Japan devalues the Yen and the G2O are Okay with it

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 17th, 2013

Week in Review

In the Eighties Japan kept interest rates artificially low.  Creating a lot of artificial economic activity.  Businesses borrowed money because it was cheap.  And banks loaned money because there was so much of it to loan.  Unfortunately, this led to a bubble.  A big one.  Asset prices soared.  And when that bubble burst those prices fell back to earth like a rock.  Sending the Japanese economy free falling into a deflationary spiral as it tried to wring out all of that inflation from those low interest rates.  And some 30 years later they’re still suffering from the affects of that deflation (see G20 defuses talk of “currency war”, no accord on debt by Randall Palmer and Lidia Kelly posted 2/16/2013 on Reuters).

Japan’s expansive policies, which have driven down the yen, escaped direct criticism in a statement thrashed out in Moscow by policymakers from the G20, which spans developed and emerging markets and accounts for 90 percent of the world economy.

Analysts said the yen, which has dropped 20 percent as a result of aggressive monetary and fiscal policies to reflate the Japanese economy, may now continue to fall.

“The market will take the G20 statement as an approval for what it has been doing — selling of the yen,” said Neil Mellor, currency strategist at Bank of New York Mellon in London. “No censure of Japan means they will be off to the money printing presses.”

This is how they got into so much trouble in the first place.  This is why they have a Lost Decade in Japan.  Because of those low interest rates that blew up great asset bubbles.  That burst.  Sending prices into a freefall.  A little hair of the dog that bit you MAY alleviate the discomforts of a hangover.  But when that dog is a 150-pound French Mastiff with your throat in its mouth you’d be better off finding another cure for your inflationary hangover.  For nothing good can possibly come from another round of inflation that will only create more asset bubbles.  Their Lost Decade turned into Lost Decades because they kept trying to fix things before the market undid all their previous fixing.  As painful as it may be they need to let the market complete its correction.  Had they let the market do this in the Nineties the pain would be over with.  And they would be enjoying real economic growth today.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

China running low on Factory Workers and Farmers as an Aging Population threatens Future Growth

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 3rd, 2013

Week in Review

During the Eighties those in America who favored large government incursions into the private market liked to point to Japan.  Whose economy was booming during the Eighties.  Thanks to a lot of government partnering with business.  And low interest rates.  The Japanese were buying up landmark American properties.  Some feared that they would take a controlling interest in the United States.  And those on the Left said that we were fools for not doing what the Japanese were doing.  They still believe this.  Despite what happened in the Nineties in Japan.  It turned out that a lot of that economic growth wasn’t real.  It was a bubble.  And they blew that bubble up so much that it took a decade and more to deflate it.  Japan’s Lost Decade.  Which is closer to two decades.  And counting.

Now China is the new Japan.  Where government partners with business.  And keeps interest rates low.  Once again those on the Left point to this model.  Urging that the U.S. adopt it, too.  So the U.S. can have a strong manufacturing sector.  And a booming export market.  But there’s more to the economy than exports (see UPDATE 3-China to speed up rural land reform, ensure food supply by David Stanway and Kevin Yao posted 1/31/2013 on Reuters).

The central government said in its “number one document” for 2013, focusing on modernising agriculture, it would grant more subsidies to large-scale landholders, family farms and rural cooperatives as it tries to provide more incentives to bring economies of scale to the fragmented countryside…

It listed grain security and farm product supply as top priorities, with China seeking to boost production as it urbanises and industrialises. The relocation to the cities of more than 200 million migrant workers has slashed the rural workforce and boosted food demand, leading to a growing dependence on imports.

So the Chinese traded food for exports.  To get cheap workers to fill their export factories they just pulled people from agriculture.  Leading to food shortages that they have to make up with food imports.  A country no stranger to food shortages.  Or trying to bring economies of scale to agriculture.  The last time they tried it was during the Great Leap Forward.  With forced collectivization of their farms.  Which was such a failure that tens of millions starved to death in the famine this forced collectivization caused.  But famine is not the only way to cause a population decline (see China’s looming worker shortage threatens economy by AFP posted 1/30/2013 on France 24).

China’s demographic timebomb is ticking much louder with the first fall in its labour pool for decades, analysts say, highlighting the risk that the country grows old before it grows rich.

The abundant supply of cheap workers in the world’s most populous nation has created unprecedented cost efficiencies that underpinned its blistering economic expansion over the past 35 years, propelling the global economy forward.

But now the inexorable consequences of the one-child policy imposed in the late 1970s are beginning to appear, and threaten to impact its future growth.

China’s working-age population, defined as 15-59, fell 3.45 million last year, official data showed earlier this month — the first decline since 1963, after tens of millions died in a famine caused by the Great Leap Forward…

“The population is aging so fast that we are running short of time to deal with it,” said Li Jun, also of CASS, adding the family planning policy had exacerbated the problem…

An ageing population not only means fewer people available to employ and higher labour costs, but investment — a key driver of China’s growth — will be harder to maintain as families spend their savings on health care, she said…

At the same time…the country was woefully underprepared to meet the burden of caring for the elderly…

By around 2060, every three Chinese workers will have to support two people above 60, compared with a ratio of five to one now…

Analysts said the medical services are increasingly expensive and hard to access, while the country’s flagship public pension plans are crippled by problems including insolvency risks, difficulties in expanding coverage and mismanagement.

Over a billion people in China and it’s not enough.  They’re short of both factory workers and farmers.  Because of an aging population.  The problem all advanced economies have.  Only China is having it before they are even an advanced economy.  And their problems of trying to take care of their aging population are going to make the problem of saving Social Security and Medicare seem like child’s play.  Because of that one-child policy.

In the advanced economies parents are having barely enough children to replace them.  While China’s one-child policy guarantees a shrinking population.  Which means fewer mouths to feed.  But it will also mean fewer people to farm their land and to work in their factories.  Just as more people leave the workforce.  Which means the future isn’t looking very good for China.  Who may soon experience their own Lost Decade.  A lesson for the U.S.  That having government partner with business and low interest rates does not make a sound economy.  It only creates bubbles.  Not real sustained economic activity.  Which all can come crashing down when overwhelmed by the crushing weight of an aging population.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Clinton Tax Rates, Japan’s Lost Decade, Irrational Exuberance, Dot-Com Bubble, EBT and Job-Creating Capital

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 14th, 2012

History 101

The Economy of the Nineties boomed because of Japan’s Lost Decade and Irrational Exuberance

President Obama wants to raise taxes on the wealthy.  He wants to go back to the Clinton tax rates.  The economy was booming during the Clinton Nineties.  Better than it is now.  Tax rates were higher in the Nineties than they are now.  While the deficit is greater now than it was in the Nineties.  And the debt is greater than it was in the Nineties.  The conclusion?  Higher tax rates improve economic activity.  Produce smaller deficits.  And grow the debt at a slower rate.  At least, that’s what those who want to raise tax rates say.  The only problem with this is that there are reasons why the economy was booming in the Nineties.  And it didn’t have to do with tax rates.  But, instead, the Japanese.  And irrational exuberance.

The Japanese government partnered with business in the Eighties.  Corporations worked closely together for the good of the export economy.  And the national economy.  This was Japan Inc.  And the economy surged.  Fueled by low interest rates.  People in America worried about the Japanese buying American landmark assets with their fat profits.  An American magazine joked that America would become a wholly owned subsidiary of a Japanese corporation.  A Democrat presidential candidate said America was a fool for not doing what the Japanese were doing.  But the good times didn’t last.  That inflationary monetary policy caused a massive asset bubble.  And when it burst the Japanese suffered a deflationary spiral that last a decade or more.  Their Lost Decade.  This great contraction weakened America’s greatest economic competitor.  Greatly helping the US economy.

Also during the Nineties the Internet was coming of age.  In the Eighties there was the personal computer.  Silicon Valley.  And Microsoft.  A lot of investors were looking for the Microsoft of the Nineties.  No one knew who that was going to be.  But one thing everyone knew was that it was going to be a dot-com.  Investors poured money into dot-coms that didn’t have anything to sell.  Hence the irrational exuberance.  Dot-coms built great office buildings and technology corridors in cities.  New ‘Silicon Valleys’ were appearing across the country.  Kids went to college to learn how to make websites and set up ecommerce.  All these young kids filled these new dot-com buildings.  But when the investment money ran out these companies went bankrupt.  As they had no revenue.  Or anything to sell.  The dot-com bubble burst after Clinton’s Nineties.  Giving George W. Bush a bad recession at the beginning of his first term.  Also, President Clinton pressured lenders to qualify the unqualified for mortgages they couldn’t afford.  Starting a great real estate bubble.  That burst after Clinton’s Nineties.  Causing the subprime mortgage crisis about a decade later.

The Government taxes Small Business Owners as Rich People even though they’re not really Rich People

So there is more to the Nineties than those Clinton tax rates.  The Japanese gave them an able assist.  Then a lot of bad investing creating a lot of artificial economic activity that created a bubble.  That crashed into a recession.  Thanks to a lot of governmental interference in the private sector economy.  They kept interest rates artificially low.  And offered a lot of incentives to get those dot-coms to build in their cities.  Leaving cities with a lot of empty buildings, budget deficits, bloated public sector payrolls and no increase in tax revenue to pay for the additional infrastructure and services.  This is what the Clinton policies gave us.  Not sustained economic activity.  Or a budget surplus.  So going back to the Clinton tax rates is not likely to produce sustained economic activity.  Or a budget surplus.  Especially when President Obama has outspent Clinton over a trillion dollars a year.

So returning to the Clinton tax rates won’t help to reduce the deficit unless they return to the Clinton spending as well.  And that’s not likely to happen.  So what will the increase in tax rates do?  Well, we can get an idea by comparing the Clinton tax rates (1999) to the last tax rates we used (2011).  As they apply to a small business.  The following is an income statement for what could be a typical small business with about $1.8 million in annual sales revenue.

This is a very summarized income statement using some typical percentages for cost of sales and overhead.  This also assumes about $350,000 of debt on the company books.  Giving an interest expense of about $28 grand.  When you subtract all of these expenses from revenue you arrive at an earnings before taxes (EBT) of $358,016.73.  For many small business owners this EBT flows to their personal income tax return as personal income.  Which sounds like a lot.  But business owners will leave most of this money in their businesses.  So while the government taxes them as rich people they’re not really rich people.  For what the government doesn’t tax away will become retained earnings.  And reinvested back into their businesses.

Higher Taxes and Higher Regulatory Costs hurt Job Growth by taking away Job-Creating Capital from Businesses

All right, so let’s look at what the government would tax away.  Based on the 1999 tax rates.  And the 2011 tax rates.  Using the tax rates for married filing jointly we get the following income tax for each set of tax rates.

The 1999 tax brackets give an effective tax rate of 31.4%.  In 2011 that fell 4.7 points to 26.7%.  Which increased net profit from 13.7% in 1999 to 14.6%.  An increase of 0.93 points.  Not as big a change as in the income tax rate.  But it’s an additional $16,730.50 the small business would have to reinvest into the business.  Which could pay for a lot (even help pay their interest expense).  Especially over time.  In two years that’s about $33,461.  In five years that’s about $83,650.  In ten years that’s about $167,300.  That’s a lot of ‘free’ money the business could use to grow their business that they didn’t have to pay back.  But if we returned to the Clinton tax rates that’s money these businesses would no longer have to invest into their business.  Forcing them to pay to borrow money.  Adding additional interest expense.  And burdening the business with greater debt.  Which would be a disincentive to add additional costs.  Like creating new jobs and hiring people.

A lot of small business owners don’t pay themselves.  That is, they don’t get a paycheck like everyone else in their business.  Instead they distribute earnings from the business.  People think all business owners are rich.  But here’s something they don’t understand.  Even though they pay income taxes on their total business earnings they may only take a small percentage of their earnings out of the business.  In this example the married couple draws $75,000 a year to live on.  Even though they paid income taxes on $358,016.73.  Netting only $75,000 on these earnings would be like having 79.1% of your earnings withheld in taxes from your paycheck.  While these numbers vary among business owners this generally holds true.  They pay taxes on amounts far greater than what they take out of their business to live on.

If we go back to the Clinton tax rates it will reduce the amount of investment capital owners have to grow their business.  Which new regulations have already reduced by increasing costs.  With the unknowns of Obamacare basically freezing all new hiring.  As small business owners don’t know if the government will leave them enough money to grow their businesses.  Or even enough to maintain their current business operations.  Which is how higher taxes and higher regulatory costs hurt job growth.  By taking away job-creating capital from businesses.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Pure Gold Standard

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 8th, 2012

Economics 101

To Expand the Money Supply under a Pure Gold Standard requires an Enormous Investment unlike it does for Fiat Money

Do you know why we’ll never have a pure gold standard?  Because a pure gold standard doesn’t need a government.  Or their economists (from the Keynesian school) advising them how to make the economy better.  A pure gold standard works all by itself.  And is hard to manipulate.  Governments can’t inflate the money supply to spend money they don’t have.  So it really takes the fun out of being a spendthrift politician.  And because it would work so well it would debunk a century or so of Keynesian economics.  And shut down most economics departments at our Universities.  Because that’s all they know how to teach.  Keynesian economics.

So there is a lot of opposition to returning to a responsible monetary standard like a pure gold standard.  Ronald Reagan was the last presidential candidate to include a pure gold standard in the campaign platform.  But the idea died quickly after inauguration.  Not because he lied.  There was just too much political opposition that would never let it happen.  For that’s the last thing our spendthrift politicians in Washington want.  Something restraining them from spending what they don’t have.  As that would only make it more difficult to buy votes.  Reward campaign donors.  And reward special contributors with federal jobs in an ever expanding federal bureaucracy.

No, what the spendthrift politicians like is fiat money.  The kind you make up out of thin air.  Easily.  And with very little cost.  Either by printing paper dollars.  Or adding numbers to an electronic ledger.  Something you can’t do when you use gold.  Because to expand the money supply under a pure gold standard requires an enormous investment to find it.  To dig the ore out of the ground.  To comminute it (break it into smaller pieces) usually by crushing and grinding.  To smelt it.  To separate the gold from everything else pulled out of the ground with it.  And add it to the money supply.  This process takes a while.  And costs an enormous amount of money.  Unlike fiat money.  Where they can simply expand the money supply with a few computer key strokes.  Over a cup of coffee.

The Keynesian Interest Rate will always have a Larger Inflation Factor Included than a Gold Standard Rate

Gold mining requires gold mining companies.  And these gold mining companies have to raise a lot of capital to finance their extraction of gold.  Often with stocks and bonds.  So digging gold out of the ground requires investors to take great risks with their investment portfolios.  So it takes a lot to get gold out of the ground.  Which is why under a gold standard you can never have runaway inflation.  Technically you could.  But it would require the company to invest an inordinate amount of money into that inflation.  And if they flooded the market with all of that gold it would only lower the price of gold.  So they would spend more to earn less.  Something a private company is not likely to do.  Which is why it would be very difficult to impossible to have runaway inflation.

One of the things that makes a healthy economy is low interest rates.  If the cost of borrowing money is low more people will borrow money.  And if they’re buying things that require loans they’re generating a lot of economic activity.  Creating a lot of jobs along the way.  This is why Keynesians want to print money.  To flood the market with dollars so it doesn’t cost much to borrow them.  But there is another factor in interest rates.  Inflation.  The greater the inflation rate the greater the interest rate.  To compensate lenders for the loss in purchasing power over the time of the loan.  And increasing the money supply devalues the dollar.  Leading to a loss in purchasing power.  And those higher interest rates.

As it is much easier to inflate fiat money than it is with gold interest rates are higher with fiat money than they are with gold.  Because there is always a risk for governments to print more money for political purposes (i.e., buying votes) there is more cushion built in interest rates.  If you remove the irresponsible government aspect from the monetary system interest rates will be lower.  Because lenders would ask for less cushion in their interest rates.  Because of this stability that gold gives you interest rates are low for extended periods of time.  Encouraging lenders to lend.  And borrowers to borrow.  Leading to economic growth.  And jobs.  What the Keynesians try to get by printing money.  But the Keynesian interest rate will always have a larger inflation factor included.  So their interest rates will never be as low as they are under a pure gold standard.

Because Gold is not a Friend of Inflation it is no Friend to Keynesian Economists or Spendthrift Politicians

Under such a gold standard we would not get rid of paper dollars.  We’d still have those.  Only there would be no fractional reserve banking.  Where the banks keep only a small percentage of their deposits in their bank vaults while lending the rest out.  Under a gold standard our dollars would be ‘receipts’ for the gold stored in those bank vaults.  If the price of gold was $50 an ounce (it’s not) then $1 would equal 1/50 of an ounce of gold.  So for every dollar in circulation there would be 1/50 of an ounce of gold in a bank vault somewhere.  If you had $500 in your checking account the bank would have 10 ($500 X 1/50) ounces of gold on deposit for you.  Which means if everyone came to withdraw their money at the same time everyone would get their money.  There would not be any bank runs.  And no bank failures like there were during the Great Depression.

But could banks still loan money with a 100% reserve requirement for demand deposits (i.e., checking accounts)?  Yes.  They would loan money that people deposited for a fixed period of time.  Like a 5-year certificate of deposit.  Where the depositor can’t withdraw it until that 5-year period is up without a significant penalty for early withdrawal.  If a bank makes a 4-year loan with a 5-year deposit the money should be returned to the bank in time for the depositor to withdraw it at the end of 5 years.  As most savings are long-term (such as for retirement) this would not hinder lending.  There would still be plenty of money to lend.  Only there may be tighter lending standards where only people who can actually repay their loans may be able to borrow money.  Which would be a good thing.  As it would prevent another subprime mortgage crisis from happening.

If the economy grows larger than the money supply there will be fewer dollars chasing all those goods and services.  Meaning that the dollar’s purchasing power will increase.  And prices will fall.  This is something Keynesians all fear (but not consumers who like lower prices).  For they say if prices fall there could be another Great Depression.  However, the Federal Reserve helped to bring about the Great Recession with their deflationary monetary policies.  They contracted the money supply by some 30%.  That can’t happen with a pure gold standard.  Because the money supply never gets smaller.  Because just as you can’t create gold out of thin air you can’t make it disappear.  For once they add it to the money supply it is always there.  The gold stock never shrinks.  It can only grow less than the economy.  So you can have a monetary deflation without a depression.  Which is a good thing.  For your paycheck will go farther.  You savings will give you a better retirement.  It even makes international trade fair.  Because gold is gold.  Which makes any currency based on a unit weight of gold difficult to manipulate when it comes to exchange rates.  As prices are, essentially, in weights of gold.

So who wouldn’t win under a pure gold standard?  Governments with welfare states.  Who like to buy votes with their power over the monetary system.  Who depend on Keynesian inflationary policies to give them those large sums to spend.  And because gold is not a friend of inflation it is no friend to Keynesian economists or spendthrift politicians.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Phillips Curve

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 17th, 2012

Economics 101

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Microeconomics and Macroeconomics

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 10th, 2012

Economics 101

Keynesians cannot connect their Macroeconomic Policies to the Microeconomic World

Economics can be confusing.  As there are actually two genres of economics.  There’s microeconomics.  The kind of stuff most people are familiar with.  And is more common sense.  This is more of the family budget variety.  And small business budget.  Where if costs go up (gasoline, commodities, food, insurance, etc.) families and businesses make cuts elsewhere in their budget.  When revenue falls (a decline in sales revenue or a husband/wife loses their job) people cut back on expenses.  They cancel the family vacation.  Or cancel Christmas bonuses.  Straight forward stuff of living within your means.

Then there’s macroeconomics.  The big economic picture.  This is the stuff about the national economy.  GDP, inflation, recession, taxes, etc.  Things that are more abstract.  Unfamiliar.  And often defy common sense.  Where living beyond your means is not only accepted.  But it’s national policy.  And when some policies fail repeatedly those in government keep trying those same policies expecting a different outcome eventually.  Such as using Keynesian economic policies (stimulus packages, deficit spending, printing money, etc.) to get an economy out of recession that never quite works.  And then the supporters of those policies always say the same thing.  Their policies only failed because they didn’t spend enough money to make them work.

Keynesian economics focuses on macroeconomics.  And cannot connect their macro policies to the micro world.  There is a large gap between the two.  Which is why Keynesians fail.  Because they look at the macro picture to try and effect change in the micro world.  To get businesses to create jobs.  To hire people.  And to reduce unemployment.  But the politicians executing Keynesian policy don’t understand things in the micro world.  Or anything about running a business.  All they understand, or all they care to try to understand, are the Keynesian basics.  That focus on the demand side of economics.  While ignoring everything on the supply side.

When the Economy goes into Recession the Fed Expands the Money Supply to Lower Interest Rates

Keynesians have a few fundamental beliefs.  And one of the big ones is the relationship between interest rates and GDP.  In fact, it’s the center of their world.  High interest rates discourage people from borrowing money.  When people don’t borrow money they don’t build things (like factories).  And if they don’t build things they won’t create jobs and hire people.  So the higher the interest rates the lower the economic output of the nation (GDP).

Low interest rates, on the other hand, encourage people to borrow money.  So they can build things and create jobs.  The lower the interest rates the more people will borrow.  And the greater the economic output of the nation will be.  This was the driving factor that caused the Great Recession.  The central bank (the Fed) kept interest rates so low for so long that people bought a lot of houses.  A lot of expensive houses.  The demand for housing was so great that buyers bid up prices.  Because at low interest rates there was no limit to how much house you could buy.  All this building and buying of houses, though, oversupplied the market with houses.  As home builders rushed in to fill that demand.  They built so many houses that there were just so many houses available to buy that buyers had a lot of choice.  Making it a buyers’ market.  So much so that people had to slash their asking price to sell their house.  Which popped the great housing bubble.

The Fed lowers interest rates by increasing the money supply.  They create new money and inject it into the economy.  By giving it to bankers.  Banks have more money to lend.  So more people can borrow money.  This is what lowers interest rates.  Things that are less scarce cost less.  More money to borrow means it’s less scarce.  And the price to borrow it (i.e., the interest rate) falls.  If the Fed wants to increase interest rates they pull money out of the economy.  Which makes it a little harder to borrow money.  Because more people are trying to borrow the limited amount of funds available to borrow.  And this is the basics of monetary policy.  Whenever the country enters a recession and unemployment rises the Fed expands the money supply to encourage businesses to borrow money to expand their businesses and create jobs that will lower unemployment.

Keynesian Economic Policies hurt the Higher Stages of Production where we Create Real Economic Activity

If low interest rates create greater economic activity why in the world would the Fed ever want to raise interest rates?  Because of the dark side of printing money.  Inflation.  Increasing the money supply gives people more money.  And when they have more money they try to buy what everyone else is buying.  As the money supply grows greater than the amount of economic output there is more money trying to buy fewer goods and services.  Which raises prices.  Just like those low interest rates did in the housing market.  The fear is that if this goes on too long there will be an economic crash.  Just like after the housing bubble burst.  From boom to bust.  Higher prices reduce consumer spending.  Because people can’t buy as much when prices are high.  As consumers stop spending businesses stop selling.  Faced with overcapacity in a period of falling demand they start cutting costs.  Laying off people.  People without jobs can buy even less at high prices.  And so on as the economy settles into recession.  This is why central bankers raise interest rates.  Because those good times are temporary.  And the longer they let it go on the more painful the economic correction will be.

This is why Keynesian stimulus spending fails to pull economies out of recession.  Because Keynesians focus only on the demand curve.  Consumption.  Consumer spending.  Not supply.  They ignore all that economic activity in the higher stages of productions.  That activity that precedes retail consumer sales.  The wholesale stage (the stage above retail).  The manufacturing stage (above the wholesale stage).  And the furthest out in time, the raw commodities stage (above the manufacturing stage).  As economic activity slows inventories build up.  Creating a bulge in the middle of the stages of production.  So manufacturing cuts back.  And because they do raw commodities cut back.  These are the first to suffer in an economic downturn.  And they are the last to recover.  Because of all that inventory in the pipeline.  When Keynesians get more money into consumers’ pockets they will increase their consumer spending.  For awhile.  Until that extra money is gone.  Which provided an economic boost at the retail level.  And a little at the wholesale level as they drew down those inventories.  But it did little at the higher stages of production.  Above inventories.  Manufacturing and raw material extraction.  Who don’t expand their production or hire new workers.  Because they know this economic activity is temporary.  And because they know all that new money will eventually create inflation.  Which will increase prices.  Throughout the stages of production.

The Keynesian approach focuses on the macro.  By playing with monetary policy.  Policies that ultimately hurt the higher stages of production.  At the micro level.  Where we create real economic activity.  If they’re not hiring then no amount of stimulus spending at the retail level will get them to hire.  Because giving the same amount of workers (i.e., consumers) more money to chase the same amount of goods and services only causes higher prices in the long run.  And it’s the long run that raw commodities and manufacturing look at.  They are not going to invest to expand their businesses unless they expect improving economic conditions in the long run.  All the way up the stages of production to where they are.  When new economic activity reaches them then they will expand and hire people.  And when they do they will add a lot of new consumers with real wages to go out and spend at the retail level.

One of the most efficient ways to achieve this is with tax cuts.  Because cuts in tax rates shape economic activity in the long run.  Across the board.  Unlike stimulus spending.  Which is short term.  And very selective.  Some benefit.  Typically political cronies.  But most see no benefit.  Just higher prices.  And continued unemployment.  Which is why Keynesian policies fail to pull economies out of recessions.  Because politicians use them for political purposes.  Not economic purposes.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

The Great Recession is Reducing Businesses’ Revenue and causing them to Default on their Debt

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 28th, 2012

Week in Review

The Great Recession lingers on.  Because people don’t have jobs.  So they can’t spend money.  And when people aren’t spending money businesses can’t pay their bills.  Or service their debt (see More companies defaulting on their debt: 47 this year alone by Matt Krantz posted 7/24/2012 on USA Today).

This year, 47 global companies have been unable to keep paying the interest on their debt, which is more than double the levels a year ago, says Standard & Poor’s. A majority of those defaults, 25, are by U.S. companies…

This is happening despite record low interest rates that should allow companies to refinance and reduce their interest costs.

A long time ago an auditor once told me that bankruptcies rarely saved businesses.  For excessive debt at unattractive interest rates didn’t cause their problems.  It’s always insufficient revenue that couldn’t service their debt that caused their problems.  For if you have healthy revenue you’ll be able to service enormous amounts of debt at the worst interest rates.  Which is typically what happens during booming economic times.  Businesses take on debt at high rates.  Because they can then.  They take on debt based on what they can pay during the good times.  Not on what they can pay during the bad times that inevitably follow.

So excessive debt doesn’t cause their problems.  But excessive debt ultimately solves their problems.  Through bankruptcy.  And liquidation.  Unfortunately it comes with a rather unpleasant side affect.  The demise of the business.

So low interest rates aren’t the panacea the Keynesians think they are.  No matter how much faith our governments put into their Keynesian economists.  Who are constantly urging the government to lower interest rates.  But it doesn’t work.  Because borrowing money simply doesn’t increase sales revenue.  You need a healthier economy to do that.  One that is more business-friendly.  One that doesn’t kill economic activity with excessive regulation.  And one that doesn’t tax so much wealth out of the private sector.  So people can earn money and keep what they earn.  So they can spend it in the economy.  And businesses need a business-friendly environment with low regulatory costs.  So they can sell at prices low enough to encourage consumers to buy their goods and services.  This is how you generate real economic activity.  And until we have this environment the Great Recession will linger on.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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