The Boston Globe, The Washington Post, Liberal Bias and a Conservative America

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 8th, 2013

Politics 101

Far Fewer People pay to read Papers Online than they once Paid to read them in Print

The Washington Post has a market capitalization of $4.2 billion.  Which is the number of issued shares of publically traded stock multiplied by its stock price.  In other words, this is what the shareholders of The Washington Post believe the paper is worth.  Yet on Monday they sold the paper for $250 million.  Which is 94% less that its market capitalization.

This follows the sale of The Boston Globe.  Which The New York Times sold for $70 million.  After buying it for $1.1 billion in 1993.  Coincidentally, a loss of 94%.  The Washington Post and The Boston Globe show how newspapers have lost their value.  Each paper suffered huge declines in circulation.  And with fewer people reading these newspapers advertisers placed their ads elsewhere.  Which led to tens of millions in annual losses.  Common in much of the established print media.  Why?

In part because of the Internet.  People like getting their news online.  Free.  Some papers have installed pay-walls for their online content.  Some more successful than others.  But far fewer people pay to read these papers online like they once paid to read them in print.  On paper.  Old-school style.  Yes, online content is instantaneous.  Up to date.  Free (much of it).  And you don’t get that black ink on your fingers when reading the paper.  But is there something else causing papers like The Boston Globe and The Washington Post to fail so miserably?  Perhaps.

Approximately 75% of all Americans do NOT call themselves Liberal

The problems these papers are having are caused bytheir liberal bias.  This is why so many people are refusing to pay to pass the pay-wall.  And why they aren’t buying the print version.  Because today there is choice.  A lot of choice.  And a lot of choice that doesn’t insult them on a daily basis.

The (once) leading newspapers, the television news networks, the public schools, our colleges and universities, Hollywood, television and the music industry (apart from country music) leans left.  People are bombarded with a liberal agenda from school to television to the movies to their music.  Making the liberal agenda appear to be the mainstream thought.  But it’s not.

According to Gallup the ideological breakdown of the country in 2011 (and 2010, 2009, 2004, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1988, 1997 and 1996) was approximately 40% conservative.  While 35% identified themselves as moderate in 2011.  And those calling themselves liberal came to 21% in 2011.  So nearly half of all Americans call themselves conservative.  While 75% of all Americans do NOT call themselves liberal.  So is it a surprise that newspapers with a liberal slant that insult approximately 75% of the population are failing?

The Boston Globe and The Washington Post are Failing because People don’t like Elitists talking down to Them

The American people don’t like the liberal agenda.  Even liberals don’t like the liberal agenda when it affects their lives.  Matt Damon is a diehard liberal.  And champion of our public schools.  Loving their liberal agenda.  But when it comes to his own kids, surprise, surprise, they go to a private school.  Just like President Obama’s daughters.  The president is such a fierce supporter of our public schools that he ended the school voucher system in Washington DC.  Keeping those kids in the public school system.  Because he took away their choice.  While exercising his choice with his own daughters.  As the president believes that private schools are better than public education.  And he wants to keep the poor people out of them.  Which is what cancelling the school voucher system did.

And just recently we’ve seen Congress and their staff get an exemption from Obamacare.  The same Obamacare they’re forcing on the masses.  But those working in Congress have the best health insurance plans known to mankind.  And they’re expensive.  So much so that the government (i.e., the taxpayers) pays 75% of their premium costs.  They liked their plans.  They wanted to keep their plans.  But an unattended consequence of Obamacare put them in the same boat as the rest of us when it came to their health insurance.  And it was just a gosh-darn shame that these people would have to pay an enormous amount of money for their gold-plated-Cadillac plans.  So the executive branch of the federal government will pay (i.e., the taxpayers will pay) their 75% subsidy so they can keep the plans they like.  Without seeing their premiums going up.  Unlike the rest of us.

This is why papers like The Boston Globe and The Washington Post are failing.  Because people don’t like elitists talking down to them.  Telling us that we don’t know what’s best for us.  Or that we are simply too stupid to know that things we don’t like are actually good for us.  Like our public schools.  And Obamacare.  While the very people telling us this are exempting themselves from these very things.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Keynesian Multiplier

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 3rd, 2012

Economics 101

At the Heart of Keynesian Stimulus Spending is the Keynesian Multiplier

Key to Keynesian economics is spending.  That’s the reason why governments everywhere embrace it.  Because Keynesian economics say government MUST spend money.  And that’s the kind of economics politicians like.  “I must spend?  Well, okay.  If you say so.  Forgive me, my constituents, for spending money I don’t have.  But it’s not me.  It’s our Keynesian economists saying we must spend.  And they’re smart.  Real smart.  They even have Ivy League degrees.  So who are we to question them?”

And it’s not just any kind of spending.  Well, actually, it is.  There’s nothing special about it.  You could pass a trillion dollar stimulus bill to pay people to dig holes with a shovel.  Fill them back in with the dirt they just shoveled out.  And then repeat.  Again and again.  Accomplishing nothing beneficial with these efforts.  But a Keynesian economist will approve of this spending and call it a good thing.  Why?  Because of trickle-down economics.  But of the Keynesian kind.

At the heart of Keynesian stimulus spending is the Keynesian multiplier.  That’s the ‘trickle down’ part.  But before we get to that we must discuss one other thing.  Savings.  Keynesians hate it.  They call money that leaks out of the economy into savings accounts wasted money.  Just as if you flushed it down the toilet.  This brings up another Keynesian concept.  The marginal propensity to consume (MPC).  Note the word ‘consume’.  This is what all that government spending is about.  Consumption.  Consumer spending.  Which is why Keynesians hate savings.  Because if people save their money they’re not spending it.  And not creating economic activity.

Politicians prefer Government Spending over Tax Cuts because People may Save Part of a Tax Cut

Now back to the multiplier.  When people receive money they do two things.  They save some of it.  And spend what they don’t save.  This is where the MPC comes in.  An MPC 0f 80% means that people will spend 80% of an amount of money they receive (paycheck, government benefit, etc.) and save 20% of it.  So they use 80% of that money to generate economic activity.  By spending it.  But it doesn’t end there.  Because what they spend other people receive as money.  And these people then save some of it.  And spend what they don’t save.  And so on.  At a MPC of 80% if a person receives $100 they will spend $80 and save $20.  Those who receive that $80 will spend $64 and save $16.  Those who receive $64 will spend $51.20 and save $12.80.  And on and on until people are only spending pennies.  In the end that original $100 will create a total of $500 in new economic activity.  Or five times the original amount.  So the Keynesian multiplier is five.  Or, mathematically, 1/(1-MPC) where MPC = 0.80.

Think of the multiplier as a pyramid of champagne glasses at a wedding.  As you pour champagne in the top glass it overflows into the next layer of glasses down.  When these glasses fill they overflow into the next layer of glasses below them.  The multiplier is kind of like that.  Starting by pouring into one glass.  By the time the champagne bottle is empty champagne fills many glasses.  And spilt champagne represents savings.  Or leakage.  That’s how the multiplier works.  Trickle down.  And the less champagne spilled the more champagne fills glasses.  As shown by the multiplier formula.  The larger the MPC is (as in the more people spend) the larger the multiplier.  In fact if they spent all of their money (an MPC = 1) the formula reduces to 1/0.  And what happens when you divide by zero?  You get infinity.  That’s right, according to the Keynesian multiplier equation if everybody spent all of their money and saved none there would be an infinite amount of economic activity.

In the Keynesian world it doesn’t matter what the money is spent on as long as it’s spent.  Even digging worthless holes is good enough to make this miracle of economic activity out of nothing work.  That’s why their advice is always for the government to tax, borrow or print money to spend.  Because spending is good.  And they prefer government spending over tax cuts to stimulate private spending.  Why?  When the government spends money that top champagne glass will have an MPC of 1.  The government will spend it all.  Less the administrative costs, of course.  Whereas an equivalent amount of money given to the people via a tax cut (letting them keep more of their earnings to spend) will not have an MPC of 1.  Because these people may do something foolish like save their money.  Or pay down debt.  Which is leakage.  Leakage reduces the multiplier.  And a lower multiplier reduces economic activity.

Governments Embrace Keynesian economics because it tells them to Always Spend More Money

It all seems too good to be true.  And there’s a reason for that.  Because it IS too good to be true.  And the proof is in the pudding.  The Seventies was the decade of unrestrained Keynesian economics.  And it didn’t work.  They spent like there was no tomorrow in the Seventies.  But all that Keynesian spending failed to pull the economy out of recession.  All it did was create high inflation.  So there was high unemployment AND high inflation.  Something that was impossible in the Keynesian universe.  But it happened.  Why?  Because they make a lot of assumptions to make their formulas work.  Like that MPC.  And their war on savings.  Their thinking is flawed.  Because savings ARE spending.  Someone’s savings is someone else’s investment.  And investments are spending.  Ever see It’s a Wonderful Life when the people were asking for their deposits back?  The savings and loans had some money.  But they didn’t have everyone’s money.  Then George Bailey (Jimmy Stewart) told his depositors where their money was.  And he ran down a list of all the new houses their savings built.  Thanks to their loans to those new homeowners.  Building those houses generated a lot of economic activity.  So savings are good.  They’re not leakage.  They cause real economic activity.

Let’s return to that pyramid of champagne glasses.  Let’s say it takes 3 bottles of champagne to fill all the glasses in the pyramid.  If you pour the champagne back from the glasses into the bottles you will not have three full bottles of champagne.  Because of all that spillage.  Or leakage.  This is the same with Keynesian stimulus spending.  Stimulus money has to come from somewhere.  Whether government raises it with taxes, borrows it or prints it.  And like that champagne it just moves from one place in the economy to another.  With no net change in economic activity.  Higher taxes mean we have less money to spend.  If they borrow money they reduce private investment.  Because investors are buying government bonds instead if investing in businesses or entrepreneurs.  If they print money they cause inflation.  Which makes our money worth less and prices higher.  Which buys us less after the inflation than before it.  So whatever government spends there is a corresponding reduction in economic activity elsewhere in the economy.  Worse, when the government redistributes this money there is leakage.  Like the spillage of champagne.  For administrative costs.  Because politicians and government bureaucrats don’t work for free.

Printing money is especially harmful to the economy.  For it can cause a short-term boom in economic activity.  But by the time that new money works its way through the economy prices begin to rise.  Raising the cost of businesses.  Who have to raise their prices.  As they do their sales fall.  And they have to lay people off.  So the Keynesian stimulus spending to end a recession results in a new recession.  Which tends to be more painful than the first one.  So eventually a recessionary bust follows the artificial boom in economic activity.  Which brings those artificially high prices back down to normal market prices.  The greater the stimulus spending the higher those prices go.  The farther they have to fall.  And the more painful the recession.  Making the multiplier nothing but smoke and mirrors.  But governments still embrace Keynesian economics.  Because it is the only economic system that tells them to spend more money.  And they are always looking for something to justify more spending.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Production vs. Consumption

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 20th, 2012

Economics 101

To Prevent another Great Depression Keynes said the Key was Government Spending

John Maynard Keynes was a noted economist who analyzed the Great Depression.  And came to the opinion the problem was that there wasn’t enough consumption.  Consumers weren’t buying enough stuff.  That is, they weren’t spending enough money.  Which is key to consumption.  And a healthy economy.  According to Keynes.  And the people who embraced his economic theories.  What we now call Keynesian economics.

It was a whole new way to look at economics.  Consumption.  Or demand-side economics.  Which said demand created supply.  Contrary to Say’s law.  Which basically stated supply creates demand.  Tomáto.  Tomàto.  To most people.  All they understood was that it was better to have a job than to be unemployed.  Because if you had a job you could buy food for your family.  Pay for heat in the winter.  And pay a doctor if your child was sick.

To prevent another Great Depression Keynes said the key was government spending.  To make up for any decline in consumption.  The government could tax, borrow or print money as necessary to get money to spend.  Putting people to work on government projects.  Building things.  Like roads and bridges.  Or digging ditches.  So when businesses lay off people the government can put them back to work.  And pay them with the money they taxed, borrowed or printed.  These people would then take that money and spend it.  A priming of the economic pump as it were.  That, in theory, will provide consumption until the private sector begins hiring again.  Therefore eliminating recessions once and for all.

Economists attribute about 90% of GDP to Consumer Spending and Government Expenditures

There have been about 12 recessions since Keynes figured out how to end them once and for all.  The recent one being the worst since the Great Depression.  Even surpassing the misery of the Jimmy Carter economy.  A time when the impossible happened.  In the world of Keynesian economics, at least.  Government spending designed to decrease unemployment actually increased unemployment.  It turns out there was a downside to printing money.  Massive inflation.  And rational expectations that printing money will lead to massive inflation.  So while the Keynesian way worked in theory it failed in practice.  And not just once.  But a lot.  Yet it is still the model of most governments.  And it’s what colleges teach their students.  Why?  After it’s been so thoroughly debunked?  The answer to that question brings us back to consumption.  And Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

GDP is a measure of a country’s goods and services during a period of time.  That is, it is a measure of economic activity.  The bigger it is the better the economy.  And the more people that have jobs.  The formula for GDP is the sum of consumption, investments, government expenditures and net exports (exports – imports).  It’s this formula that keeps Keynesian economics alive.  Because of consumption.  And government expenditures.  This formula sanctions government spending because, according to the formula, it increases economic activity.  It is the driver of all stimulus spending.  And the welfare state.  Because government spending puts money ultimately into the pockets of consumers who spend it.  That is, government spending creates private consumption.  And consumption creates jobs (demand creates supply).  In the Keynesian world, that it.  There is only one problem.  The formula leaves out a lot of economic activity.

Using this formula economists report that consumption makes up about 70% of GDP.  And government spending about 20%.  These numbers are huge.  That’s about 90% of GDP attributed to consumer spending and government expenditures.  Which is why Keynesians love this formula.   Because it empowers them to tax, borrow and print so they can spend.  All in the name of creating jobs.  And GDP.  But what about the things people make or do that consumers don’t buy?  Like engineering and design services.  Printing presses and ink.  The extraction of raw materials?  Coal mining.  Blast furnaces making steel for use in manufacturing?  Heavy construction equipment?  Machine tools and production equipment?  Assembly lines?  Robots on the assembly line?  Locomotive engines and rolling stock?  Airplanes?  All the people and equipment in the transportation industry?  Etc.  There is a lot of economic activity that makes things or does things that consumers don’t buy.  So where is it in the GDP formula?  Don’t look for it.  Because it’s just not there.

Intermediate Business Spending accounts for about Half of all Economic Activity

Before Keynes the focus was on production.  Not consumption.  Before Keynes we looked at the stages of production.  All of that economic activity that happens before you can buy anything in a store.  Everything between the extraction of raw materials to the final finished good.  Where millions of workers are engaged in economic activity that a consumer knows nothing about when they buy a consumer good.  If you factor in this economic activity into the GDP equation it changes things.  And it changes it in a way that Keynesians and government officials don’t like.

Consumption is the last stage in the stages of production.  The final step in a flurry of economic activity that preceded it.  If you count up this intermediate business spending it comes to about half of all economic activity.  It’s about twice consumer spending.  And about four times government expenditures.  Greatly reducing the roles of consumption and government expenditures in the GDP equation.  And in the economy.  As well as providing the answer to why Keynes didn’t end recessions once and for all with his new economic theory.  Because his new economic theory was wrong.  You don’t create jobs by giving money to people to spend.  You create jobs by making it easy for businesses to hire people.

So demand does NOT create supply like Keynes said.  Supply creates demand.  Like Say said.  And what’s the conclusion we can draw?  Big activist governments do not help a country’s economy.  They just pull money out of the stages of productions.  Where it can create jobs.  And puts it into government.  Where it creates unemployment and inflation.  As demonstrated by all the big Keynesian governments of Europe.  Those social democracies struggling under the weight of their government spending.  Who borrowed money to sustain that spending.  Bringing on the European sovereign debt crisis.  Because of that GDP equation that said they could tax, borrow and print to spend to their heart’s content.  Thanks to a man named Keynes.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

World War I, Gold Standard, German Reparations, Hyperinflation, Credit-Anstalt, Keynesian Policies and the Great Depression

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 13th, 2012

History 101

Nations abandoned the Gold Standard to Borrow and Print Money freely to pay for World War I 

Banks loan to each other.  They participate in a banking system that moves capital from those who have it to those who need it.  It’s a good system.  And a system that works.  Providing businesses and entrepreneurs with the capital to expand their businesses.  And create jobs.  As long as all the banks in the system go about their business responsibly.  And their governments go about their business responsibly.  Sadly, neither always does.

World War I changed the world in so many ways for the worse.  It killed a generation of Europeans.  Bankrupted nations.  Redrew the borders in Europe as the victors divvied up the spoils of war.  Setting the stage for future political unrest.  Gave us Keynesian economics.  Saw the beginning of the decline of the gold standard.  A deterioration of international trade.  A rise of protectionism and nationalism.  Punishing German reparations.  To pay for a war that they didn’t necessarily start.  Nor did they necessarily lose.  Which created a lot of anger in Germany.  And provided the seed for the Great Depression.

A set of entangling treaties brought nations eagerly into World War I.  There was great patriotic fervor.  And a belief that this war would be Napoleonic.  Some glorious battles.  With the victors negotiating a favorable peace.  Sadly, no one learned the lessons of the Crimean War (1853-1856).  Which killed approximately 600,000 (about 35% of those in uniform).  Or the American Civil War (1861-1865).  Which killed approximately 600,000 (about 20% of those in uniform).  The first modern wars.  Where the technology was ahead of the Napoleonic tactics of the day.  Modern rifled weapons made accurate killing weapons.  And the telegraph and the railroads allowed the combatants to rush ever more men into the fire of those accurate killing weapons.  These are the lessons they didn’t learn.  Which was a pity.  Because the weapons were much more lethal in World War I (1914-1918).  And far more advanced than the tactics of the day.  Which were still largely Napoleonic.  Mass men on the field of battle.  Fire and advance.  And close with the bayonet.  Which they did in World War I.  And these soldiers advanced into the withering fire of the new machine gun.  While artillery rounds fell around them.  Making big holes and throwing shredded shrapnel through flesh and bone.  WWI killed approximately 10,000,000 (about 15% of those in uniform).  And wounded another 20 million.  To do that kind of damage costs a lot of money.  Big money.  For bullets, shells, rifles, artillery, machine guns, warships, planes, etc., don’t grow on trees.  Which is why all nations (except the U.S.) went off of the gold standard to pay for this war.  To shake off any constraints to their ability to raise the money to wage war.  To let them borrow and print as much as they wanted.  Despite the effect that would have on their currency.  Or on foreign exchange rates.

As Countries abandoned the Gold Standard they depreciated their Currencies and wiped out People’s Life Savings

Well, the war had all but bankrupted the combatants.  They had huge debts and inflated currencies.  Large trade deficits.  And surpluses.  A great imbalance of trade.  And it was in this environment that they restored some measure of a gold standard.  Which wasn’t quite standard.  As the different nations adopted different exchange rates.  But they moved to get their financial houses back in order.  And the first order of business was to address those large debts.  And the ‘victors’ decided to squeeze Germany to pay some of that debt off.  Hence those punishing reparations.  Which the victors wanted in gold.  Or foreign currency.  Which made it difficult for Germany to return to the gold standard.  As the victors had taken most of her gold.  And so began the hyperinflation.  As the Germans printed Marks to trade for foreign currency.  Of course we know what happened next.  They devalued the Mark so much that it took wheelbarrows full of them to buy their groceries.  And to exchange for foreign currency.

Elsewhere, in the new Europe that emerged from WWI, there was a growth in regional banking.  Savvy bankers who were pretty good at risk evaluation.  Who were close to the borrowers.  And informed.  Allowing them to write good loans.  Meanwhile, the old institutions were carrying on as if it was still 1914.  Not quite as savvy.  And making bad loans.  The ones the more savvy bankers refused to write.  Weak banking regulation helped facilitate these bad lending practices.  Leaving a lot of banks with weak balance sheets.  Add in the hyperinflation.  Heavy debts.  Higher taxes (to reduce those debts).  Trade imbalances.  And you get a bad economy.  Where businesses were struggling to service their debt.  With many defaulting.  As a smaller bank failed a bigger bank would absorb it.  Bad loans and all.  Including an Austrian bank.  A pretty big one at that.  The largest in Austria.  Credit-Anstalt.  Which was ‘too big to fail’.  But failed anyway.  And when it did the collapse was heard around the world. 

As banks failed the money supply contracted.  Causing a liquidity crisis.  And deflation (less money chasing the same amount of goods).  Currency appreciation (further hurting a country’s balance of trade).  And low prices.  Which made it harder for borrowers to service their debt with the lower revenue they earned on those lower prices.  So there were more loan defaults.  Bank runs.  And bank failures.  Spreading the contagion to Amsterdam.  To Warsaw.  Germany.  Latvia.  Turkey.  Egypt.  Britain.  Even the U.S.  Soon countries abandoned the gold standard.  So they could print money to save the banks.  Lower interest rates.  Depreciate their currencies.  And wipe out large swathes of wealth denominated in that now depreciated currency.  What we call Keynesian policies.  People’s life savings became a fraction of what they were.  Making for a longer working life.  And a more Spartan retirement. 

Abandoning the Gold Standard didn’t fix the U.S. Economy in 1971

Meanwhile in the U.S. the government was destroying the U.S. economy.  Trying to protect domestic prices they passed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff.  Raising the price for businesses and consumers alike.  And kicking off a trade war.  Both of which greatly reduced U.S. exports.  New labor legislation keeping wages above market prices while all other prices were falling.  And higher taxes to pay for New Deal social programs.  Wiping out business profits and causing massive unemployment.  Then came the fall in farm prices due to increased farm productivity.  Thanks to farmers mechanizing their farms and greatly increasing their harvests.  Thus lowering prices.  Making it hard to service the bank loans they got to pay for that mechanization.  Thus leading to bank failures in the farming regions.  That spread to the cities.  Causing a liquidity crisis.  And deflation.

Then came Credit-Anstalt.  And all the woe that followed.  Which caused a speculative run in Britain.  Which made the British decide to leave the gold standard.  To stem the flow of gold out of their country.  Which destroyed whatever confidence was still remaining in their banking system.  People thought that the U.S. would be next.  But the Americans defended the dollar.  And instead raised interest rates (by reducing the money supply).  To keep the dollar valuable.  And to protect the exchange rate.  Making it less attractive to exchange cash for gold.  And to restore confidence in the banking system.  Of course, this didn’t help the liquidity crisis.  Which Keynesians blame for the length and the severity of the Great Depression.

Of course, it wasn’t the gold standard that caused the fall of Credit-Anstalt.  It was poor lending practices.  A weak banking regulation that allowed those poor lending practices.  And a lot of bad government policy throughout Europe.  Especially those punishing German reparations.  And the gold standard didn’t cause the economic collapse in the United States.  For it worked well the previous decade.  Providing all the capital required to produce the Roaring Twenties that modernized the world.  It was government and their intrusive policies into the free market that caused the economic collapse.  And abandoning the gold standard wouldn’t have changed that.  Or made the economy better.  And we know this because leaving the gold standard didn’t solve all of the countries woes in 1971.  Because the government was still implementing bad Keynesian policies.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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