cut tax rates and costly regulations.  Like Obamacare.  So other people are encouraged to be creative and use their indefatigable passion to bring other things to market.  Creating a whole lot more economic activity than just giving people a stimulus check and telling them to go out and create economic activity.  Because once that Keynesian stimulus is spent it cannot create any more economic activity.  Unlike all of the economic activity it takes to sell a billion or more Doritos Locos Tacos a year.


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

More of the Same from the Fed means more Housing Bubbles and Great Recessions

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 14th, 2013

Week in Review

Those who wanted to get away from the United States’ limited government past and grow government had to do away with the gold standard.  Those who favored a large and expansive federal government needed fiat money.  They needed the power to print money at will.  To fund deficits when they continually spend more than they have.  Despite continuously raising taxes.  When Nixon decoupled the dollar from gold in 1971 the fiat money people got their way.  Now the Keynesians could tax, borrow, print and spend to their heart’s content.  With the federal government in the driver’s seat of the U.S. economy.  With their Keynesian economists advising them.  Who said government spending was just as good as private spending.  So go ahead and tax, borrow and print.  Because all you need to create economic activity is to print money.

Of course they couldn’t have been more wrong.  As the Seventies proved.  Printing money just created inflation.  Higher prices.  And asset bubbles.  With no corresponding economic activity.  Instead there was stagflation.  And a high misery index (the inflation rate added to the unemployment rate).  Because there is more to economic activity than monetary policy.  Tax rates and regulations matter a whole heck of a lot, too.  As well as a stable currency.  Not one being depreciated away with double-digit inflation.  Rich people may get richer buying and selling real estate and stocks during periods of high inflation but working class people just see both their paycheck and savings lose purchasing power.

It was these Keynesian policies that caused the S&L Crisis.  The dot-com bubble.  And the subprime mortgage crisis.  Giving is the Great Recession.  The worst recession since the Great Depression.  But have we learned anything from these failed policies of the past?  Apparently not (see Blind Faith In The Fed Is Not Enough by Comstock Partners posted 4/12/2013 on Business Insider).

The move of the S&P 500 into new all-time highs is based on neither the economy, nor earnings, nor value, but almost completely on the blind faith that the Fed can single-handedly flood the market with enough funds to keep the illusion going.  In this sense the similarity of the current stock market to the dot-com bubble of the late 1990s or the housing bubble ending in 2007 is glaring…

Real consumer spending has been growing at a mediocre 2% rate over the past year despite growth of only 0.9% in real disposable income over the same period.  This was accomplished mainly by decreasing the savings rate to only 2.6% in February, compared to rates of 7%-to-11% in more prosperous times.  With employment growth diminishing and the negative effects of the January tax increases and the sequester yet to kick in, consumer spending is likely to slow markedly in the period ahead.  While March year-over-year comparisons may benefit from an earlier Easter, the reverse will probably be true in April.  Keep in mind, too, our over-riding theme that consumers, still burdened with most of the debt built up in the housing boom, are in no shape to jump-start their spending…

In sum, the lack of support from the economy, earnings or valuation leaves the Fed as the only game in town.  Although the old adage says “Don’t fight the Fed”, it did pay to fight the Fed in 2001 and 2002 and again from late 2007 to early 2009.  In our view, the Fed can only try to offset the tightness coming from the fiscal side, but cannot get the economy growing on a sustainable basis.

The only real growth we had was from a tax cut.  Surprise, surprise.  Of course that cut in the tax rate of the Social Security payroll tax decreased the Social Security surplus.  Moving the Social Security funding crisis up in time.  That along with Medicare and whatever Obamacare will do will cause a financial crisis this country has yet to see.  Which will cause great suffering.  Particularly because people are saving less because they have less.  Which is the only way they can compensate for the horrible economy President Obama and his Keynesian advisors are giving us.  So they won’t have private savings to replace their Social Security benefits that the government will spend long before they retire.

And what does the government do?  Why, spend more, of course.  Because of the sweet nothings their Keynesian advisors are whispering into their ears.  Saying the things big government types want to hear.  Spend more.  It’s good for the economy.  If you wonder what got Greece into the mess they’re in this is it.  Spending.  And anti-business policies to pull more wealth out of the private sector so the government can spend it.

All the countries reeling in the Eurozone sovereign debt crisis are there for the same reason.  None of them got into the mess they’re in because they had low taxes and low regulatory costs.  Because countries with business-friendly environments create private sector jobs.  And private sector jobs don’t cost the government anything.  So they don’t have to tax, borrow, print and spend like they do when they listen to their Keynesian advisors.  Because that is what causes chronic deficits to fund.  And growing national debts.  Things that don’t happen when you leave the economy in the private sector.


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

Why the Deficit and the Debt Matter

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 25th, 2013

Economics 101

Keynesian Economists say there is Nothing Wrong with Running a Deficit or a Growing National Debt

We had the sequester.  Before that it was the fiscal cliff.  Before that it was the debt ceiling debate.  We hear these things.  But it’s like water off a duck’s back.  It doesn’t sink in.  We hear but we don’t understand it.  In one ear and out the other.  In fact people are tired of hearing of how we go from one financial crisis to another.  Enough already the people say.  Enough.  Pity, really.  As there are some serious consequences to the decisions our politicians are poorly making.

Part of the problem is that these economic issues are difficult to relate to for average Americans just trying to take care of their families.  A trillion dollar deficit?  A debt reaching $16 trillion?  A lot of people don’t know the difference between the deficit and the debt.  Including many of our television news talking heads.  And then the sheer magnitude of the word ‘trillion’ is just difficult to fathom.  We know it’s big.  But no one uses it in their personal lives.  We know a $200 utility bill is expensive.  An $8,000 property tax bill is expensive.  A $40,000 car is expensive.  But a trillion dollar deficit?  It is hard to make a connection to the size of a trillion dollars.

Compounding the problem are all these Keynesian economists who say there is nothing wrong with running a deficit.  Or the growing national debt.  Despite the financial debt crisis in the Eurozone.  Where running a deficit and growing national debt have caused great problems.  But the Keynesians say that can never happen here.  Because our economy is so much larger.  And the U.S. can still print money.  So people don’t know what to believe.  The government and their economists sound like they understand this stuff.  While a lot of people don’t.  So the people who don’t are more inclined to believe those who sound like they understand this stuff.  Which makes it easier for the politicians who are making all of these horrible decisions to make even more of them.

Over time Interest Charges run up the Outstanding Balance on our Credit Cards

So to understand deficits and debt it would be better to bring it down to our level.  And once we understand it at our level then we can understand better what’s happening at the national level.  So let’s do that.  Let’s imagine a person earning $30,000 a year.  Or $2,500 monthly.  Let’s further assume this person’s earnings are not enough to support their lifestyle.  So they turn to their credit card each month for an additional $100 in spending.  Which is this person’s deficit.  The amount they spend over what they earn.  Or money they spend that they don’t have.  So they charge it.  For this example we’ll assume a credit card with a 24% annual percentage rate.  In the following table we crunch these numbers for 120 months.  Or ten years.

Personal Deficit Spending and Cummulative Debt R2

The columns in the table are fairly self explanatory.  Each month we start with $2,500.  We start borrowing money in month 1 so there is no interest in the first month.  We subtract the interest from the monthly income to arrive at income less the interest charge on the credit card.  Our spending budget each month is $2,600.  Requiring $100 in credit card purchases in the first month.  Each month this increases by the amount of interest charged each month.  The last column is a running total of the credit card balance.

Over time the interest charges run up the outstanding balance on the credit card.  Because we are paying interest on both our purchases and our interest.  So as time goes by this increases our credit card balance at an increasing rate. Soon the interest charges take a larger percentage of our monthly income.  So much so that we need to borrow more and more to maintain our current level of spending.  The interest charge on the 120th month equals 38% of our monthly income.  Chances are that it would never get this bad as we would be unable to make our monthly payment long before the 120th month.  And with an outstanding debt approaching our annual income we probably would have filed for bankruptcy protection long ago.  For at these interest rates it wouldn’t take long before that debt grew beyond our ability ever to pay it back.

Deficit and the Debt Matter because Income is Limited

We can see this better if we graph these numbers.  We can see the cumulative debt growing at a greater rate over time.  Just as does the percentage of our personal income going solely to paying the interest on our debt.  Truly wasted money.  Spending money for things we purchased long ago.  And if we spent it on restaurants and vacations we have nothing tangible to show for this.  Nothing we can sell to get our money back.  Just interest payments that seem to go on forever and ever.  For something that gave us a few hours or days of pleasure.  Which is the worst kind of debt to have.  As there is no way to pay it down other than with current earnings.  Meaning we have to make sacrifices today and tomorrow for spending we did long, long ago.

Personal Income Debt and Interest as Percent of Income R1

On the chart we have a horizontal line for monthly income.  And one for annual income.  We can see that it only takes 21 months for our credit card balance to exceed our monthly income.  Not even two years.  But only 1.9% of our monthly income is going to pay for interest on the debt.  Which doesn’t sound that bad.  So we keep charging.  Just after three years of doing this we break $100 in interest expense.  Requiring 4.2% of our earnings to go to pay the interest on the debt.  It only takes another 2 years to break $200 in interest expense (8.4% of earnings).  It only takes another year to bring the interest charge to $300 (12.3% of earnings).  In 99 months the interest charge breaks $600 (24% of earnings).  And the total outstanding credit card debt is now greater than our annual earnings. Making it very unlikely that we’ll ever be able to pay this balance down.

Anyone who charged a little too much on their credit cards knows what this feels like.  And what those phone calls from collection agencies are like.  Not good.  Anyone who charged anywhere near this example no doubt brought great stress into their lives.  They might have lost their house.  Their retirement savings.  Their kids’ college funds.  Or had no choice but to file a personal bankruptcy.  But when we run our debt up this high there comes a point where we cut up the credit cards.  Making a serious cut in our spending.  Because that’s all we can do.  We can’t just earn a lot more money.  And we can’t print money.  If we could do either we would not have a debt problem in the first place.

This is where average Americans and the federal government differ.  Average people have no choice but to be responsible.  While the federal government can allow the problem to grow and grow.  For they can arbitrarily raise their income.  By raising taxes.  And they can print money.  Unfortunately for average Americans both of these options make life worse for them.  Raising taxes makes us cut our personal spending as if we ran up our credit cards.  Forcing us to get by on less.  And printing money causes inflation.  Raising prices.  Which, of course, forces us to get by on less.  This is why the deficit and the debt matter.  For income is limited.  Whether it’s ours.  Or the federal government’s.  And when you spend more than you have more money goes to paying interest on the debt.  Which is money pulled out of the economy and thrown away.  The ultimate cost of spending money you don’t have.  Money thrown away.  And, of course, potential bankruptcy.


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

France’s New Socialist Policies are pushing France back into Recession

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 24th, 2013

Week in Review

The French brought back the Socialists to power in France with their election of Francois Hollande.  And they voted for him because he was going to stick it to the rich.  Raising the top marginal tax rate to 75%.  All the Keynesian economists said this would solve all of France’s problems.  It would reduce the deficit.  And increase confidence in the business sector.  Boosting the economy.  When critics of the move said this would drive the wealthy and their money out of France they said pish tosh.  They are patriots.  And will simply whistle a happy tune and pay this new high tax rate.  Time has passed.  And now we can see the economic results of the new Socialist policies (see Recession stalks France as business slump hits crisis levels by Leigh Thomas posted 3/21/2013 on Reuters).

French business activity shrank in March at the fastest pace in four years, defying expectations for an improvement and probably plunging the euro zone’s second-biggest economy into a recession, a survey showed on Thursday…

Separate figures for the services and manufacturing sectors showed that business activity was retreating even faster than economists polled by Reuters had forecast…

That would mean that France, which has already abandoned its 2013 deficit target due to the lack of growth, has entered its third recession since the financial crisis…

The increasingly dire state of French business is all the more alarming as consumers, traditionally a major driver of the economy, are in no place to pick up the slack.

Unemployment is above 10 percent and there is no sign that it will fall any time soon, which is weighing on consumer spending.

It also explains in large measure why President Francois Hollande’s approval ratings are at record lows less than a year into his term in office, which he won on promises to revive growth and boost jobs.

Apparently the Socialists and the Keynesian economists were wrong.

You don’t create economic activity by increasing the cost of business.  And lower the rate of return on investment.  You create economic activity by lowering the cost of business to making it attractive to expand business.  You increase the rate of return on investment capital to encourage investors to take more chances on new startup companies.  It’s not rocket science.  If you increase the price of groceries people buy less groceries.  If you increase the cost of gasoline people by less gasoline.  Because people have limited disposable income.  And the higher the prices are the less that disposable income can buy.

If you increase the cost of business it raises the prices on the goods and services they sell.  The higher prices cause people to buy less.  And if you raise the cost of investment capital by taxing rich people more that will increase the cost of financing for businesses.  Which they will pass on to the consumer in higher prices.  Somehow Keynesian economists just don’t understand this.  But people living under their bad economic policies do.  Because they are always getting by on less because of these rising tax rates.


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

Paul Krugman says there is no Problem with Social Security showing why we shouldn’t listen to Keynesians

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 16th, 2013

Week in Review

Paul Krugman is a Keynesian economist.  He even won a Nobel Prize.  And the Left loves him.  Because he says it’s okay for the government to spend money it doesn’t have.  In fact, government should be spending more.  The reason why the stimulus failed according to Krugman is that the $800 billion wasn’t enough.  Which is why the Left loves this guy.  Because he says things like spending $800 billion is not spending enough.  Giving them moral authority to spend more.  For, after all, this guy is a Nobel Prize winning economist.  So he must know what he’s talking about.

Then there are real economists. People who actually understand how business and the economy as a whole works.  People of the classical school of economics.  The Austrian School.  And the Chicago school.  Who don’t think much of Mr. Krugman.  Or Keynesian economics.  For all they see is a historical record littered with failure.  They know why those in government only listen to Keynesian economists.  Because they simply want to expand government spending.  For they like having all of that money flow through their hands.  While reputable economists want that money where it benefits the economy most.  In the private sector.

Krugman gets a lot of air time.  Because he advances the government’s agenda.  Which the mainstream media is helping the president pass.  So you see him on television a lot.  And sometimes someone with a real understanding of the economy will have a little dustup with him.  As someone did recently on ABC.  The topic was Social Security and the Social Security Trust Fund (SSTF).  Senator Ron Johnson (R, WI) said Social Security was going bankrupt.  Krugman said Johnson’s facts were all wrong.  That Social Security had a dedicated revenue stream.  And the SSTF was fat with investments not only earning interest but can be used to pay benefits.  Bruce Krasting does a little fact checking.  Here are some excerpts (note: this article appears to have missed the editing process and contains quite a few typos some of which we corrected) (see Paul Krugman Has Got His Social Security Facts Wrong by Bruce Krasting posted 3/11/2013 on Business Insider).

CR[S] [Congressional Research Service] had this to say about the TF for FERS [Federal Employees’ Retirement Service]

The assets in private-sector pension funds represent a “store of wealth” that firms can use to meet pension obligations as they come due. The CSRDF [Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund], however, is not a store of wealth for the federal government.

Got that PK [Paul Krugman]? The CR[S] says there is no wealth (aka money) in the TF:

The OMB [Office and Management and Budget] provides more clarity on TFs. From the Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2010: Analytical Perspectives

Balances in the trust fund are available for future benefit payments and other trust fund expenditures, but only in a bookkeeping sense.

Ah! There is no money in the TFs. They are bookkeeping entries. OMB concurs with CR[S] – TFs are not a store of wealth. More:

The holdings of the trust funds are not assets of the Government as a whole that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits.

How many ways does OMB have to say this to convince PK? Another:

The existence of large trust fund balances, therefore, does not, by itself, increase the Government’s ability to pay benefits.

Is this getting through to progressives like PK? This is not the tin hats talking PK. This is your “guys”.

Senator Johnson made the statement that the SSTF accounting was similar to a person who writes themselves an IOU for $20, and then somehow believes he actually has an asset. PK objected. This is what the OMB has to say about it; no wiggle room for PK with this:

These trust fund balances are assets of the program agencies and corresponding liabilities of the Treasury, netting to zero for the Government as a whole.

Got that PK? The Senator was correct. Writing an IOU to oneself nets to zero. If the OMB was the arbiter of the TV debate, it would have said that the Senator had the facts, and Krugman was blowing smoke.

Let me explain this in another way.  Remember the movie Dumb And Dumber with Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels?  Where they drive to Colorado to return a women’s briefcase?  That briefcase was full of money and was supposed to pay a ransom to get that woman’s husband back.  Jim Carrey’s character picked it up before the kidnappers could because he had just driven the woman to the airport and was smitten with her and wanted to return it to her.  So she would marry him and they could live happily ever after.  And hence the road-trip to Colorado to return it.  Much hilarity ensued.  But then that briefcase opened.  And the boys saw all of that money.  These guys who had no money and no place to sleep.  In a cold Colorado winter.  And there was all that money.  So they did the only responsible thing.  They borrowed from that briefcase.  Leaving an IOU each time they did.  Then they bought some bare necessities.  The finest hotel suite.  A Lamborghini sports car.  New designer clothes.  Etc.  You know, bare necessities.  Near the end of the movie the briefcase is opened by the kidnapper who only sees slips of papers.  Their IOUs.  The kidnapper is enraged.  And Jim Carrey’s character reassures him that those IOUs are as good as gold.  Because they intend on repaying all of that money.  Even though each of them is dirt poor and unlikely to earn that amount of money in their remaining lifetime.

That briefcase is the Social Security Trust Fund.  All of that money poured into the Trust Fund.  While all those politicians looked at it.  And then thought about all the spending they wanted to do.  So they did the only responsible thing.  They spent the money in the Trust Fund and left IOUs in its place.  IOUs that they never will repay.  And everyone knows this.  Except, perhaps, Paul Krugman.  All rational people know how the government will replace those IOUs.  They will print money as they need it to pay benefits.  Causing even more inflation.  Raising prices further.  Forcing our retirees who paid into the Trust Fund to get by on less in their retirement.  Basically like what is happening right now.  And will only get worse.

You can’t loan money to yourself.  You can’t spend your personal savings and replace it with an IOU.  Because it nets out.  For if you borrow money you owe money.  Which means you’re doing stuff on both sides of the ledger.  And when you figure out your net worth (subtracting what you owe from what you have) you find there is little there.  The balance of your savings less the sum total of your IOUs is what you have to live on in retirement.  Nothing more.  For once you spent your savings they’re gone forever.  Just like that money in the Social Security Trust Fund.  They spent it.  And it’s gone forever.

Paul Krugman apparently doesn’t understand this.  As do few Keynesians.  For they keep spending money.  And running up more debt.  But never see any problem.  Unlike real economists.  Who, sadly, are not advising the government.  For they refuse to tell the government what they want to hear.  Like Paul Krugman and his fellow Keynesians.  Who say things like they’re just not spending enough.  Which is what every politician wants to hear.  No matter how ridiculous or asinine it may be.


Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Macroeconomic Disequilibrium

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 24th, 2012

Economics 101

In the Barter System we Traded our Goods and Services for the Goods and Services of Others

Money.  It’s not what most people think it is.  It’s not what most politicians think it is.  Or their Keynesian economists.  They think it’s wealth.  That it has value.  But it doesn’t.  It is a temporary storage of value.  A medium of exchange.  And that alone.  Something that we created to make economic trades easier and more efficient.  And it’s those things we trade that have value.  The things that actually make wealth.  Not the money we trade for these things.

In our first economic exchanges there was no money.  Yet there were economic exchanges.  Of goods and services.  That’s right, there was economic activity before money.  People with talent (i.e., human capital) made things, grew things or did things.  They traded this talent with the talent of other people.  Other people with human capital.  Who made things, grew things or did things.  Who sought each other out.  To trade their goods and services for the goods and services of others.  Which you could only do if you had talent yourself.

This is the barter system.  Trading goods and services for goods and services.  Without using money.  Which meant you only had what you could do for yourself.  And the things you could trade for.  If you could find people that wanted what you had.  Which was the great drawback of the barter system.  The search costs.  The time and effort it took to find the people who had what you wanted.  And who wanted what you had.  It proved to be such an inefficient way to make economic transactions that they needed to come up with a better way.  And they did.

The Larger the Wheat Crop the Greater the Inflation and the Higher the Prices paid in Wheat

They found something to temporarily hold the value of their goods and services.  Money.  Something that held value long enough for people to trade their goods and services for it.  Which they then traded for the goods and services they wanted.  Greatly decreasing search costs.  Because you didn’t have to find someone who had what you wanted while having what they wanted.  You just had to take a sack of wheat (or something else that was valuable that other people would want) to market.  When you found what you wanted you simply paid an amount of wheat for what you wanted to buy.  Saving valuable time that you could put to better use.  Producing the goods or services your particular talent provided.

Using wheat for money is an example of commodity money.  Something that has intrinsic value.  You could use it as money and trade it for other goods and services.  Or you could use it to make bread.  Which is what gives it intrinsic value.  Everyone needs to eat.  And bread being the staple of life wheat was very, very valuable.  For back then famine was a real thing.  While living through the winter was not a sure thing.  So the value of wheat was life itself.  The more you had the less likely you would starve to death.  Especially after a bad growing season.  When those with wheat could trade it for a lot of other stuff.  But if it was a year with a bumper crop, well, that was another story.

If farmers flood the market with wheat because of an exceptional growing season then the value for each sack of wheat isn’t worth as much as it used to be.  Because there is just so much of it around.  Losing some of its intrinsic value.  Meaning that it won’t trade for as much as it once did.  The price of wheat falls.  As well as the value of money.  In other words, the bumper crop of wheat depreciated the value of wheat.  That is, the inflation of the wheat supply depreciated the value of the commodity money (wheat).  If the wheat crop was twice as large it would lose half of its value.  Such that it would take two sacks of wheat to buy what one sack once bought.  So the larger the wheat crop the greater the inflation and the higher the prices (except for wheat, of course).  On the other hand if a fire wipes out a civilization’s granary it will contract the wheat supply.  Making it more valuable (because there is less of it around).  Causing prices to fall (except for wheat, of course).  The greater the contraction (or deflation) of the wheat supply the greater the appreciation of the commodity money (wheat).  And the greater prices fall.  Because a little of it can buy a lot more than it once did.

Keynesian Expansionary Monetary Policy has only Disrupted Normal Market Forces

Creating a bumper crop of wheat is not easy.  Unlike printing fiat money.  It takes a lot of work to plow the additional acreage.  It takes additional seed.  Sowing.  Weeding.  Etc.  Which is why commodity money works so well.  Whether it’s growing wheat.  Or mining a precious metal like gold.  It is not easy or cheap to inflate.  Unlike printing fiat money.  Which is why people were so willing to accept it for payment.  For it was a relative constant.  They could accept it without fear of having to spend it quickly before it lost its value.  This brought stability to the markets.  And let the automatic price system match supply to the demand of goods and services.  If things were in high demand they would command a high price.  That high price would encourage others to bring more of those things to market.  If things were not in high demand their prices would fall.  And fewer people would bring them to market.  When supply equaled demand the market was in equilibrium.

Prices provide market signals.  They tell suppliers what the market wants more of.  And what the market wants less of.  That is, if there is a stable money supply.  Because this automatic price system doesn’t work so well during times of inflation.  Why?  Because during inflation prices rise.  Providing a signal to suppliers.  Only it’s a false signal.  For it’s not demand raising prices.  It’s a depreciated currency raising prices.  Causing some suppliers to increase production even though there is no increase in demand.  So they will expand production.  Hire more people.  And put more goods into the market place.  That no one will buy.  While inflation raises prices everywhere in the market.  Increasing the cost of doing business.  Which raises prices throughout the economy.  Because consumers are paying higher prices they cannot buy as much as they once did.  So all that new production ends up sitting in wholesale inventories.  As inventories swell the wholesalers cut back their orders.  And their suppliers, faced with falling orders, have to cut back.  Laying off employees.  And shuttering facilities.  All because inflation sent false signals and disrupted market equilibrium.

This is something the Keynesians don’t understand.  Or refuse to understand.  They believe they can control the economy simply by continuously inflating the money supply.  By just printing more fiat dollars.  As if the value was in the money.  And not the things (or services) of value we create with our human capital.  Economic activity is not about buying things with money.  It’s about using money to efficiently trade the things we make or do with our talent.  Inflating the money supply doesn’t create new value.  It just raises the price (in dollars) of our talents.  Which is why Keynesian expansionary monetary policy has been such a failure.  For their macroeconomic policies only disrupt normal market forces.  Which result in a macroeconomic disequilibrium.  Such as raising production in the face of falling demand.  Because of false price signals caused by inflation.  Which will only bring on an even more severe recession to restore that market equilibrium.  And the longer they try to prevent this correction through inflationary actions the longer and more severe the recession will be.


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.


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

Debt Crises in Ireland, Greece, Portugal and now Spain may Prove too much for the Euro to Survive

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 3rd, 2012

Week in Review

The woods are lovely, dark and deep.  But I have promises to keep.  And miles to go before I sleep.  And miles to go before I sleep.  Lines from a poem by Robert Frost.  For some reason this came to me as I read about the never-ending crisis that is the sovereign debt crisis in Europe.  And the Eurozone.  For the Euro is lost in those dark and lovely woods.  Woods that are so deep that it will never find its way out.  And the only kind of sleep the Euro is going to get is the kind you don’t wake up from (see Britons face £5bn bill to help out Spanish as fears grow that Madrid will have to ask IMF for €300billion bailout by Hugo Duncan And James Salmon posted 6/1/2012 on the Daily Mail).

British taxpayers could be forced to stump up another £5billion to rescue Spain as the crisis in the eurozone spirals out of control.

Fears are mounting that Madrid will have to ask for an emergency bailout of up to £300billion as it struggles to prop up its basket-case banks.

A third of that money could come from the International Monetary Fund – including around £5billion from the UK, even though Britain is not in the eurozone.

UK taxpayers have already coughed up £12.5billion to rescue debt-ridden Greece, Ireland and Portugal…

But growing doubts over how the Spanish government will finance the £15billion needed to rescue Bankia, one of its biggest lenders, have raised fears that it will follow Ireland, Greece and Portugal in requiring a bailout from Europe and the IMF.

This week US investment bank JP Morgan warned a joint rescue of Spain could cost around £300billion.

The Spanish banking system has been crippled by nearly £150billion in toxic property loans.

At the heart of the sovereign debt crisis in Europe is debt.  They have way too much of it.  So much that the odds are not good that they will ever be able to repay it.  Which makes people very reluctant to loan them any more money.  It’s like loaning a friend money who already owes you a lot of money.  Do you loan him more money?  It just may help him turn his life around.  Start anew with a new job.  Earning enough money to support himself and pay you back.  That’s one possibility.  Then there’s the possibility he may just blow the money on booze, drugs and women.  You know he’s just going to spend whatever else you loan him.  And not pay any of it back.  So it would be rather foolish to loan him more money.

This is the decision facing the people who could attempt to bail out those in the Eurozone.  They’ve already loaned them a lot of money.  So these in-trouble countries can sustain the government spending their current tax revenue can’t support.  But the deal was to cut back that spending so they can live on what their tax revenue CAN support.  But there’s only one problem.  The people of these countries reject calls for them to live within their means.  And have had enough of austerity.  And that’s a big problem.  Because if they don’t live within their means they will perpetuate the sovereign debt crisis.  As they will always need to borrow more money to pay for the things that their tax revenue can’t afford.  Until the day this house of cards collapses.  And the longer it goes on the more money people will lose in bad loans to these in-trouble countries.

The central problem in this crisis are bad loans.  Caused by the easy credit policies of central banks to loan money to anyone so they can buy a house.  All this easy credit caused housing booms in countries all around the world.  And housing bubbles.  Then the bubbles burst.  Leaving countries with debt crises as toxic mortgages weakened banking systems everywhere.  And still Keynesian economists are urging central banks to repeat this reckless lending behavior again to stimulate economies.  And to bail out the Eurozone.  The problem is that the central banks have so destroyed their economies no one is borrowing money.  Or spending money.  Because no one thinks the worst has passed.  And businesses and private citizens have learned the lesson from the great debt crisis we’re going through everywhere.  Too much debt is a bad thing.  And are refusing to take on new debt.  And using what income they have to pay down existing debt.  Contrary to all Keynesian doctrine.  For they want reckless and irresponsible spending.  Because they believe only spending is good.

Politicians and central bankers said the situation in the eurozone was unsustainable and drastic action was needed to prevent the ‘disintegration’ of the single currency.

They spoke out as European leaders scrambled to stop the financial crisis in Spain spiralling out of control and infecting other countries such as Italy…

Mario Draghi, president of the European Central Bank, said the eurozone was unsustainable in its current form.

In his sharpest criticism yet of eurozone leaders’ handling of the crisis, he said the European Central Bank could not ‘fill the vacuum’ left by governments in terms of economic growth or structural reforms.

So, no, more easy credit isn’t the solution.  Countries must live within their means.  Which means adopting austerity measures.  And find ways to achieve real economic growth.  Not the kind that leads to bubbles.  Or sovereign debt crises.  And the best way to generate real economic growth is with tax cuts.  Cutting spending as needed so they spend only what their tax revenue can afford.  They must stop running deficits.  And stop borrowing money.  (Good advice for the United States as well).  As the private sector economy picks up because of a more business-friendly tax structure they will create jobs.  So all of those government workers who lost their jobs in the public sector can get new jobs in the private sector.  Whose salaries and benefits will not have to be paid for by more government borrowing.  If they adopt pro-growth policies like this the international community may still be able to help them.  And save the Euro.  But will they?  With all of that public opinion against any more austerity?  Don’t know.  Probably not. 

It’s unlikely that the Euro will ever find its way out of the woods.  For these woods are scary, dark and deep.


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

Big Inflation in Canada hidden by Steep Fall in Natural Gas Prices

Posted by PITHOCRATES - May 20th, 2012

Week in Review

Canada is doing energy right.  They’re pulling it out of tar sands and shale.  And bringing it to market.  To meet real demand.  For energy is the mighty Atlas of the Canadian economy.  Carrying the rest of the economy along on its broad shoulders.  Because it’s solid economic growth.  And the only part of the economy they’re NOT driving with monetary policy (see Inflation increase in April fueled by gas, car prices by Randall Palmer, Reuters, posted 5/18/2012 on The Vancouver Sun).

Inflation in Canada was slightly higher than expected in April, pushed up in part by gasoline prices, providing the Bank of Canada with more reason to launch the interest-rate hike it has hinted at recently.

On an annual basis, the overall inflation rate rose to two per cent in April from 1.9 per cent in March, Statistics Canada said on Friday. The core rate, which excludes volatile items, climbed to 2.1 per cent from 1.9 per cent…

The median forecast in a Reuters survey of analysts had been for both inflation measures to stay at 1.9 per cent. Only five of 24 analysts had expected the overall rate to rise, and none had foreseen a core rate as high as 2.1 per cent.

Interesting.  Only 5 Keynesian economists guessed right.  Which means about 80% were wrong.  Which means the consensus opinion was wrong.  Typical for Keynesian economic projection.  Yet we still turn to them for their ‘expert’ opinion.  But it’s never their fault when they’re wrong.  There’s always something to blame.  And they sound so intelligent when they explain they were actually right.  It was just the market that was wrong.

Though several data points have bolstered the case for the central bank to raise rates, recent economic figures have not all been positive.

The latest reports for manufacturing, jobs, trade, housing and wholesale trade have been strong, while February gross domestic product and retail trade were weak.

In the past month, the bank has said several times it may have to withdraw stimulus from the economy…

A 3.2-per-cent rise in gasoline prices and 1.3 per cent in passenger vehicle prices pushed up the monthly inflation data, but this was tempered by an 8.2-per-cent fall in natural gas prices.

Could they be creating a bubble with those low interest rates?  Are people hopping aboard the Keynesian train and borrowing money at cheap rates to expand production?  And most likely inventories.  For if the consumers aren’t buying this stuff the stimulus is making it must be collecting somewhere.  Just waiting to turn profits into losses.  As the bubble will inevitably burst.  As all bubbles do.  Causing prices to fall because the stimulus created a surplus of unsold goods in the market.  Requiring deep price discounting to clear those bloated inventories.  Kind of like the price of natural gas is falling because there is so much of it on the market.  Thanks to shale gas and hydraulic fracturing.

It is interesting to note how much higher the inflation would be if it wasn’t for all that cheap natural gas holding it back.  Probably the one thing in the economy they’re producing to meet a real demand.  For consumers can skip the retail stores.  But they can’t live without energy.  Whether it’s the electricity they use (generated from natural gas).  Or the gas that cooks their meals.  Or the gas that heats their homes.  And their hospitals, universities, coffee shops, restaurants, businesses, etc.  Energy moves the modern economy.  And our personal lives.  So energy needs no stimulus.  But to encourage us to move into a bigger house we don’t need?  That takes stimulus.  It’s this inflation that exceeded the deflation in natural gas prices that gives them their overall increase in the inflation rate.  And why 80% of Keynesian economists guessed wrong on inflation.  Because they always do. 

So if you want to know what the best economic policy is for a nation just ask a Keynesian.  And then do the opposite.


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

« Previous Entries