FT211: “Criticizing a woman’s policies doesn’t mean you’re a sexist or are afraid of strong women.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 28th, 2014

Fundamental Truth

You can call a Man Fatso but not a Woman because of the Double Standard when it comes to being Fat

Back when David Letterman was on NBC and the show was called Late Night with David Lettermen they had an old football player on one night.  I think he was a defensive linesman or a linebacker.  Who played football before there was money in playing football.  Back then it was just guys playing a game hard and then getting drunk afterwards.

On this episode of Late Night this football player was telling a story about one game.  It was late in the fourth quarter.  The score was already decided.  Nothing could happen to change who was going to win the game.  But the other team was still playing hard.  Trying to win.  So after one play he wandered over and entered the other team’s huddle and said something like, “Come on, guys.  Let’s just wrap this up and go get some beers already.”  At which point one of his teammates yelled over to him from the other huddle, “Hey fatso!  You’re in the wrong huddle.”

“Hey fatso!  You’re in the wrong huddle.”  It’s funny.  For that’s the way guys are.  They hurl insults at each other.  And if you were a heavy guy there was nothing wrong with calling you ‘fatso’.  It’s the way men joke around.  It doesn’t work with women, though.  If you have an overweight female coworker and you address her as fatso you’ll find yourself in sensitivity awareness training.  Or fired.  Because there is a double standard when it comes to being fat.  You can call a man fatso.  But not a woman.

Anyone espousing Keynesian Policies should be Criticized for they are doing Harm to the Economy

The political opposition and the main stream media treat President Obama with kid gloves.  They will not attack him.  Or even criticize his policies.  Because President Obama is the first black president.  And the political opposition and the mainstream media are terrified that someone will call them racist if they do.  They fear that so much they’d rather see the economy collapse from his Keynesian economic policies than risk being called a racist.

President Obama is a Keynesian.  Like most people in Washington making policy are.  Which is a shame.  As the historical record clearly shows these policies fail.  But our politicians still manipulate interest rates.  And spend money.  Believing in the fallacy of demand-side economics.  Which didn’t work to end the Great Depression.  It only made the stagflation of the Seventies worse.  It created a dot-com bubble and a dot-com recession.  And it created a housing bubble and a subprime mortgage crisis.  Giving us the Great Recession.  And further Keynesian policies on top of these past failed policies have given us the worst economic recovery since that following the Great Depression.

So anyone espousing Keynesian policies should be attacked and criticized.  For they are doing harm to the economy.  And the country.  Which is why the Democrats love President Obama.  (Well, at least before Obamacare threatened their reelection chances).  Because they can have him do all the things they want to do.  Manipulate interest rates.  Keep them near zero.  By printing money.  And then borrow even more money at those near-zero interest rates.  Allowing the government to go on an orgy of spending.  That’s why they love President Obama.  (Well, at least before Obamacare threatened their reelection chances).  For if anyone criticizes this reckless and irresponsible policy they can just label them a racist.  And they immediately shut up.  Just knowing this keeps people from speaking up in the first place.

It’s easier to Lie when you can Scare away Criticism with Charges of Racism or Sexism

But the political opposition and the mainstream media have no problem calling Governor Christie a fat man.  Christie is not black.  A woman.  Or a Democrat.  So he’s fair game.  They can make the most vile fat slurs with him and it’s okay.  Fatso.  Fat-ass.  Whatever.  They don’t call it hateful.  They just laugh.  And pile on.  They’ll even go so far as to call him a fat elephant on the cover of Time Magazine.  Putting a very large profile of him that takes up most of the cover and call him the elephant in the room (a GOP reference).  Because it’s okay to call him fat-ass and every other possible fat slur you can think of.  But do you know who you can’t call fat?  Hillary Clinton.

Should Hillary Clinton run for president again the political opposition and the mainstream media will treat her with kid gloves.  They won’t call her fatso.  Or fat-ass.  Because that wouldn’t be nice.  It’s okay to use those invectives against Governor Christie.  (Just take the Christie fat slurs and replace his name with hers and see the kind of reactions you get).  But if you dare use that tone with Hillary Clinton they will label you a sexist.  Accuse you of being afraid of strong women (but not so strong as to be able to put up with fat jokes like Governor Christie).  Proof that there is a Republican war on women.  And should she win the presidency there will be little criticism of her policies.  Because no one wants to be labeled a sexist.  Or be accused of being afraid of strong women.  Especially with the first female president.  So she will get a pass on most everything she does.  Like President Obama.  Despite being as deserving of attacks and criticism.  For she is a Keynesian, too.

With only 23% of the nation identifying as liberal the left has trouble passing their liberal policies.  So they lie, of course.  A lot.  And it’s easier to lie when you can scare away criticism with charges of racism.  Or sexism.  Which is why they like President Obama so much.  (Well, at least before Obamacare threatened their reelection chances).  He was the first black president.  Which made it harder for some to criticize him.  Which helped make the lying easier.  So they will most likely try to follow this strategy.  Perhaps with Hillary Clinton.  Who may be the first female president.  Following that with other ‘firsts’.  Until the opposition and the mainstream media learn that criticizing a woman’s policies doesn’t make you a sexist.  Or afraid of strong women.  It just means you’re criticizing a person with bad policies who happens to be a woman.  Just as they will be able to criticize a black president one day.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

We are in the Worst Economic Recovery since that following the Great Depression because of Keynesian Economics

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 15th, 2014

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.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Obama Job Approval has Fallen over the Last Year

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 23rd, 2014

Politics 101

Ten Different Obama Job Approval Polls show Higher Disapproves than Approves

President Obama did not have a good 2013.  Especially near the end.  Because of the Obamacare rollout.  With the website being a disaster.  The enrollment numbers weren’t as projected.  Or needed.  And then all the cancellations in the individual market.  As people learned they couldn’t keep the policies and doctors they liked.  Which gave President Obama the recognition for being the best in at least one thing.  As PolitiFact named “if you like your health care plan, you can keep it” as the lie of the year.

The bad news continued into 2014.  The Obamacare enrollee numbers didn’t improve.  Most of the enrollees are the old and sick.  Not the young and healthy the Obama administration told the health insurers would be enrolling.  Which is breaking the economic model.  Guaranteeing not only that health insurance premiums will rise.  But some health care providers are actually requiring payment up front before providing services.  As they are not sure what the insurers will pay.  Making Obamacare an even bigger disaster.  Which is a big factor in driving President Obama’s job approval rating down (see President Obama Job Approval posted on Real Clear Politics).

President Obama Job Approval R1

The ten polls included in the RCP Average all share one thing in common.  They all have larger disapproval numbers than approval numbers.  With the average disapproval number being 8.4 points greater than the average approval number.  However you look at these numbers they are not good for President Obama.  For they say President Obama has not been good for the United States.

People don’t Trust President Obama and are beginning to Doubt his Past Claims of Accomplishment

Growing numbers of people don’t trust the president anymore.  Including those who were Obama supporters.  Who because of the ‘lie of the year’ don’t look at those other scandals as opposition propaganda anymore.  These scandals (Benghazi, IRS targeting conservatives, spying on journalists, spying on Americans, Fast and Furious, Solyndra, ‘recess’ appointments, executive orders to bypass the will of the people/Congress, etc.) are now just other things not to trust the president about.  The president has been less than honest to get what he wants (power).  While the American people don’t get what they want (jobs, affordable health care, etc.).  And it’s because of this that his job approval has entered a steady decline.

President Obama Job Approval Graph R1

Following a bump during the 2012 election Obama’s job approval has trended down.  The Obama administration lied about what happened in Benghazi to help their reelection chances.  Where the campaign message was that al Qaeda was on the run.  Which is apparently why the State Department under Secretary Clinton denied Ambassador Steven’s request for additional security to combat the resurgent al Qaeda in Libya.  As the recent bipartisan Senate report stated that the killing of four Americans in Benghazi on the anniversary of 9/11 could have been prevented.

Benghazi, the NSA spying on us, the ‘lie of the year’ and the other scandals have had their affect on the American people.  And after the Target point-of-sale credit card hack people are very suspect of the Obamacare website.  Especially when a security consulting firm says there is no security on the Obamacare website yet the Obama administration keeps telling us to trust them.  They’ll keep our data safe.  Even though Target couldn’t.  And they have functioning security systems in place.  Unlike Obamacare.  That has none.  So people don’t trust President Obama.  And they’re beginning to doubt his past claims of accomplishment.  As well as those rosy jobs reports from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The Lie of the Year appears to have Broken the Spell Obama held over some of his Admirers

The Democrat’s Keynesian economic policies created yet another housing bubble.  By keeping interest rates artificially low and relaxing credit standards they stimulated the housing market.  And housing prices soared.  But buyers didn’t seem to care.  Because they were borrowing the money to buy these overpriced houses.  Because of those low interest rates.  Even people who couldn’t afford to buy a house were buying a house. Thanks to subprime lending like the adjustable rate mortgage (ARM).  But when interest rates rose so did those monthly payments on those ARMs.  People couldn’t afford their mortgage payments anymore.  And defaulted.  Giving us the subprime mortgage crisis.  Which turned into the Great Recession.

The Democrats blamed the banks for the Great Recession.  Not their Keynesian policies.  Or President Clinton’s heavy hand on lenders to qualify the unqualified for mortgages (see Bill Clinton created the Subprime Mortgage Crisis with his Policy Statement on Discrimination in Lending posted 11/6/2011 on PITHOCRATES).  Not only did they deflect blame for the crisis they used the crisis to implement further Keynesian policies.  A near-trillion dollar stimulus bill.  Much of which went to Obama’s ‘friends’ in the green energy industry.  And to their friends in unions.  The government spent a lot of money.  They kept interest rates artificially low.  And when that didn’t work they used quantitative easing.  Basically printing money.  The Obama administration said their policies were working.  And declared the summer of 2010 ‘Recovery Summer’.  The recession was over.  Since then they highlighted the new jobs created with every jobs report.  While ignoring the number of people who have left the labor force.  Greatly skewing the numbers.  And grossly understating the real unemployment rate (see Wall Street adviser: Actual unemployment is 37.2%, ‘misery index’ worst in 40 years by Paul Bedard posted 1/21/2014 on the Washington Examiner).

Don’t believe the happy talk coming out of the White House, Federal Reserve and Treasury Department when it comes to the real unemployment rate and the true “Misery Index.” Because, according to an influential Wall Street advisor, the figures are a fraud…

…the Misery Index, which is a calculation based in inflation and unemployment, both numbers the duo say are underscored by the government. He said that the Index doesn’t properly calculate how Uncle Sam is propping up the economy with bond purchases and other actions.

“These tricks, along with a host of other dubious accounting schemes, underreport inflation by about 3 percent,” they wrote, adding that the official inflation rate is just 1.24 percent.

“Today, the Misery Index would be 7.54 using official numbers,” they wrote. But if calculations tabulating the full national unemployment including discouraged workers, which is 10.2 percent, and the historical method of calculating inflation, which is now 4.5 percent, ‘the current misery index is closer to 14.7, worse even than during the Ford administration.”

The 1970s were the heyday of Keynesian economics.  With spending out of control Richard Nixon did something that Keynesians longed for.  He decoupled the dollar from gold.  Allowing the Fed to print money like there was no tomorrow.  Igniting inflation.  And when the inflation rate was added to the unemployment rate it gave us a record Misery Index.  Until now, that is.  If you use the real data.  And not the ‘massaged’ data that makes their Keynesian policies appear to be working.  Telling us the recession ended in 2010.  When many feel the Great Recession has never ended.  Which is yet another reason not to trust the Obama administration.  Or not approve of the job President Obama is doing.  As the polls have been showing this past year.  And it’s not just because of Obamacare.  But the ‘lie of the year’ appears to have broken the spell he held over some of his admirers.  Who can now see the king is wearing no clothes.  No matter what his administration and those in the mainstream media say.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Keynesian Policies and Obamacare reduce Household Incomes

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 25th, 2013

Week in Review

President Obama is a horrible president.  Why?  Because he’s black?  No, that’s not it.  He’s a horrible president who just happens to be black.  One of the big reasons why he is a horrible president is because he is a Keynesian.  And has tried the same failed Keynesian policies of the past to turn the economy around.  And just as they failed in the past they have failed consistently during the Obama presidency.

Keynesian economics states that during a recession when people aren’t spending money the government should do something about it. They should start spending money.  And they should implement policies that put more money into consumers’ pockets.  So they go out in the economy and spend it.  Thus generating economic activity.  And pulling the nation out of recession.  The government could cut taxes to put more money into consumers’ pockets.  But they don’t like cutting taxes.  Preferring to add more welfare programs.  Which give money to consumers.  So they can spend it.  That’s how President Obama has chosen to pull the nation out of the worst recession since the Great Depression.  And as expected by every non-Keynesian, his Keynesian policies have been an abject failure (see Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the ‘Recovery’ as During the Recession by JEFFREY H. ANDERSON posted 8/23/2013 on The Weekly Standard).

New estimates derived from the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey by Sentier Research indicate that the real (inflation-adjusted) median annual household income in America has fallen by 4.4 percent during the “recovery,” after having fallen by 1.8 during the recession.  During the recession, the median American household income fell by $1,002 (from $55,480 to $54,478). During the recovery—that is, from the officially defined end of the recession (in June 2009) to the most recent month for which figures are available (June 2013)—the median American household income has fallen by $2,380 (from $54,478 to $52,098).  So the typical American household is making almost $2,400 less per year (in constant 2013 dollars) than it was four years ago, when the Obama “recovery” began.

Importantly, these income tallies include government payouts such as unemployment compensation and cash welfare. So Obama’s method of funneling ever-more money and power to Washington, and then selectively divvying some of it back out, clearly isn’t working for the typical American family. Nor would his proposed immigration bill help the income prospects of the median American.  And perhaps it’s just a coincidence, but the span of time over which the typical American household’s income has dropped by about $2,400 a year (during an ostensible “recovery”) corresponds almost exactly with the span of time that we’ve been living with the looming specter of Obamacare—which began to be debated in earnest around June 2009.

Another reason why President Obama is a horrible president is that he is more interested in transforming the nation than he is in improving people’s lives.  He wants to make it what it was before President Reagan made the nation great again.  President Reagan followed President Carter.  Who was another horrible president.  Because of his Keynesian economic policies.  While President Reagan wasn’t a Keynesian.  Which is why the economic recovery following Carter’s malaise was one of the strongest economic recoveries in history.  Making President Reagan a great president.  Because he made life better for people.  Unlike Carter and Obama.  Who made life worse.  Because of their Keynesian economic policies.

Obamacare, the pathway to national health care, is a big driver of the fall in household incomes.  The plan for Obamacare was to put the private health insurance business out of business.  So Obamacare can evolve into full-blown national health care.  And to do that they forced businesses to spend more money on their health insurance for full-time employees.  Of course, the idea was for businesses to avoid this additional cost by pushing people to part-time.  And taking away their health insurance.  Advancing the nation further down the Obamacare pathway to national health care.  Which is more important to him than household incomes.  Which he will gladly trade away to transform the country.  Not to just what it was before Ronald Reagan.  But even further left.  Because, for President Obama, what he wants is more important than what the people want.  Jobs, a rising household income and private health insurance.  Which makes him a horrible president.  Just as his Keynesian economic policies make him a horrible president.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

The Poor and Middle Class see their Incomes Still Falling in the Obama Recovery

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 3rd, 2013

Week in Review

If you listen to the president, his press secretary, the mainstream media and just about anyone on the political left the economy is doing super.  Sure, we can make improvements.  But over all everything is just swell.  If you’re rich, that is. People with money are doing very well in the Obama recovery.  Those who aren’t as rich aren’t.  No.  All they see is high unemployment, rising prices and falling incomes (see Americans see biggest monthly income drop in 20 years by Annalyn Kurtz posted 3/1/2013 on CNNMoney).

Personal income decreased by $505.5 billion in January, or 3.6%, compared to December (on a seasonally adjusted and annualized basis). That’s the most dramatic decline since January 1993, according to the Commerce Department.

It’s something of a combination of one-time events, though.

Monthly income was unusually high in December because companies paid out early dividends to avoid upcoming tax hikes.

Further proof that people change their behavior when the government increases taxes.  The surge in December that made January look so bad was due to one-time distributions of profits to avoid higher taxes.  So December wasn’t that good, either.  Just an aberration as people tried to avoid the higher taxes coming their way.

The payroll tax cut’s expiration also played a role in January’s drop, because most workers have to pay 2 percentage points more in taxes this year…

Meanwhile, economists are closely watching consumer spending, which accounts for about two-thirds of the U.S. economy…

Economists think that rising gas prices in February could cut into consumer spending temporarily. Gas prices rose 10% in February, according to AAA, but are expected to fall in coming weeks…

The Social Security tax break helped consumers at the 2012 election.  Allowing them more disposable income in the year before the election.  And helping them feel things weren’t that bad.  Of course this Social Security tax holiday drew down the Social Security surplus to a dangerous low.  Something they will have to make up for with even higher taxes than the 2% temporary cut used to help the president’s reelection.

Regulatory costs, environmental policies that have shut down oil drilling on public lands and inflation (the incessant quantitative easing of the Fed putting more and more dollars into circulation) are keeping gas prices high.  For you can hide inflation in some consumer goods by reducing package sizes but you can’t do that with gasoline.  Because you sell gas by the gallon.  So the full cost of the Fed’s inflationary policies hit gas prices hard.  And, of course, high gas prices increases prices for everything else that uses fuel.  A large factor in the rise in our grocery bills.  Taking a bigger bite out of family budgets.  Leaving little for other consumer spending.

All of that said, consumers are benefiting from a housing recovery and rising stock prices…

They’re not able to save much, though. On average, people saved about 2.4% of their disposable income in January, down from 6.4% in December. That marks the smallest saving rate since November 2007.

Rich people are benefitting from the housing ‘recovery’ and stock prices.  Those who have a lot of money left over after meeting the living expenses.  Who can save a lot of money.  And invest it into housing.  Or stocks.  In fact, that’s why the stock market does well on news of the Fed continuing their quantitative easing.  For the rich are taking advantage of that cheap money to borrow it.  So they can invest it.  Trading on the interest.  Borrowing at low interest rates.  And investing in something that earns a higher rate of return.  People struggling to make their paycheck buy everything it once did as prices rise everywhere aren’t enjoying any benefits from that cheap money.  As they have no money left over to even save up a down payment on a house.  So they can take advantage of those low housing prices.  No.  The poor and middle class are not reaping anything in the current economic ‘recovery’.  Only the rich are.

Under President Obama the rich are getting richer.  And the poor are getting poorer.  Because of his economic policies.  Especially the Keynesian policies.  Keynesians look at personal savings as leaks out of the economy.  For if people aren’t spending money they are wasting money.  Which is the point of low interest rates.  To get people to borrow money to buy things.  Thus stimulating economic activity.  And generating more consumer spending.  But all that quantitative easing has raised prices so much that consumers are left with less and less money to spend.  The poor and middle class aren’t borrowing money to buy new houses.  They’re just trying to get by on what little they have.  Hoping for good economic times to return when their personal incomes rise once again.

Keynesian economics don’t work.  Just as Keynesian stimulus does not stimulate.  If it did we wouldn’t still have fewer jobs in the U.S. economy than when President Obama took office.  And he spent about $8000 billion on a stimulus bill.  The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.  Some critics said it failed as an $8000 billion stimulus wasn’t big enough.  Even though the Obama administration declared the summer of 2010 the Recovery Summer.  Proof that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 restored economic prosperity.  Even though it didn’t.  For things still haven’t returned to where they were under George W. Bush.  Despite 4 years of Keynesian policies.  That haven’t raised personal incomes.  The true measure of any economic recovery.  And when personal incomes are the lowest they’ve been in 20 years, there hasn’t been any economic recovery.  Despite $800 billion in stimulus.  And 4 years of President Obama’s Keynesian economic policies.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Bad Keynesian Policies cause influx of Romanian and Bulgarian Migration into Germany

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 10th, 2013

Week in Review

It is interesting that countries that get into trouble using Keynesian economic policies tend to go to countries that relied on Keynesian policies less for help.  States with high government spending and bloated public sectors turn to countries with less government spending and less bloated public sectors for help.  Yet Keynesian economic policies are still the dominant polices of many nations.  Including the US, the UK, China, countries within the Eurozone, Bulgaria and Romania (see German warning over Romanian and Bulgarian migration by Rosa Silverman posted 2/6/2013 on The Telegraph).

German cities have warned that an influx of Romanian and Bulgarian economic migrants will cost them dear and put the “social peace” at risk…

Berlin, Hamburg, Dortmund and Hanover have seen a six-fold increase in economic migration from the two countries since 2006, which they say has left them struggling to cope…

The warning comes amid fears in Britain that tens of thousands more Romanians and Bulgarians will come here each year after formal restrictions on the numbers of low-skilled workers from the two countries end next year.

A report by the campaign group Migration Watch UK warned last month that up to 70,000 migrants could arrive annually from then.

Of course the question that just begs to be asked is why are Romanians and Bulgarians leaving their countries in the first place?  The Cold War is over.  The communists are gone.  These are beautiful countries.  Blessed with farm land.  And natural resources.  With some great people.  And a lot of history.  So why leave?  Because they caught the Keynesian contagion during the Nineties.  Their central banks kept interest rates artificially low to stimulate economic activity.  Which they did.  But a lot of that economic activity was artificial.  A bubble.  Times were good.  They expanded government employment.  And government pay and benefits.  And then the 2007-2008 financial crisis came along.  Bursting that bubble.  Leaving these nations with budget deficits.

Both nations were on track to join the Eurozone.  Working hard to meet the Maastricht criteria.  Conditional for entry into the common currency of the Eurozone.  After the financial collapse meeting the Maastricht criteria became more difficult.  As the fall in economic activity and the rise in the unemployment rates of these countries caused tax revenue to fall.  Creating deficits that approached or exceeded those permitted under the Maastricht criteria.  And the Keynesian cure for a recession, easy credit and more government spending, just made those deficits worse.  And it caused inflation to rise to or above that permissible under the Maastricht criteria.  They had to borrow money to meet their spending obligations.   And a condition of those loans was to bring their spending down to acceptable levels.  Like that to meet the Maastricht criteria.

Long story short the damage these Keynesian policies caused required very painful austerity to fix.  High unemployment and austerity makes people want to leave home for sunnier economic climes.  As Germany has been the bedrock of the Eurozone because of their more responsible governing and restraint in government spending these people went to Germany.  And to the UK.  Who didn’t join the Eurozone.  And aren’t mired in the Eurozone sovereign debt crisis.  Though they are implementing a little austerity of their own to bring down their budget deficits.

High government spending and large deficits cause trouble.  The U.S. has numbers worse than both Bulgaria and Romania.  Which means there is trouble ahead.  But unlike other nations the United States’ population won’t be able to travel to sunnier economic climes.  For no country will be able to absorb that amount of migration.  Not even Germany.  Or the UK.  Combined.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Welfare State, Tax Revenue, Tax Base, Abortion, Population Gains, Keynesian Policies, Communism and Capitalism

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 22nd, 2013

Week in Review

Their Welfare Programs continued to Expand even while their Tax Revenue was Falling

Many of the world’s mature economies are having financial issues.  Including chronic deficits, growing debt and skyrocketing spending obligations.  The Eurozone has been mired in a sovereign debt crisis for years.  The UK is trying to slash billions from their costliest entitlement.  The National Health Service.  France tried to raise the top marginal tax rate to 75%.  Japan is spending twice their GDP and their aging population will require even more spending.  And in the United States Democrats and Republicans are getting ready for another round of debt ceiling debates.  To raise the debt ceiling once again.  To yet another record high.

What causes these problems?  A couple of things.  A growing welfare state.  And falling tax revenue.  Not because tax rates are too low.  But because they are too high.  Creating a business-unfriendly environment.  Reducing economic activity.  Which reduces tax revenue.  They further compound their problems with Keynesian economic policies.  Which include massive borrowings to pay for deficit spending.  And expanding the money supply.  Which devalues the currency.  This creates inflation.  Further reducing economic activity.

These countries have a spending problem.  Their welfare programs continued to expand even while their tax revenue was falling.  Often introducing new programs based on the best of economic times with the rosiest projections of continued economic good times.  But once a recession hits, and they always do when using Keynesian economic policies, these governments run massive deficits.  That said there is a revenue component to their financial problems.  Abortion.

An Expanding Welfare State needs an Expanding Population Growth Rate

To increase tax revenue you need to expand the tax base.  To get more taxpayers paying taxes.  And where do taxpayers come from?  Babies.  There is no other way to get a taxpayer.  Even with immigration.  Because those immigrants first have to be born.  So the more babies you have the more taxpayers there will be paying taxes.  The more abortions you have, though, the fewer taxpayers there will be paying taxes.  The following table summarizes population gains and abortions for the years 1970 through 1990 for 12 countries.

Sources: Historic, current and future population of Europe; Abortion statistics and other data;

These dates are important for had these abortions not happened they all would be in the workforce today.  Just to get an idea of what that means to tax revenue consider the United States.  During these 20 years there were 26.7 million abortions.  Assuming a median salary of $50,000 and 33.3% in federal taxes (18% effective federal income tax rate, 12.4% for Social Security taxes and 2.9% for Medicare) that comes to $444 billion in one year.  Or $4.44 trillion over ten years.  It may not have been enough to pay for the massive new spending of President Obama.  But it would have prevented the credit downgrade from S&P.  Who were looking for $4 trillion in spending cuts over ten years.

It’s these aborted taxpayers that are pressuring these welfare states.  For an expanding welfare state needs an expanding population growth rate.  And abortion doesn’t help populations grow.  And if the population doesn’t grow then tax revenue doesn’t grow.  In fact, if you divide the population gain by the number of abortions you can get a feel of a country’s financial health.  And their future health.

A Command Economy cannot Provide for the People like Laissez Faire Capitalism Can

Abortions reduce population gains.  So when you divide population gains by the number of abortions the higher the resulting number the better.  For higher population gains and fewer abortions mean more tax revenue.  The lower the number indicates a high level of abortions that reduces tax revenue.

Spain is one of the countries in trouble in the Eurozone.  With a rich Catholic history that frowns on abortion.  So it is no surprise to see such a large number when dividing population gains by abortions.  But their debt crisis is.  For this number indicates a lot of taxpayers.  Which Spain has.  Yet they have some serious financial problems.  Why?  Because they also have very high unemployment.  Their economic woes began with Keynesian policies keeping interest rates artificially low.  Creating a housing bubble.  And when it burst it created a very bad recession.  So having taxpayers is important.  But they also have to have jobs.  With some good economic policies (i.e., non-Keynesian policies) Spain should be able to rebound into an economic juggernaut.  For if all those taxpayers find employment they can reduce tax rates to very low levels.  Which will explode economic activity.

Greece went on a spending binge.  Including lavish spending for the 2004 Olympic games.  Their problem is a bloated public sector.  And a large welfare state.  That their private sector can no longer fund.  Like Spain Greece may be able to rebound with some sound economic policies (i.e., non-Keynesian policies).  A little privatization.  And a little weaning from the public teat.

At the other end you have the United Kingdom.  Whose abortions exceeded their population gain.  Which wasn’t much for 20 years.  They are currently going through a baby boom.  But it’s this baby dearth from 20-40 years earlier that is depressing tax revenue today.  Requiring those spending cuts in the NHS.  And higher tax rates on the fewer remaining taxpayers in the workforce.  Which, of course, leaves people with less spending money.  Further depressing the economy.

China’s economic miracle is not as miraculous as it once was.  And their Keynesian policies will catch up to them.  As they have with every other country using them.  Their authoritarian regime has been able to keep wages down to help their export economy.  And they have no social safety net despite a rapidly aging population.  Which they will have to take care of.  Eventually.  Either by expanding the money supply so the government can spend more money.  Which will create inflation and hurt economic activity.  Or they will have to raise taxes.  Which will also hurt economic activity.

China has had 171 million abortions from 1970 to 1990.  Which even exceeds the number of deaths in the Great Chinese Famine.  Not uncommon in a communist regime.  Survival.  As their command economy cannot feed or provide for the people like laissez-faire capitalism can.  In a command economy those abortions are seen as a good thing.  A kind thing.  For that’s fewer mouths to feed.  Hence China’s one-child policy.  While in laissez faire capitalist countries their children have obesity problems.  And look at these abortions and see loss tax revenue.

While China is enjoying prosperity in their eastern cities thanks to their export economy fueled by low wages little has changed for the hundreds of millions of peasants in the rural interior spaces.  Where famine is still a real concern.  Some will cite China as an example of out of control population growth.  Like locusts the people will consume all of the available resources.  And leave behind a scorched earth.  Of course what these people don’t understand is the power of laissez faire capitalism.  For across the water from China is Hong Kong.  An Island with no natural resources.  A barren rock.  Yet they were part of the British Empire.  They embraced-laissez faire capitalism.  And flourished while mainland China suffered under communism.  Hong Kong is one of the world’s strongest economies.  With some of the greatest population gains.  During these 20 years their population grew by 43.67%.  The greatest of these 12 countries.  While having the lowest number of abortions.  Yet despite having this massive population gain and few resources this crowded special administrative region (SAR) of the People’s Republic of China (since 1997) prospers.  Suffers no famine.  And is one of the best places in the world to live.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Japan clings to the same Keynesian Policies that have Failed for over 20 Years

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 30th, 2012

Week in Review

The fiscal cliff negotiations are all about deficit reduction.  The Right wants to do it with spending cuts.   The Left wants to do it with new taxes.  So they can spend more.  This is why they can’t reach an agreement.  The Right wants to reduce the deficit.  While the Left wants to increase spending.  For benefits.  For education.  For investments in Green Energy.  For infrastructure.  For economic stimulus.  Which will only increase the deficit.  So the Democrats are not exactly sincere when they talk about deficit reduction.  Which is why they can’t make a deal with the Republicans.  Who are serious when they talk about deficit reduction.

Another reason why the Democrats want to spend so much money is that they are Keynesians.  Who believe the government can bring an economy out of a recession with stimulus spending.  Despite that failing every time we’ve tried it.  In the United States in the Seventies.  Again during the Obama administration.  In the Eurozone.  In Asia.  Especially in Japan.  Where they’ve been trying to stimulate themselves out of a recession since their Lost Decade.  The Nineties (see Japan’s New Stimulus: The Race With China To The Bottom by Gordon G. Chang posted 12/30/2012 on Forbes).

The universal consensus is that the fall in manufacturing bolsters the case for Shinzo Abe’s plans to stimulate the economy.  The new prime minister is pursuing a broad-based program of shocking Japan out of its fourth contraction since the turn of the century.

First, Abe is going to prime the pump in a big way…

Second, Abe is going to push the yen down to help struggling exporters…

Third, the just-installed prime minister is leaning on the Bank of Japan to open up the taps…

Markets may love Abe’s stimulus solutions, but they are at best short-term fixes.  Tokyo, after all, has tried them all before with generally unsatisfactory results.  What Japan needs is not another paved-over riverbed—past spending programs have resulted in useless infrastructure—but structural reform to increase the country’s competitiveness.

Tokyo’s political elite, unfortunately, has got hooked on the false notion that governments can create enduring prosperity.  Two decades of recession and recession-like stagnation in Japan are proof that repeated government intervention in the economy does not in fact work.

If you keep trying to stimulate yourself out of a recession with Keynesian policies for over twenty years perhaps it’s time to give up on those failed policies.  Of course to do that may require some spending and tax cuts.  And you know how well that goes over with big government types.  It’s why the Americans can’t make a deal to avoid the fiscal cliff.  And why the Japanese are going to try more of the same failed policies of the past.

Another impetus for these bad policies decisions is what’s happening in China.  Whose economy is much younger than Japan’s economy.  So they don’t have years of failed Keynesian policies digging their economy into a deep hole.  And because of that they’re going to go big.  Their stimulus is going to include the building of cities.  And that’s what the Japanese see.  That, and the (one time) economic explosion of their export economy.  Something they once had in Japan.  And would love to have again.  So they are going to follow China’s lead.  Even though their economic expansion is pretty much at its end.

Although there has been a “recovery” beginning in October, it looks like the upturn is already running out of steam.  China’s technocrats know they’re in trouble: they are apparently planning to increase the central government’s planned deficit for 2013 by 41% to 1.2 trillion yuan ($192 billion).  At present, it is now slated to be only 850 billion yuan.  Much of the shortfall is going toward an urbanization push next year.  Last year, Beijing announced its intention to build 20 new cities a year in each of the following 20 years.

The two biggest economies in Asia are ailing at the same time, and both Beijing and Tokyo have decided that government intervention is the shortest path to long-term growth.  Neither government’s program, however, looks viable.  Unfortunately, both China and Japan are going down the wrong road at the same time.

This could help the U.S. economy.  If they enacted spending cuts for their deficit reduction they could cut tax rates to spur the economy along.  And make the U.S. competitiveness soar while Japan and China dig themselves into deeper holes.  But the Americans, being the foolish Keynesians they are, are going to follow the Japanese and the Chinese into economic stagnation.  And with President Obama’s reelection they will stay Keynesian.  Drive over the fiscal cliff.  And compete with the Japanese to see who can have more lost decades

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

FT148: “You only know what someone taught you.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 14th, 2012

Fundamental Truth

If we Grew up on a Deserted Island isolated from Hate we’d Probably Grow up Better Adjusted to live with One Another

No one is born a racist.  It’s something you have to learn.  Someone has to teach it to you.  If a parent is a racist chances are the child will be bombarded with racial slurs growing up.  And become a racist.  Just like his or her parent.  But if you raised a bunch of babies of different races together on a deserted island in isolation would any of them grow up to be a racist?   No.  For they wouldn’t even know what racism is.  Because the life they knew would be normal.  It would be normal for black, white, brown, red and yellow to live together.

Catholics and Protestants have spent a few centuries killing each other.  Ever since the Protestant Reformation in 1517.  People have been persecuting Jews since forever.  The Palestinians, Hezbollah and Hamas have been killing Israelis for decades.  Shiite and Sunni have also been killing each other for a very long time.  These people have hated each other so much that they just want to see the other dead.  Yet if you took a Catholic, a Protestant, a Jew, a Palestinian, a Shiite and a Sunni baby from their parents and raised them on a deserted island in isolation they wouldn’t grow up wanting to kill each other.  They wouldn’t even know they were supposed to hate each other.

Europe was just itching to go to war.  Nationalistic fervor was just bursting at the seams.  Germans, Austrians, Hungarians, French, Russians and British were ready and waiting.  Filled with nationalist pride.  Just jonesing to open a can of whup-ass on anyone that wasn’t from their own great nation.  Having learned nothing from the Crimean War.  Or the American Civil War.  Thinking they would march their magnificent armies onto the field of battle, fight a glorious battle and watch the enemy throw down their arms and run away.  Even though tactics hadn’t changed much from the Crimean War and the American Civil War.  Though the weapons were far more lethal.  Making World War I one of the bloodiest wars of all time.  But had you taken a German, an Austrian, a Hungarian, a French, a Russian and a British baby from their parents at the turn of the century and raised them on a deserted island in isolation they wouldn’t have grown up wanting to go to war with each other.  As they wouldn’t know that they were supposed to hate each other.

Of all the Things the State did Poorly perhaps the Worst was being Husband and Father

When our parents grew up they often went to bed without locking the doors to their houses.  Even during the days of Prohibition when armed gangs shot each other in the street with automatic weapons.  Today we have deadbolts and alarm systems.  And metal detectors at our schools.  For kids today are taking guns to school.  And they’re shooting people.  This didn’t happen during the days of Prohibition when gangs were armed with Thompson 45-caliber submachine guns.  Why?  Because during Prohibition there weren’t violent video games, graphic violence in movies & television and rap & hip-hop songs glorifying gun violence.  So even though we have less lethal weapons on the streets today we have more gun violence than before.  Because kids have been so desensitized to violence that killing people just isn’t a big deal to them.  Raise these kids on a deserted island away from this violence in our pop culture, though, and they’re not going to kill indiscriminately.  Instead they’ll stay innocent kids longer.

Add to this violence in our pop culture our secular progressive culture.  The Left’s quest to remove religion and God from as much of our lives as possible.  And their attacks on Christianity.  For imposing their moral code on people.  And opposing free love and abortion.  They have gone so far as to call for the removal of the Ten Commandments from our government buildings.  And our schools.  Because teaching kids things like ‘Thou shall not kill” is a bad thing.  Or any other morality lesson.  For who’s to say what is right and wrong?  Of course when we teach our kids growing up that there are no moral absolutes it sure weakens the argument for them not to do bad things.  It detaches them from society.  And makes them lack empathy for their fellow citizens.  Making it easier to hurt them.  If you pulled these kids out of our public schools and put them and their parents on a deserted island away from this secular progressive culture and filled them with the fear of God for misbehaving they probably could sleep at night with their doors unlocked.  For hurting one another would be the last thing on their minds.

When LBJ passed his Great Society legislation it included Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC).  An unmitigated disaster for poor people.  For it let men father and abandon their children.  Leaving women to turn to the state to act as husband and father.  And of all the things the state did poorly perhaps the worst was being husband and father.  It just decimated poor families.  Single mothers filled housing projects.  Their children, with no male role model, turned to the street.  Got into a lot of trouble.  And into drugs.  Even taking that behavior into their schools.  Which is part of the reason why metal detectors are needed today at our schools.  Forcing organizations like Big Brothers Big Sisters of America to pick up the parenting slack.  Had these deadbeat dads lived on a deserted island untouched by AFDC there would have been less fathering and abandoning of children.  Like there was before AFDC.

Keynesian Policies have Historically Resulted in High Unemployment and Painful Recessions

After World War II the world went Keynesian.  Classical economics (that favored savings over consumption, low taxes, the gold standard, little government intrusion into the private sector and responsible fiscal policy as in DON’T spend so much) that made America a superpower went out the window.  In came the disaster we call Keynesian economics (that favored consumption over savings, deficit spending, printing lots of money, high taxes and a lot of government intervention into the private sector.  Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge in the Twenties were the last of the classical economists.  Their policies gave us great prosperity.  JFK adopted policies of the classical economics variety to pull America out of a recession in the Sixties.  Nixon, Ford and Carter were big Keynesians whose policies destroyed America.  Ronald Reagan rebuilt America in the Eighties by returning to policies of the classical economics variety.  As George W. Bush did to pull us out of the bad recession caused by Bill Clinton’s dot-com bubble bursting.

So the record shows the success of classical economics.  And the failure of Keynesian economics.  Yet about half the population voted for the Keynesian policies of President Obama in 2012.  Why?  Why did they vote for more of the failed policies of the past?  Because most Americans learn only of Keynesian economics in their economic courses.  While politicians, economists and the mainstream media endorse Keynesian policies as if they have a record of success.  They do this because Keynesian economics does something that classical economics doesn’t.  Empowers big government.  Sanctions class warfare.  Giving them the moral high ground when raising taxes.  And printing money.  Despite these actions causing the worst economic recovery since the Great Depression.

President Obama won reelection for one of two reasons.  Either people want more free stuff.  Or they don’t understand economics.  Or the consequences of handing out all that free stuff.  For if they understood economics they would not have voted for a Keynesian.  For Keynesian policies have historically resulted in high unemployment and painful recessions.  So even if you’re voting for the free stuff you’d vote for the classical economics candidate.  For without people working there is no income to tax to pay for all of that free stuff.  But few people understand economics.  Which is lucky for President Obama.  In fact, few people understand the disaster that has been the liberal agenda as the liberals control the public schools, our colleges, the mainstream media and the entertainment establishment.  So few are learning the long record of liberal failures.  Which helps liberals win elections.  For you only know what someone taught you.  And if the liars are in charge of teaching us the only things we will learn are their lies.  Unless, of course, we can find some deserted island to grow up on where their policies can’t reach us.  Then when we come back we can make the world a better place.  A place with sound economic policies.  With no racism, no religious intolerance, no blind nationalist fervor, no culture of gun violence and no epidemic of deadbeat dads.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

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

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 6th, 2012

History 101

(Originally published March 20, 2012)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Only Real Economic Growth creates Jobs, not Government Programs

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

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

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

So much for super smart government bureaucrats.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

« Previous Entries