For Proof that President Obama’s Economic Policies are bad just look at Singapore

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 30th, 2013

Week in Review

Singapore is one of the Four Asian Tigers.  The economy boomed in Hong Kong, South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore because of their business-friendly environments.  Free markets.  And free trade.  Which is why the Four Asian Tigers had some of the strongest economies in the world.  Because the government did not interfere with market forces.  Like they are doing more and more in the United States.  And if we compare the two economies we can see which system is better (see More than half of employees in Singapore planning to leave jobs: Survey by Cheng Jingjie posted 3/28/2013 on Breaking News Singapore).

More than one in two employees in Singapore are planning to leave their jobs within the next two years because of unsatisfactory compensation.

This isn’t a problem they’re having in the United States.  Americans may be unhappy in their jobs and dissatisfied with their compensation.  But all they do is complain.  They’re not leaving their jobs.  Because unlike in Singapore there are no other jobs to go to.  Because President Obama, unlike in Singapore, is trying to fix the economy with government spending.  And new regulations.  Making the current recovery the worst recovery since that following the Great Depression.  While Singapore’s economy hums along the United States have seen people disappear from the labor force since 2008.  Which is why no one is threatening to leave their jobs.  No.  In the United States their biggest concern is getting laid off.  No matter how unhappy or how poorly paid they are.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , ,

GDP Growth, Recession, Depression and Recovery

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 18th, 2013

Economics 101

Gross Domestic Product is basically Consumer Spending and Government Spending

In the 1980 presidential campaign Ronald Reagan said, “A recession is when your neighbor loses his job.  A depression is when you lose yours.  And a recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his.”  A powerful statement.  And one that proved to be pretty much true.  But don’t look for these definitions in an economics textbook.  For though they connect well to us the actual definitions are a little more complex.  And a bit abstract.

There is a natural ebb and flow to the economy.  We call it the business cycle.  There are good economic times with unemployment falling.  And there are bad economic times with unemployment rising.  The economy expands.  And the economy contracts.  The contraction side of the business cycle is a recession.  And it runs from the peak of the expansion to the trough of the contraction.  A depression is basically a recession that is really, really bad.

But even these definitions are vague.  Because getting an accurate measurement on economic growth isn’t that easy.  There’s gross domestic product (GDP).  Which is the sum total of final goods and services.  Basically consumer spending and government spending.  Which is why the government’s economists (Keynesians) and those in the Democrat Party always say cutting government spending will hurt the economy.  By reducing GDP.  But GDP is not the best measurement of economic activity.

Even though Retail Sales may be Doing Well everyone up the Production Chain may not be Expanding Production

One problem with GDP is that the government is constantly revising the numbers.  So GDP doesn’t really provide real-time feedback on economic activity.  The organization that defines the start and end points of recessions is the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER).  And they often do so AFTER the end of a recession.  One metric they use is GDP growth.  If it’s negative for two consecutive quarters they call it a recession.  But if there is a significant decline in economic activity that lasts a few months or more they may call that a recession, too.  Even if there aren’t two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth.  If GDP falls by 10% they’ll call that a depression.

There’s another problem with using GDP data.  It’s incomplete.  It only looks at consumer spending.  It doesn’t count any of the upper stages of
production.  The wholesale stage.  The manufacturing stage.  And the raw commodities stage.  Where the actual bulk of economic activity takes place.  In these upper stages.  Which Keynesian economists ignore.  For they only look at aggregate consumer spending.  Which they try to manipulate with interest rates.  And increasing the money supply.  To encourage more consumer spending.  But there is a problem with Keynesian economics.  It doesn’t work.

When economic activity slows Keynesian economic policies say the government should increase spending to pick up the slack.  So they expand the money supply.  Lower interest rates.  And spend money.  Putting more money into the hands of consumers.  So they can go out and spend that money.  Thus stimulating economic activity.  But expanding the money supply creates inflation.  Which raises prices.  So consumers may be spending that stimulus money but those businesses in the higher stages of production know what’s coming.  Higher prices.  Which means people will soon be buying less.  And they know once these people spend their stimulus money it will be gone.  As will all that stimulated activity.  So even though retail sales may be doing well everyone up the production chain may not be expanding production.  Instead, wholesalers will draw down their inventories.  And not replace them.  So they will buy less from manufacturers.  Who will buy fewer raw commodities.

The continually falling Labor Force Participation Rate suggests the 2007-2009 Recession hasn’t Ended

So retail sales could be doing well during an economic contraction.  For awhile.  But everything above retail sales will already be hunkering down for the coming recession.  Cutting production.  And laying off people. Making unemployment another metric to measure a recession by.  If the unemployment rate rose by, say, 1.5 points during a given period of time the economy may be in a recession.  But there is a problem with using the unemployment rate.  The official unemployment rate (the U-3 number) doesn’t count everyone who can’t find a full-time job.

U-3 only counts those people who are looking for work.  They don’t count those who take a lower-paying part-time job because they can’t find a full-time job.  And they don’t count people who give up looking for work because there just isn’t anything out there.  Getting by on their savings.  Their spouse’s income.  Even cashing in their 401(k).  People doing this are an indication of a horrible economy.  And probably a pretty bad recession.  But they don’t count them.  Making the U-3 unemployment rate understate the true unemployment.  A better metric is the labor force participation rate.  The percentage of those who are able to work who are actually working.  A falling unemployment rate is good.  But if that happens at the same time the labor force participation rate is falling the economy is still probably in recession.  Despite the falling unemployment rate.

The NBER sifts through a lot of data to decide whether the economy is in recession or not.  Do politics enter their decision-making process?  Perhaps.  For they said the 2007-2009 recession ended in 2009.  The U-3 unemployment rate had fallen.  And GDP growth returned to positive territory.  But the labor force participation rate continued to fall.  Meaning people were disappearing from the labor force.  Indicating that the 2007-2009 recession hasn’t really ended.  In fact, one could even say that we have been in a depression.  For not only did a lot of our neighbors lose their jobs.  A lot of us lost our jobs, too.  And because the president who presided over the worst economic recovery since the Great Depression didn’t lose his job in 2012, there has been no recovery.  So given our current economic picture the best metric to use appears to be what Ronald Reagan told us in 1980.  Which means things aren’t going to get better any time soon.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

The Repeal of Obamacare now Rests with the People

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 8th, 2012

Week in Review

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled.  And found the unconstitutional Obamacare constitutional.  So that leaves the repeal of Obamacare to the people.  Starting at the state level.  Then following that up this November.  And after these five simple steps Obamacare will be no more (see How to Repeal Obamacare by Peter Roff posted 7/3/2012 on U.S. News & World Report).

1.  Stop your state from setting up an ObamaCare exchange.

2.  Get your state to opt out of the ObamaCare Medicaid expansion.

3.  Elect four additional pro-repeal Senators, which would give us a pro-repeal majority.

4.  Retain and if possible enlarge the existing House majority, which is committed to full repeal.

5.  Elect a president who will sign the full repeal bill.

Simple, yes?  And once we repeal Obamacare businesses will know their labor costs again and start hiring people.  Ending the Great Recession.  Finally.  And unlike the Recover Summer we’ll enjoy a true recovery.  Starting in November.  Growing during the winter.  And blossoming in the spring.  Giving us a summer of economic activity we haven’t seen in over four years.  And all this will take is five simple steps.

Let the steps begin.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , ,

Recession and Depression

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 25th, 2012

Economics 101

A Depression is an Exceptionally Bad Recession 

When campaigning for the presidency Ronald Reagan explained what a recession, a depression and a recovery were.  He said a recession is when your neighbor loses his job.  A depression is when you lose your job.  And a recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his job.  This was during the 1980 presidential election.  Where Reagan included that famous question at the end of one of the debates.  “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?”  And the answer was “no.”  Ronald Reagan surged ahead of Jimmy Carter after that and won by a landslide.  And he won reelection by an even bigger landslide in 1984.

There are a couple of ways to define a recession.  Falling output and rising unemployment.  Two consecutive quarters of falling Gross Domestic Product (GDP).  A decline in new factory orders.  The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) in Cambridge, Massachusetts, officially marks the start and end dates of all U.S. recessions.  They consider a lot of economic data.   It’s not an exact science.  But they track the business cycle.  That normal economic cycle between economic expansion and economic contraction.  The business cycle has peaks (expansion) and troughs (contraction).  A recession is the time period between a peak and a trough.  From the time everyone is working and happy and buying a lot of stuff.  Through a period of layoffs where people stop buying much of anything.  Until the last layoff before the next economic expansion begins.

A depression has an even more vague science behind it.  We really don’t have a set of requirements that the economy has to meet to tell us we’re in a depression.  Since the Great Depression we haven’t really used the word anymore for a depression is just thought of as an exceptionally bad recession.  Some have called the current recession (kicked off by the subprime mortgage crisis) a depression.  Because it has a lot of the things the Great Depression had.  Bank failures.  Liquidity crises.  A long period of high unemployment.  In fact, current U.S unemployment is close to Great Depression unemployment if you measure more apples to apples and use the U-6 rate instead of the official U-3 rate that subtracts a lot of people from the equation (people who can’t find work and have given up looking, people working part-time because they can’t find a full-time job, people underemployed working well below their skill level, etc.).  For these reasons many call the current recession the Great Recession.  To connect it to the Great Depression.  Without calling the current recession a depression.

Whether Inventories sell or not Businesses have to Pay their People and their Payroll Taxes

So what causes a recession?  Good economic times.  Funny, isn’t it?  It’s the good times that cause the bad times.  Here’s how.  When everyone has a job who wants a job a lot of people are spending money in the economy.  Creating a lot of economic activity.  Businesses respond to this.  They increase production.  Even boost the inventories they carry so they don’t miss out on these good times.  For the last thing a business wants is to run out of their hot selling merchandise when people are buying like there is no tomorrow.  Businesses will ramp up production.  Add overtime such as running production an extra day of the week.  Perhaps extend the working day.  Businesses will do everything to max out their production with their current labor force.  Because expanding that labor force will cause big problems when the bloom is off of the economic rose.

But if the economic good times look like they will last businesses will hire new workers.  Driving up labor costs as businesses have to pay more to hire workers in a tight labor market.  These new workers will work a second shift.  A third shift.  They will fill a manufacturing plant expansion.  Or fill a new plant.  (Built by a booming construction industry.  Just as construction workers are building new houses in a booming home industry.)  Businesses will make these costly investments to meet the booming demand during an economic expansion.  Increasing their costs.  Which increases their prices.  And as businesses do this throughout the economy they begin to produce even more than the people are buying.  Inventories begin to build up until inventories are growing faster than sales.  The business cycle has peaked.  And the economic decline begins.

Inventories are costly.  They produce no revenue.  But incur cost to warehouse them.  Worse, businesses spent a lot of money producing these inventories.  Or I should say credit.  Typically manufacturers buy things and pay for them later.  Their accounts payable.  Which are someone else’s accounts receivable.  A lot of bills coming due.  And a lot of invoices going past due.  Because businesses have their money tied up in those inventories.  But one thing they can’t owe money on is payroll.  Whether those inventories sell or not they have to pay their people on time or face some harsh legal penalties.  And they have to pay their payroll taxes (Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, withholding taxes, etc.) for the same reasons.  As well as their Workers’ Compensation insurance.  And they have to pay their health care insurance.  Labor is costly.  And there is no flexibility in paying it while you’re waiting for that inventory to sell.  This is why businesses are reluctant to add new labor and only do so when there is no other way to keep up with demand.

The Fed tries to Remove the Recessionary Side of the Business Cycle with Small but ‘Manageable’ Inflation

As sales dry up businesses reduce their prices to unload that inventory.  To convert that inventory into cash so they can pay their bills.  At the same time they are cutting back on production.  With sales down they are only losing money by building up inventories of stuff no one is buying.  Which means layoffs.  They idle their third shifts.  Their second shifts.  Their overtime.  They shut down plants.  A lot of people lose jobs.  Sales fall.  And prices fall.  As businesses try to reduce their inventories.  And stay in business by enticing the fewer people in the market place to buy their reduced production at lower prices.

During the economic expansion costs increased.  Labor costs increased.  And prices increased.  Because demand was greater than supply.  Businesses incurred these higher costs to meet that demand.  During the contraction these had to fall.  Because supply exceeded demand.  Buyers could and did shop around for the lowest price.  Without fear of anything running out of stock and not being there to buy the next day.  Or the next week.  And when prices stop falling it marks the end of the recession and the beginning of the next expansion.  When supply equals demand once again.  Prices, then, are key to the business cycle.  They rise during boom times.  And fall during contractions.  And when they stop falling the recession is over.  This is so important that I will say it again.  When prices stop falling a recession is over.

Jimmy Carter had such a bad economy because his administration still followed Keynesian economic policies.  Which tried to massage the business cycle by removing the contraction side of it.  By using monetary policy.  The Keynesians believed that whenever the economy starts to go into recession all the government has to do is to print money and spend it.  And the government printed a lot of money in the Seventies.  So much that there was double digit inflation.  But all this new money did was raise prices during a recession.  Which only made the recession worse.  This was the turning point in Keynesian economics.  And the end of highly inflationary policies.  But not the end of inflationary policies.

The Federal Reserve (the Fed) still tries to remove the recessionary side of the business cycle.  And they still use monetary policy to do it.  With a smaller but ‘manageable’ amount of inflation.  During the great housing bubble that preceded the subprime mortgage crisis and the Great Recession the Fed kept expanding the money supply to keep interest rates very low.  This kept mortgage rates low.  People borrowed money and bought big houses.  Housing prices soared.  These artificially low interest rates created a huge housing bubble that eventually popped.  And because the prices were so high the recession would be a long one to bring them back down.  Which is why many call the current recession the Great Recession.  Because we haven’t seen a price deflation like this since the Great Depression.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Obama Says Judge him on his Dismal Keynesian Economic Record

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 21st, 2011

Are you Better Off than you were 4 Years Ago?

People who live in economic houses made of cards shouldn’t blow too hard.  Or boast about future successes (see Obama: Judge me on economic progress by Richard Wolf posted 8/21/2011 on USA TODAY).

“Things would have been much worse has we not made those decisions, (but) that’s not that satisfying if you don’t have a job right now. And I understand that, and I expect to be judged a year from now on whether or not things have continued to get better.”

You shouldn’t boast about a successful track record before you have one.  That could come back to haunt you at the next election.  I mean, when your last three years or so in office haven’t been successful economically, why would you think year 4 would be any better?  In fact, the odds are good that someone will Ronald Reagan you if current trends continue.  When that candidate will ask the people, “Are you better off than you were 4 years ago?”

Businesses never, ever hire New Employees while the Economic Outlook is so Dismal

If the judges are American businesses their verdict is already in (see Moody’s chief economist: Lawmakers need to ‘get it together’ to save economy by Meghashyam Mali posted 8/21/2011 on The Hill).

Zandi pointed to positive signs for American businesses. They are “getting their cost structures down, getting their profitability up, getting their balance sheets in order,” he said.

While businesses are still reluctant to start hiring new workers, they had little reason to layoff employees, a sign we would avoid a second recession according to Zandi.

They’re doing things now that a business does during bad economic times.  Cut costs.  Increase productivity.  Avoid new debt.  Stockpile cash.  And never, ever hire new employees while the economic outlook is so dismal.

The Nice Thing about Bonuses is that you can pay your People Less 

And the bad jobs outlook isn’t just on Main Street America.  It goes all the way up to the fat cats on Wall Street (see Layoffs sweep Wall Street, along with low morale by Lauren Tara LaCapra posted 8/21/2011 on Reuters).

The planned cuts at Bank of America have pushed the number of financial sector layoffs this year to 18,252 — 6 percent higher than in the comparable period in 2010, according to Challenger, Gray & Christmas, an outplacement firm that keeps a daily tab on layoff announcements.

Some companies began the culling earlier this year — HSBC has already axed about 5,000 employees, with 25,000 more set to get pink slips by the end of 2012 — and others, such as Goldman Sachs, said that cuts will come by year’s end.

Even the Wall Street bailouts couldn’t save Wall Street.  Or all that quantitative easing.  The economy is tanking some three years later despite all of Obama‘s best efforts to stimulate a recovery.  In fact, it turns out that their best efforts are complicit in these Wall Street purges.

Changes in pay structures mandated in part by the Dodd-Frank financial reform laws have exacerbated the problem.

Banks that used to pay modest base salaries supplemented by opulent stock-and-option packages that encouraged meeting short-term performance goals now are weighting compensation toward base salary…

The shift erodes Wall Street’s former flexibility to lower end-of-year bonuses in bad times and forces a heavier reliance on layoffs.

The nice thing about bonuses is that you can pay your people less.  If you have a bad year, you don’t have to lay off your employees.  You just cut year-end bonuses.  Their base salaries are more than enough to live on.  And they are tickled pink to still have a job after a bad year.  Of course, when you remove bonuses from the picture that only leaves one way to cut costs to reflect declining business.  You have to cut people.  Which is never a good thing in a ‘relationship’ business.

It’s hard to build a level of trust and confidence in a relationship.  And the higher the dollar amounts the harder it is to build that trust and confidence.  It’s scary letting other people into your balance sheet.  Once you do you don’t want to see that person leave.  Because you don’t deal with a bank.  You deal with a person.  That person.  And when they leave there’s nothing but more uncertainty in an already uncertain economic climate.

Keynesian Economics was always about the Growth of Government

So it looks like the chances are good President Obama may get that question next year.  Because indications are that it won’t be better than when he took office in 2009 (see Mises on the Business Cycle by Dennis Sperduto posted 8/21/2011 on Ludwig von Mises Institute).

The economic and financial events of the last few weeks indicate that the economies of the United States and most of Europe remain quite weak, if not in outright recession. This situation comes after unprecedented fiscal and monetary “stimuli” by many governments that were strongly supported and recommended by the large majority of the economics profession, media commentators, and politicians. And of course, with economic conditions showing renewed weakness, the mainstream calls for additional stimuli of even larger magnitudes. The mainstream is unable or unwilling to abandon its Keynesian foundation, a system of thought that has been shown by many individuals associated with the Austrian School to be one of the great retrogressions in scientific economic thought in modern times.

Obama is a Keynesian.  His administration has adopted Keynesian policies.  And all of their Keynesian policies have failed thus far.  No matter how they try, try and try again, they will always fail, fail and fail again.  For Keynesian economics was never about economics.  Not to those in government.  For them it was always about the growth of government. 

Recessions never End because of Keynesian Stimulus, they End Despite Keynesian Stimulus

But the one flaw in their grand design is that the private sector funds everything.  Economic activity.  And government.  So the more government grows, the more wealth is transferred from the private sector to fund it.  Meaning that if the government grows the private sector must shrink.  For here it is simple zero-sum.  Which is why recessions never end because of Keynesian stimulus.  They end despite Keynesian stimulus.

So if the Obama administration moves forward with more of the same it should make the 2012 election come down to a simple question.  Are you better off than you were 4 years ago?  Even Obama is admitting that if things don’t improve over the next year he will be a one-term president.  And right now there’s nothing in the economic forecast that bodes well for a second term.  If he’s judged for his economic performance.  Which he is telling the voters to do in 2012.  As I’m sure they will be more than happy to oblige.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Team Obama Lying to Scare Americans to Increase the Debt Limit so they can Continue their Orgy of Spending

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 10th, 2011

Talking up the Horrible Economy in 2010

Back in August of 2010, Timothy Geithner took to the New York Times to tell everyone how wonderful the economic recovery was (see Welcome to the Recovery by Timothy Geithner posted 8/2/2010 on The New York Times).

The recession that began in late 2007 was extraordinarily severe, but the actions we took at its height to stimulate the economy helped arrest the freefall, preventing an even deeper collapse and putting the economy on the road to recovery…

Private job growth has returned — not as fast as we would like, but at an earlier stage of this recovery than in the last two recoveries. Manufacturing has generated 136,000 new jobs in the past six months…

Wow.  In only 6 months their policies have created 136,000 new jobs.  And their swift and bold action prevented the freefall loss of gosh knows how many jobs.  That’s good.  So how bad was that freefall?

The new data show that this recession was even deeper than previously estimated. The plunge in economic activity started an entire year before President Obama took office and was accelerating at the end of 2008, when G.D.P. fell at an annual rate of roughly 7 percent.

Panicked by the collapse in demand and financing and fearing a prolonged slump, the private sector cut payrolls and investment savagely. The rate of job loss worsened with time: by early last year, 750,000 jobs vanished every month. The economic collapse drove tax revenue down, pushing the annual deficit up to $1.3 trillion by last January.

Okay, first he has to get the obligatory blame George W. Bush first out of the way.  So then we get to the good news.  The amount of damage they prevented.  We were losing 750,000 jobs every month.  Which would be 4,500,000 in a 6-month period.  Humph.  Getting back 136,000 of the 4,500,000 jobs lost is being on the road to recovery?  That’s like one job back for every 33 lost.  Are you sure this is a recovery? 

Oh, and that $1.3 trillion deficit?  It wasn’t from a lack of revenue.  It was from an orgy of spending.

The economic rescue package that President Obama put in place was essential to turning the economy around. The combined effect of government actions taken over the past two years — the stimulus package, the stress tests and recapitalization of the banks, the restructuring of the American car industry and the many steps taken by the Federal Reserve — were extremely effective in stopping the freefall and restarting the economy.

According to a report released last week by Alan Blinder and Mark Zandi, advisers to President Bill Clinton and Senator John McCain, respectively, the combined actions since the fall of 2007 of the Federal Reserve, the White House and Congress helped save 8.5 million jobs and increased gross domestic product by 6.5 percent relative to what would have happened had we done nothing. The study showed that government action delivered a powerful bang for the buck, and that the bank rescue on its own will turn a profit for taxpayers.

A powerful bang for the buck?  I don’t know.  Saying how great your actions were by what didn’t happen is a bit spurious.  I mean, I could say that thanks to George W. Bush and the policies he implemented after 9/11 he saved the lives of 8.5 million Americans that would have otherwise died in terrorist attacks.  Simply by scaring a lot of bad guys from trying anything now that there was a new sheriff in town.  It’s as plausible as that Blinder and Zandi report.  You can’t prove either.  Or disprove either.  So it’s a license to lie.

Still Talking up the Horrible Economy in 2011

It’s almost been a year since Geithner’s NYT piece.  If he was right things should be a whole lot better now.  The Obama administration took full credit then for the ‘recovery’.  So the current economic numbers are now theirs.  Which means they can’t blame George W. Bush anymore.  And how are those numbers?  Still horrible (see You are what your record says you are by Conn Carroll posted 7/10/2011 on The Washington Examiner).

Last month, David Gregory tripped up new DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz up with a chart detailing President Obama’s economic record. It showed unemployment up 25 percent since Obama was inaugurated, debt up 35 percent, and gas up more than 100 percent. Wasserman Schultz lamely tried to argue that the economy was getting better, to which Gregory replied: “Americans don’t believe that’s the case.”

This Sunday was Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner’s turn and he fared no better. At one point he even blamed the weather for Obama’s terrible economic record.

The numbers are horrible now.  And they were horrible a year ago.  There’s been no recovery.  And all of the administration’s actions haven’t done anything but explode the federal debt.  Which is at a record high.  As are the deficits under Obama.  And what does Team Obama want to do about that?  Why, borrow some more.  To spend some more.  Of course.

The U.S. isn’t close to Running out of Money

Despite the great economic news last August and the current great news (per the Obama administration, not per reality), things are pretty bad on the debt front.  In fact, those rascally Republicans with their opposition to raising the debt limit may place this glorious economic recovery into jeopardy.  Worse, they may destroy America as we know it (see ‘No delaying’ deadline to lift US debt ceiling posted 7/10/2011 on the BBC).

The US faces running out of money and defaulting if Congress does not allow the government to take on more debt.

If no agreement is reached, the government would be unable to pay civil servants, government contractors, pensioners or holders of government debt.

Economists and the White House have warned that such a default could push the US back into recession and have a global economic impact.

This is actually BS.  And I don’t mean Barbara Streisand.  The federal government is awash in cash.  Just not enough to further increase spending.  How much?  Well, let’s look at some of the numbers per the Tax Policy Center.  Tax receipts (i.e., actual cash dollars the government collects) for the years 2008, 2009 and 2010 were $2.5 trillion, $2.1 trillion and $2.2 trillion, respectively.  That doesn’t include any borrowing.  That’s pure cash on the barrelhead.  That’s a lot of cash that can pay a lot of bills.  It’s in the neighborhood of $180 billion a month.  And the projection for 2011?  Holding steady at about $2.2 trillion.  Again, that’s cash flowing into Washington from taxpayers.  Nothing borrowed.  Or printed.

Despite this staggering amount of cash raining down on Washington it’s not enough.  For the years 2008, 2009 and 2010, the deficits were $458 billion, $1.4 trillion and $1.2 trillion, respectively.  And the projected deficit for 2011 is $1.6 trillion.  Again, it’s the orgy of spending that is the problem.  It’s not a revenue problem.  The U.S. isn’t close to running out of money.  Team Obama is just lying to try and scare the pants off of people to get them to hate Republicans.  And to pressure them to raise the debt limit.  So they can borrow more.  And go on another spending bender.

Green Energy can only Survive when heavily Subsidized by the Government 

So what, exactly, did they spend all that money on?  Well, there was the stimulus.  The financial and auto bailouts (which should have been left to the bankruptcy courts).  And all their tweaking of the private sector economy.  Especially the green one.  For that’s America’s future.  Green energy.  And they were going to help make it happen.  By subsidizing the crap out of it (see Michigan town shows promise and pitfalls of job retraining by Don Lee posted 7/10/2011 on The Los Angeles Times).

Uni-Solar began with a hiring surge that by 2009 had climbed to 422 workers… But the Greenville plant’s primary market is Europe, and when sales in Italy and France declined as a result of the recession and other factors, Uni-Solar cut back…

Greenville and Uni-Solar also were hurt because state and federal policies simply weren’t in place to support them. Unlike the United States, for instance, Canada subsidizes consumers who adopt solar power, but only if they buy solar panels with domestically manufactured contents…

Canada is not alone in adopting comprehensive programs of subsidies, tax provisions and other incentives to foster domestic industries. Germany has an elaborate program to support automobile, electronics and other manufacturing and to discourage its companies from moving operations overseas.

That’s right, the green energy sector can only survive when heavily subsidized by the government.  To help the green energy market compete with the more reliable and less expensive fossil fuel market.  In the U.S.  As well as in Europe.  Worse, all this government help has only created a green energy bubble.  Created a lot of supply for a demand that wasn’t there.  Just like this plant in Greenville, Michigan.

The only way to make Green Energy practical is to make Consumers pay more for Electricity

The U.S. should consider itself lucky that their government is cutting subsidies.  Because it at least gives consumers a chance at a better economy.  Perhaps Washington will cut its spending.  And let the taxpayers keep more of their money so they can make it in an economy with rising prices.  Unlike in the UK (see Power bills to soar by 30% in ‘green’ reforms by Rowena Mason and David Barrett posted 7/9/2011 on The Telegraph).

Costly new incentives to encourage energy companies to invest in renewable power sources such as wind farms will put an extra £160 a year on the average household bill over the next 20 years…

Mr Huhne is expected to announce on Tuesday that energy companies, such as Centrica and EDF, will get a fixed price for electricity generated from nuclear power and wind farms, which will be higher than the market price.

The financial incentives will be funded by consumers, who will see their electricity bills rise by 30 per cent over the next 20 years from an average of £493 per year to £655 per year.

You see, renewable energy is a money losing investment.  It’s just too costly.  So power companies won’t venture into these green markets unless someone makes it worth their while.  And in the UK the government is doing just that.  By giving them lucrative cash incentives.  Which the government will pay for via higher electricity bills.  Leaving the consumer with less money to live on in an economy with rising prices.

The costly package due to be outlined in full this week is designed to reassure generation companies that Britain is an attractive place to build nuclear power stations and wind farms.

Mr Huhne admitted in an interview with The Sunday Telegraph last year that there was no money available for direct state subsidies for a new generation of nuclear plants, so this week’s announcement sets out how consumers will shoulder the cost of incentives directly.

Yes, the only way to make green energy practical is to make consumers pay more for electricity.

The changes to be outlined by Mr Huhne this week will hand billions of pounds in subsidies to the energy companies and kick-start a construction programme creating thousands of jobs.

But combined with further green taxes, such as the European emissions trading scheme, and upgrades to Britain’s national grid the measures could see Britain’s gas and electricity bills rise by 50 per cent – or £500 per average household bill – according to Ofgem, the energy regulator.

Create ‘thousands of jobs’ by making all consumers live on less.  At least those who use electricity.

By the time you factor in the other costs of green living the average Briton could see a 50% increase in their utility costs.  Which is a staggering cost to pay for a few thousand jobs.  The economy, and the consumer, would be better off with coal.  It’s more reliable.  It’s cheaper.  And one plant out of site can provide power to hundreds of thousands.  Which is better than dotting the landscape with windmills as far as the eye can see.  To produce power only when the wind blows.

The Government has a Spending Addiction

Team Obama has made a mess of things with their orgy of spending.  More than tripled the deficit since coming into office.  Requiring ever more borrowing to ‘save the country’.  Which is, of course, a lie.  Washington is awash in cash.  Over $2 trillion a year.  And if that isn’t enough to pay the bills then this administration should just resign.

The economy is stalled.  The recession never ended.  Money poured into the green energy sector was money wasted.  And is only creating a green energy bubble by building supply for demand that isn’t there.  Like in Greenville, Michigan.  Yes, supply can create demand per Say’s Law.  If that supply is something that people want.  And that’s the problem.  People don’t want more expensive and less reliable energy.  Especially in an economy with rising prices.

The facts and figures all confirm one thing.  The U.S. has a spending problem.  Not a revenue problem.  The government is like an addict with a spending addiction.  Who will lie and say anything to satisfy that addiction.  Only this addict is worse than your run of the mill junkie.  For if Team Obama overdoses it will take a nation with it.  In fact, this administration is in such denial that perhaps an intervention is in order.  Which is really what the budget debate is.  The Republicans need to be strong.  For Obama.  And the nation.  They have to hold the line on the debt limit.  Do not give them more money to spend.  Because with over $2 trillion a year, they have enough already.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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