Electric Car Builder Tesla increases Battery Order by 900%

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 2nd, 2013

Week in Review

Say’s law states that supply creates its own demand.  Think of some of the greatest inventions in our life and you’ll see that Say’s law is true.  Today’s kitchens aren’t complete without a microwave oven.  Yet we didn’t demand a microwave oven.  Because we had no idea what it was until someone created it.  And told us how wonderful it was.  Then we started buying them.  The supply of microwaves came first.  The demand then followed.  Hence, supply created its own demand.  Just like Say’s law states.  You know who else believes in Say’s law?  Elon Musk.  The guy who founded PayPal.  SpaceX.  And Tesla Motors (see Tesla boosts battery order from Panasonic by Reuters posted 10/30/2013 on The Globe and Mail).

Tesla Motors Inc. will sharply increase the number of lithium ion battery cells it receives from Japan’s Panasonic Corp, in a deal that underscores the U.S. car maker’s confidence in the future of all-electric cars.

Electronics maker Panasonic, already Tesla’s primary supplier of lithium-ion batteries, will provide nearly 2 billion lithium ion cells to the car maker in the four years to 2017, the two companies said on Wednesday.

That is a big step-up from the 200 million cells Panasonic is expected to have supplied to Tesla in the two years ending this December.

The deal shows Tesla’s faith in its models despite slower-than-expected global sales of electric vehicles.

Going from 200 million to 2 billion?  That’s an increase of 900%.  It’s one thing to have faith and believe in your product.  Believing that your supply will create demand.  But there is another economic concept that may be pertinent here.  One from the Austrian school of economics.  Malinvestment.  Taking advantage of cheap capital and government subsidies to make bad investments.  Hence malinvestments.  For it is unlikely that any business is going to see a 900% sales growth in the coming year let alone the narrow niche market of electric cars.  Even Jean-Baptiste Say himself would probably say that’s some pretty wishful thinking that a 900% increase in supply will generate a corresponding demand.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

FT190: “The children are our future. God help us.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - October 4th, 2013

Fundamental Truth

Our Universities praise Government Intervention, Vilify Capitalism and Denigrate US History

I recently saw some students on television from our most prestigious universities.  I won’t say who or where they were because it doesn’t matter.  For they all pretty much think the same.  There were liberal Democrats.  And conservative Republicans.  Young people.  Just into their twenties.  They spoke of economics, health care, free markets, investing in education, etc.  Kids too young to have experienced life.  In fact, most were still on their parent’s health insurance policies.  But they knew everything there was to know.  Particularly the liberal Democrats.

In college kids don’t know anything.  That’s why they are there.  So someone can tell them all those things they don’t know.  The problem is this.  The people telling them what to think have a liberal bias.  It’s no secret.  The teachers’ unions demand pay and benefit packages well beyond what most people can get in the private sector.  The government let’s them gouge taxpayers.  And in return they teach our kids in public schools to become Democrat voters.  Then it’s on to college.  Where the anti-capitalist hippies of the Sixties went on to become college professors.  Who talked about the fairness in the former Soviet Union and the former East Germany.  Where they put people before profits.  Admiring their love of people.  And hatred of profits.  While glossing over on their oppressive police states, thought crimes, prisons for political dissidents, torture and wholesale executions.

These radical hippies took over higher education.  And wrote the curriculum.  Which praised government intervention into the free market economy.  Vilified capitalism.  And denigrated the United State’s role in history.  Programming our children to hate whatever they hate.  And to love what they love.  Even when the facts get in the way.  Which they can fix with a little history revisionism.

The Arts did Very Well during the Eighty thanks to the Generosity of Gainfully Employed People

They call the Eighties the decade of greed.  While at the same time calling President Reagan’s economic policies a failure.  Supply-side economics.  Of the Austrian school.  Everyone did well.  Everyone made money.  Which is why they were so materialistic.  Because they had good-paying jobs that allowed them to be materialistic.  Allowing them to buy Sony Walkmans and CD players.  Which everyone had to have.  Even though no one knew what they were before they hit the stores.  Proving Say’s law.

Say’s law is a part of supply-side economics.  In general it states that supply creates its own demand.  No one was clamoring for Sony Walkmans or CD players in the Eighties.  But when these companies explained how great they were all of a sudden we were demanding them.  Supply created demand.  Just as PC supply created PC demand.  PCs were on the market long before they were in everyone’s home.  It was a tough sell in the beginning.  Because no one knew what they would use them for.  But they have them now.  Just like the Internet.  For a generation who had just mastered the recording functions on their VCRs (video cassette recorders—what we used to record TV programs on before DVRs) the Internet was a confusing thing.  And many said “thank you, but no thanks.”  Then people began creating content and putting it on the World Wide Web.  Today, people can’t live without their Internet connection.  Again, supply created demand.

This is Say’s law in action.  Supply creates demand.  You make it easier for people to be creative and bring things to market and they will.  Two ways to do this is to lower tax rates and reduce the regulatory climate.  So people are more willing to take risks.  Which they will do if there is sufficient reward for taking that risk.  Reagan did both during the Eighties.  The economy exploded.  Everybody was working.  The jobs were so good that we had money for material comforts.  And generous donations.  The arts did very well during the Eighties thanks to the generosity of gainfully employed people.

Obamacare will take Money from the Young and Healthy to pay for the Old and Sick

But this isn’t what they’re teaching in our universities.  They say that Reagan did cut taxes and created an economic boom.  But at what cost?  For he had record deficits.  Because of those tax cuts.  Which is where that history revisionism comes in.  Yes, he cut tax rates.  And when he did tax receipts (actual money flowing into the treasury) nearly doubled.  But our universities don’t teach that.  As demonstrated whenever a liberal talks about Reaganomics.  Instead they attack Reagan.  Capitalism.  And Republicans in general.  Because they all believe that limited government is best.  Which threatens a ruling class.

Our universities teach our kids the economics school that benefits the ruling class.  By supporting an ever expanding government.  Keynesian economics.  Which has a proven track record of failure whenever we’ve tried it.  John Maynard Keynes himself advised FDR during the Great Depression.  FDR didn’t think much of Keynes.  But he liked his idea about government spending during times of recession.  Even though it only delayed the correction—and prolonged the recession—by interfering with market forces trying to correct market prices.  Giving us the Great Depression.  Keynesian economics also gave us the stagflation of the Seventies.  Japan’s Lost Decade in the Nineties.  The American dot-com bubble and recession in the Nineties/early 2000s.  The 2008 subprime mortgage crisis.  And the ongoing European sovereign debt crisis.  All of these crises have their roots in Keynesian economics.  The school of economics of the ruling class.  But what do they teach in college?  Free market capitalism is bad.  And Keynesian economics is gospel.

These twenty somethings were anxious to show how smart they were.  How in a mere 2-4 years of college they had learned everything there was to learn.  And could regurgitate the party line.  Rolling their eyes at the idiots around them.  Laughing with all-knowing condescension.  Praising President Obama.  Obamacare.  Believing that it will provide more for less.  When nothing in the world works that way.  More costs more.  Yet they naïvely bleat what they were taught.  These kids who haven’t opened up a letter from their private health insurer advising them that their premiums will rise by 50%, 75%, 100%, or more, to comply with Obamacare.  Because it costs more to have more.  And people now have to pay more even if they don’t want more.  In particular young people.  For Obamacare is a transfer program.  Where Obamacare will take money from the young and healthy (like these college students once they graduate) to pay for the old and sick.

These kids, of course, blame the Republicans for the government shutdown.  And that their concern for our deficits is silly.  For they believe we don’t have a deficit problem.  Yet the smaller Reagan deficits were the end of the world as we knew it.  And they don’t have a problem with members of Congress and their staff getting subsidies to pay for their Obamacare.  As paying for their Cadillac health care plans with their six-figure salaries would have been too much of a burden for them.  And beneath them.  So we should pity them while record numbers of Americans have disappeared from the labor force.  Especially during the government shutdown.  Where the grooms of the stool may not be there for them.  Forcing the ruling class to wipe their own bottoms after they go potty.

This is what government and the political left is turning into.  A ruling class.  The very thing we fought our independence from.  And they are getting away with this because they control education.  And because they do they can revise history.  And change their failures to successes.  And change conservative successes to failures.  All you need are fresh young minds to corrupt.  And corrupt they do.  These kids talk like they know everything.  But they know nothing.  Which is sad.  For the children are our future.  God help us.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Say’s Law

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 2nd, 2013

Economics 101

(originally published August 6, 2012)

Keynesians believe if you Build Demand Economic Activity will Follow

People hate catching a common cold.  And have long wanted a cure for the common cold.  For a long time.  For hundreds of years.  But no one had ever filled this incredible demand.  All this time doctors and scientists still haven’t been able to figure that one out.  Despite knowing with that incredible demand, and our patent rights, whoever does figure that one out will become richer than Bill Gates.  Which is quite the incentive for figuring out the ingredients to make one little pill.  So why hasn’t anyone found the cure for the common cold?

There are many reasons.  But let’s just ignore them.  Like a Keynesian economist ignores a lot of things in their economic formulas.  In fact, let’s try and enter the head of some Keynesian economists.  And have them answer the question why there isn’t a cure for the common cold.  Based on their economic analysis you might hear them say that we have a cure for the common cold.  Because a high demand makes anything happen.  Or you might hear them say we don’t have a cure because enough people haven’t caught a cold yet.  And that we need to get more people to catch colds so we increase the demand for a cure.

Keynesians believe if you build demand economic activity will follow.  Like in that movie where they build a baseball diamond in a cornfield and those dead baseball players come back to play on it.  So Keynesians believe in government spending.  And love stimulus spending.  As well as taxing people to give their money to other people to spend.  Because having money to spend stimulates demand.  Consumers will consume things.  And increase consumption.  So suppliers will bring more things to market.  And create more jobs to meet that consumption demand.  Unless people save that money.  Which is something Keynesians hate.  Because saving reduces consumption.   Which is about the worst thing you could do in the universe of Keynesian economics.  Save money.  For in that universe spending trumps saving.  In fact, spending trumps everything.  No matter how you create that spending.  Keynesians actually believe taxing people so they can pay other people to dig a ditch and then fill that ditch back in stimulates economic activity.  Because these ditch diggers/fillers will take their paycheck and spend it.

Today People wait Anxiously for the next Apple Release to Learn what the Next Thing is that they Must Have

Of course there is a problem with this economic theory.  When you take money away from others they haven’t created new economic activity.  They just transferred that spending to someone else.  The people who earned that money spend less while the people who didn’t earn it spend more.  It’s a wash.  Some spending goes down.  While some spending goes up.  Actually there is a net loss in economic activity.  Because that money has to pass through government hands.  Where some of it sticks.  Because bureaucrats have to eat, too.  So the people receiving this money don’t receive as much as what was taxed away.  So Keynesian stimulus doesn’t really stimulate.  It actually reduces economic activity from what it might have been.  Because of the government’s cut.

And it gets worse.  Because this consumption demand doesn’t really create jobs.  We get nothing new out of it.  What do people demand?  Things they see.  Things they know about.  For it is hard to demand something that doesn’t exist.  You see a commercial for another incredible Apple product and you want it.  Thanks to some great advertising that explained why you must have it.  In other words, when you give money to people all they will do is buy things they’ve always wanted.  Things that already exist.  Old stuff.  It’s sort of the chicken and the egg thing.  Which came first?  Wanting something?  Or the thing that people want?

Raising taxes on Apple to create a more egalitarian society by redistributing their wealth will let people buy more of the old stuff.  But it won’t help Apple create more new things to bring to market.  Things we don’t even know about yet.  If we tax them so much that it leaves little left for them to invest in research and development how are they going to develop new things?  Things we don’t even know about yet?  Things that we will learn that we must have?  Once upon a time no one was asking for portable cassette players.  Then Sony came out with the Walkman.  And everyone had to have one.  Once upon a time there were no MP3 players.  No smartphones.  No tablet computers.  Now people must have these things.  After their manufacturers told us why we must have them.  Today people wait anxiously for the next Apple release to learn what the next thing is that they must have.

Say’s Law states that Supply Creates Demand

Supply leads demand.  We can’t ask for the unknown.  We can only ask for what the market has shown us.  Which is why Keynesian economics doesn’t work.  Because focusing on demand doesn’t work.  Giving people money to spend doesn’t stimulate creativity in the market place.  Because that money was taxed out of the market place.   Reducing profits.  Leaving less for businesses to invest into research and development.  And reducing their incentive to take big risks to bring the next big thing to market.  Like a phone you can talk to and ask questions.  Again something no one was demanding.  But now it’s something everyone wants.

Jean-Baptiste Say (1767–1832) was a French economist.  Another brilliant French mind that contributed to the Enlightenment.  And helped advance Western Civilization.  He observed how supply led demand.  Understood production was key in the economy.  He knew to create economic activity you had to focus on the producers.  Not the consumers.  Because if we encourage brilliant minds to bring brilliant things to market the demand will follow.  As history has shown.  And continues to show.  Every time a high-tech company brings something new to market that they have to explain to us before we realize we must have it.  Or said in another way, supply creates demand.  A little law of economics that we call Say’s law.

If Keynesian economics worked no one would have to have a job.  The government could print money for everyone.  And the people could take their government dollars and consume whatever was in the market place.  Which, of course, would be pretty sparse if no one worked.  If there were no Steve Jobs out there thinking of brilliant things to bring to market.  Because supply creates demand.  Demand doesn’t create supply.  For fists full of money won’t stimulate any economic activity if there is nothing to buy.  So using Keynesian stimulus as a cure for a recession is about as effective as someone’s homemade cure for the common cold.  You take the homemade concoction and in a week or two it cures you.  Of course, the cold just ran its course.  Which is how recessions end.  After they run their course.  Which can be a short course if there isn’t too much Keynesian intervention.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

FT171: “The IRS scandal shows why conservatives must hide in the closet while liberals enjoy their free speech.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - May 24th, 2013

Fundamental Truth

There is no Free Speech in the Workplace these Days unless You’re a Liberal

You’ve probably noticed something in today’s workplace.  You can tell who the liberals are.  And you have a pretty good idea who the moderates and conservatives are.  How?  Easy.  Liberals are very outspoken in the workplace.  They have no problem talking politics.  Or making nasty comments about conservatives.  Especially the Tea Party conservatives.  Who they will openly disparage in the most vulgar terms.  Especially when talking to fellow liberals.  And they will always have a snide remark for the conservatives in the workplace.

Moderates, on the other hand, are friendly and easy going.  They prefer to avoid politics.  And will be friendly with people on both sides of the aisle.  While conservatives will be polite and respectful to their coworkers.  Avoiding politics for the most part.  But when they do talk politics they will lower their voice, look to see who is within earshot and will only talk politics with a fellow conservative.  Why is this?

Because there is no free speech in the workplace these days.  Unless you’re a liberal.  For a liberal can call George W. Bush an idiot.  They can call the American people who elected him idiots.  And can say that he was an illegitimate president because of that fiasco in Florida and those hanging chads.  Which, incidentally, had Al Gore won they would never have counted hanging chads to determine how many votes to reverse because they thought the voters were confused.  But if you call President Obama an idiot in the workplace they will call you a racist.  And they may discipline you for a hate crime.  They may even do this if you criticize his failed Keynesian economic policies.  Which they will still call racist.  And a hate crime.

Liberals believe that their Stubbornness and Narrow-Mindedness is Open-Minded and Enlightened

And it’s difficult for a conservative to have liberal friends.  For if they know you are conservative it won’t be long before one of them will say something about how you want to take food away from children.  Or how you want to screw the working people to give rich people a tax break.  Or how you’re a racist.  They’ll say it in a joking manner.  Drawing laughs from others in the group.  But you don’t dare criticize them.  You don’t ask them to explain why they hold a particular view or opinion.  Not if you want to keep them as a friend.  For they can joke about how uninformed and out of touch you are.  But they’ll never be able to explain why they hold a particular view or opinion.  For they are most likely just repeating what they heard or saw in the popular culture.  Or heard in a union meeting.

You may have all the history in the world on your side.  You may be current with all the economic and financial issues of the day.  You may even have a degree in history or economics.  It won’t matter.  You can cite Adam Smith, Montesquieu, David Ricardo, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, etc., all day long.  But it won’t matter.  You can explain Say’s law and prove it in contemporary terms how supply creates its own demand.  For example, no one was demanding the Internet.  In fact, when it first came around it took a long time to convince people of its value.  The supply (the Internet) came first.  Then the demand (our enjoyment of the World Wide Web) followed.  Eventually.  Proving Say’s law.  But it just won’t matter.  Because your liberal friends will just laugh with all-knowing condescension at how uninformed and out of touch you are.  Then they may just get mean.  And start with the name calling.

Which is why there are closet-conservatives.  While there is no such thing as a closet-liberal.  Because a liberal doesn’t have to be guarded about what they say.  But a conservative does.  A conservative cares deeply about where the country is heading by following the failed Keynesian policies of the past.  They would like to engage in the political process.  To engage their friends in debate.  To try and persuade them to change their political views.  But their friends don’t want their views or opinions challenged.  And will resent you for even trying.  While being exasperated that you won’t change your views and opinions to match theirs.  Calling you stubborn and narrow-minded.  While they believe that their stubbornness and narrow-mindedness is open-minded and enlightened.

Does the IRS’ Suppression of the Conservative Voice during the 2012 Election make the Obama Presidency Illegitimate?

A conservative cannot win by coming out of the closet.  Not in today’s workplace.  Or in his or her circle of friends.  Even if you have a good liberal friend where you can both speak your minds because your liberal friend will have liberal friends.  How many times have you been at a party with your liberal friend and all of a sudden year hear a snide remark about your political beliefs from a complete stranger?  It makes you wonder how that even came up in conversation.  And you wonder what else your friend told this stranger about you.  And who else knows your ‘dirty little secret’.  That you are a conservative.

This is where it gets a little scary.  For in your liberal circle of friends there could be some government workers.  Maybe an IRS agent.  And the last thing you want to make public is that you’re a Tea Party conservative making donations to conservative candidates.  Because when it comes to party politics it’s a little like living in a police state if you’re a conservative with money.  For money equals free speech today.  Because money pays for political ads.  Like those ads the Democrats flood the airwaves with during an election campaign.  For they are well funded.  They have rich Hollywood elites at thousand-dollars-a-plate fundraisers.  Public school teachers.  And public sector union members.  Who all send a portion of their union dues to Democrat coffers.  Whether they want to or not.  So some conservatives want to donate money, too.  To level the playing field.  And get their voice heard against this well-funded liberal drumbeat.  But making political donations can bring an unpleasant spotlight on you.

Case in point Frank Vandersloot.  CEO of Melaleuca.  Which made a million dollar donation to a super PAC supporting Mitt Romney in the 2012 election.  Just as liberal Bill Maher made a million dollar donation to a super PAC supporting President Obama.  Soon a Democrat website for the reelection of President Obama published Vandersloot’s name.  And unleashed a personal assault on him.  And his business.  Business then suffered.  Soon after the IRS audited him.  Twice.  And the Department of Labor audited him.  Something Bill Maher did not suffer for his million dollar donation to a super PAC.  It cost him almost $80,000 in legal fees.  But the audits came up empty.  No fines.  Or penalties.  In fact the IRS owes him a refund.  Which he was still waiting for as of May 2013.

Was this harassment of Vandersloot just a coincidence?  The recent IRS scandal suggests that it wasn’t.  And shows why conservatives must hide in the closet while liberals enjoy their free speech.  For when conservatives donate to super PACs they don’t get treated like Bill Maher.  They get treated like Frank Vandersloot.  Which really dissuaded other conservatives from coming forward to exercise their free speech.  Resulting in suppressing the conservative voice during the 2012 election.  And suppressing, as a result, conservative voter turnout.  Suggesting that the Obama presidency is the illegitimate presidency.  Not the Bush presidency.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

FT159: “There’s more to know than most people know.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 1st, 2013

Fundamental Truth

Some want to Lower the Voting Age despite our Teens’ Penchant for Making Poor Decisions

Parents can’t tell their kids anything.  Because they know everything already.  Despite doing a lot of stupid stuff.  They smoke cigarettes.  Do drugs.  Binge drink.  Drink and drive.  Have unprotected sex.  And a whole lot of other things that can have lasting consequences.  Consequences such as cancer.  A drug addiction.  An arrest for driving under the influence.  An arrest for vehicular manslaughter.  Catching a venereal disease.  Becoming a single mother while still in high school.  Or becoming a single mother with a venereal disease.  While still in high school.

Teens and young adults have a history of making poor decisions.  Why?  Is it because they are stupid?  No.  It’s because they are young.  Inexperienced.  And grow up in an environment that tells them they are far wiser than they are.  As they grew up people constantly told them that they are smart.  They are wise.  And that we need to listen to what they say.  For they are our future.  Some even wanting to bring them into the political process earlier.  By lowering the voting age.  Which is an odd thing to do.  Considering their penchant for making poor decisions.

Of course kids are all for lowering the voting age.  For if they could vote earlier there would probably be more than 2 states that have decriminalized marijuana by now.  And they could lower the drinking age, too.  For let’s face it kids are going to binge drink no matter what we say.  Just as they are going to smoke marijuana and have sex.  So we might as well help them do these things.  And lowering the voting age will be a step towards making that happen.

The Founding Fathers wanted a Government of the People not a Ruling Elite in a Faraway Place telling them what’s Best for Them

So we know what kids want.  Less parenting.  And more fun.  They want the freedom to enjoy whatever they want to enjoy.  And believe they are enlightened like our Founding Fathers were when they wanted the freedom to do what they wanted to do.  Of course, the Founding Fathers’ Enlightenment was a lot different from that of the kids’ today.  The Founding Fathers were interested in science, economics and religious freedom.  They were familiar with the history of Greece and Rome.  Magna Carta.  The Protestant Reformation.  The English Civil War.  They were proud of their membership in the British Empire.  The most enlightened and free empire, or country, in the world.  Thanks to their representative government.  But when Parliament did not let them have any representation in that house while passing laws to govern them, well, they didn’t love the British Empire as much as they once did.

The Founding Fathers weren’t fans of mercantilism.  Then the dominant economic policy of the day.  European powers fought each other for colonies.  Their colonies shipped raw materials back to the mother country.  Who then used them to manufacture finished goods.  That they then sold to the world.  And to their colonies.  Keeping the net flow of gold and silver flowing to the mother country.  While exporting more finished goods than they imported.  With the state helping a few well-connected domestic businesses.  Keeping the state coffers flush with money.  While the people paid higher prices than they normally would have paid.  Thanks to those government policies favoring the well-connected businesses.  Basically like what China is doing today.  Maintaining a strong export economy with cheap labor.  That doesn’t benefit the Chinese masses all that much.  Creating basically two Chinas.  The rich in the cities.  And the poor and impoverished everywhere else.

The Founding Fathers wanted liberty.  Political liberty.  And economic liberty.  Laissez-faire capitalism.  Where the people taking the greatest risk profited the most.  Not the state.  They wanted a limited federal government.  Just large enough to protect the nation.  To treat with other nations.  Those things best suited for the federal government.  While the vast majority of power belonged to the states.  Closer to the people.  And not in some distant land.  They wanted a government of the people.  Not a ruling elite in a faraway place telling them what’s best for them.  That’s why they fought for their independence from a distant power in the first place.  The British Empire.  And they sure didn’t want to trade one distant power oppressing them for another.  They didn’t want money corrupting the federal government.  They wanted the seat of financial power and the seat of government power separated.  For the greatest abuses of power came when wealth joined power in the Old World capitals.  London.  Paris.  Madrid.  Thomas Jefferson wanted the federal capital as far from the bankers and merchants in New York as possible.  Which is why they placed the new federal capital in a swamp on the Potomac River.

Sadly, those who Know the Least often determine who Wins Elections

Those who have studied history understand how the United States came to be.  And what made it the world’s number one economic power.  Laissez-faire capitalism.  Free trade.  Sound money.  In particular the gold standard.  They saw history prove Say’s Law.  Supply creates its own demand.  No one demanded personal computers or the Internet.  But when those who brought these to the market place showed how wonderful they were demand soon followed.  They saw history prove David Ricardo’s comparative advantage.  How free trade lets nations produce what they do most efficiently and trade for what they don’t.  Thus increasing the economies of all nations trading freely.

People who know history understand that the prevalent economic policy today, Keynesian economics, is a failed policy.  For Keynesian economic policies are more like mercantilism than free market capitalism.  Calling for more government intervention into the market.  Inflationary monetary policy (i.e., printing money).  As well as tax and spend fiscal policies so the government can redistribute wealth.  So the government can choose winners and losers.  Not the free market.  Policies that all go against what made America the world’s number one economic power.  The Seventies, a time when the Keynesians got everything they wanted when President Nixon decoupled the dollar from gold, saw double-digit inflation, high unemployment and a stagnant economy.  Everything the Keynesians tried failed to improve the economy.  In fact, their policies only made the economy worse.  And the only thing that pulled us out of the stagflation and misery of the Seventies was Ronald Reagan.  Who embraced the classical economic policies that made America the number one economic power in the world.  Laissez-faire capitalism.  Say’s Law.  David Ricardo’s comparative advantage.  Sound monetary policy (i.e., noninflationary).  The policies we call Reaganomics.

People who study history know this.  But teens and young adults?  Those more interested in drinking alcohol, smoking marijuana and having sex?  They haven’t a clue about economics or their history.  Yet they often determine elections.  Sad but true.  And it’s just not teens and young adults who don’t understand economics or know their history.  Thanks to the hippies of the Sixties moving into education most people coming out of our public schools don’t.  For the hippies of the Sixties changed the curriculum.  To help them in their quest to destroy capitalism.   By dumbing down the curriculum.  So it’s easier for Keynesians to keep passing the failed policies of the past.  To help them keep expanding the size of government.  To turn this nation back to what the Founding Fathers fought to get away from.  The mercantilism of the Old World.  Of present day China.  Where the few in power have all the power.  And all the wealth.  All because people think they know more than they know.  And vote as if they know everything they need to know.  But there’s more to know than most people know.  And, sadly, those who know the least often determine who wins elections.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Say’s Law

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 6th, 2012

Economics 101

Keynesians believe if you Build Demand Economic Activity will Follow

People hate catching a common cold.  And have long wanted a cure for the common cold.  For a long time.  For hundreds of years.  But no one had ever filled this incredible demand.  All this time doctors and scientists still haven’t been able to figure that one out.  Despite knowing with that incredible demand, and our patent rights, whoever does figure that one out will become richer than Bill Gates.  Which is quite the incentive for figuring out the ingredients to make one little pill.  So why hasn’t anyone found the cure for the common cold?

There are many reasons.  But let’s just ignore them.  Like a Keynesian economist ignores a lot of things in their economic formulas.  In fact, let’s try and enter the head of some Keynesian economists.  And have them answer the question why there isn’t a cure for the common cold.  Based on their economic analysis you might hear them say that we have a cure for the common cold.  Because a high demand makes anything happen.  Or you might hear them say we don’t have a cure because enough people haven’t caught a cold yet.  And that we need to get more people to catch colds so we increase the demand for a cure.

Keynesians believe if you build demand economic activity will follow.  Like in that movie where they build a baseball diamond in a cornfield and those dead baseball players come back to play on it.  So Keynesians believe in government spending.  And love stimulus spending.  As well as taxing people to give their money to other people to spend.  Because having money to spend stimulates demand.  Consumers will consume things.  And increase consumption.  So suppliers will bring more things to market.  And create more jobs to meet that consumption demand.  Unless people save that money.  Which is something Keynesians hate.  Because saving reduces consumption.   Which is about the worst thing you could do in the universe of Keynesian economics.  Save money.  For in that universe spending trumps saving.  In fact, spending trumps everything.  No matter how you create that spending.  Keynesians actually believe taxing people so they can pay other people to dig a ditch and then fill that ditch back in stimulates economic activity.  Because these ditch diggers/fillers will take their paycheck and spend it.

Today People wait Anxiously for the next Apple Release to Learn what the Next Thing is that they Must Have

Of course there is a problem with this economic theory.  When you take money away from others they haven’t created new economic activity.  They just transferred that spending to someone else.  The people who earned that money spend less while the people who didn’t earn it spend more.  It’s a wash.  Some spending goes down.  While some spending goes up.  Actually there is a net loss in economic activity.  Because that money has to pass through government hands.  Where some of it sticks.  Because bureaucrats have to eat, too.  So the people receiving this money don’t receive as much as what was taxed away.  So Keynesian stimulus doesn’t really stimulate.  It actually reduces economic activity from what it might have been.  Because of the government’s cut.

And it gets worse.  Because this consumption demand doesn’t really create jobs.  We get nothing new out of it.  What do people demand?  Things they see.  Things they know about.  For it is hard to demand something that doesn’t exist.  You see a commercial for another incredible Apple product and you want it.  Thanks to some great advertising that explained why you must have it.  In other words, when you give money to people all they will do is buy things they’ve always wanted.  Things that already exist.  Old stuff.  It’s sort of the chicken and the egg thing.  Which came first?  Wanting something?  Or the thing that people want?

Raising taxes on Apple to create a more egalitarian society by redistributing their wealth will let people buy more of the old stuff.  But it won’t help Apple create more new things to bring to market.  Things we don’t even know about yet.  If we tax them so much that it leaves little left for them to invest in research and development how are they going to develop new things?  Things we don’t even know about yet?  Things that we will learn that we must have?  Once upon a time no one was asking for portable cassette players.  Then Sony came out with the Walkman.  And everyone had to have one.  Once upon a time there were no MP3 players.  No smartphones.  No tablet computers.  Now people must have these things.  After their manufacturers told us why we must have them.  Today people wait anxiously for the next Apple release to learn what the next thing is that they must have.

Say’s Law states that Supply Creates Demand

Supply leads demand.  We can’t ask for the unknown.  We can only ask for what the market has shown us.  Which is why Keynesian economics doesn’t work.  Because focusing on demand doesn’t work.  Giving people money to spend doesn’t stimulate creativity in the market place.  Because that money was taxed out of the market place.   Reducing profits.  Leaving less for businesses to invest into research and development.  And reducing their incentive to take big risks to bring the next big thing to market.  Like a phone you can talk to and ask questions.  Again something no one was demanding.  But now it’s something everyone wants.

Jean-Baptiste Say (1767–1832) was a French economist.  Another brilliant French mind that contributed to the Enlightenment.  And helped advance Western Civilization.  He observed how supply led demand.  Understood production was key in the economy.  He knew to create economic activity you had to focus on the producers.  Not the consumers.  Because if we encourage brilliant minds to bring brilliant things to market the demand will follow.  As history has shown.  And continues to show.  Every time a high-tech company brings something new to market that they have to explain to us before we realize we must have it.  Or said in another way, supply creates demand.  A little law of economics that we call Say’s law.

If Keynesian economics worked no one would have to have a job.  The government could print money for everyone.  And the people could take their government dollars and consume whatever was in the market place.  Which, of course, would be pretty sparse if no one worked.  If there were no Steve Jobs out there thinking of brilliant things to bring to market.  Because supply creates demand.  Demand doesn’t create supply.  For fists full of money won’t stimulate any economic activity if there is nothing to buy.  So using Keynesian stimulus as a cure for a recession is about as effective as someone’s homemade cure for the common cold.  You take the homemade concoction and in a week or two it cures you.  Of course, the cold just ran its course.  Which is how recessions end.  After they run their course.  Which can be a short course if there isn’t too much Keynesian intervention.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

LESSONS LEARNED #19: “Philosophical debates can be effective but character assassination is more expedient, especially when no one agrees with your philosophy.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 24th, 2010

THOMAS JEFFERSON HATED Alexander Hamilton.  So much so he hired Philip Freneau as a translator in his State Department in George Washington’s administration.  You see, Jefferson did not like confrontation.  So he needed a way to slander Hamilton, his policies and the Washington administration without getting his own hands dirty.  And that was what Freneau was supposed to do with the money he earned while working in the State Department.  Publish a newspaper (National Gazette) and attack Hamilton, his policies and the Washington administration.  Papers then were partisan.  More so than today.  Then, lies and libel were tools of the trade.  And they knew how to dig up the dirt.  Or make it up. 

Another scandalmonger, James Callender, was slinging dirt for Jefferson.  And he hit pay dirt.  Mr. and Mrs. Reynolds of Philadelphia had a lucrative business.  They were blackmailing Alexander Hamilton.  Mr. Reynolds had his wife seduce Hamilton.  Which she did.  And did well.  They had an affair.  And Mr. Reynolds then blackmailed him.  Jefferson pounced.  Or, rather, Callender did.  To keep Jefferson’s hands clean.  Hamilton, Callender said, was using his position at the Treasury Department for personal gain.  He was using public funds to pay the blackmailer.  They found no proof of this.  And they did look for it.  Hard.  But when they came up empty, Jefferson said that it just proved what a good thief Hamilton was.  He was so good that he didn’t leave any traces of his treachery behind.

Of course, when you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.  And Jefferson’s association with Callender would come back and bite him in the ass.  In a big way.  Upset because Jefferson didn’t appropriately compensate him for all his loyal dirt slinging (he wanted the postmaster’s job in Richmond), he publicized the Sally Hemings rumors.  And after breaking the true story of the Hamilton affair, many would believe this scoop.  That Jefferson was having an affair with one of his slaves.  It was a dark cloud that would forever hang over Jefferson.  And his legacy.

Hamilton admitted to his affair.  Jefferson admitted to no affair.  Hamilton would never hold public office again and would later die in a duel with Jefferson’s one-time toady, Aaron Burr.  This duel resulted because Hamilton was doing whatever he could to keep the amoral and unscrupulous Burr from public office (in this case, it was the governorship of New York).  When the election of 1800 resulted in a tie between Jefferson and Burr, Hamilton urged the House to vote for Jefferson, his archenemy.   Despite what had appeared in the press, Hamilton did have morals and scruples.  Unlike some.  Speaking of which, Jefferson would go on to serve 2 terms as president.  And all of that angst about Hamiltonian policies?  They all went out the window with the Louisiana Purchase (which was unconstitutional, Big Government and Big Finance).

RONALD REAGAN WAS routinely called old, senile and out of touch by the entertainment community, the media and his political foes.  But he bested Mikhail Gorbachev and the Soviet Union, something Jimmy Carter never did.  He said ‘no’ at Reykjavik because he told the American people that he wouldn’t give up the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI).  He knew the Soviet Union was bleeding.  Communism was a farce.  It inhibited human capital.  And impoverished her people.  SDI may have been science fiction in the 1980s, but capitalism wasn’t.  It could do it all.  Including SDI.  The Soviet Union was on the ropes and Reagan would give no quarter.  The days of living in fear of the mushroom cloud were over.  And capitalism would deliver the knockout punch.

Reaganomics, of course, made this all possible.  Supply-side economics.  Which follows the Austrian school.  Say’s Law.  ‘Supply creates demand’.  You don’t stimulate the economy by taxing one group of people so another group can spend.  You stimulate it by creating incentives for risk takers to take risks.  And when they do, they create jobs.  And wealth.

Tax and spend is a failed Keynesian, zero-sum economic policy.  When you take from the earners and give to the non-earners, we just transfer purchasing power.  We don’t create it.  For some to spend more, others must spend less.  Hence, zero-sum.  The net some of goods and services people are purchasing remains the same.  Different people are just doing the purchasing.

When Apple invented the Macintosh personal computer (PC), few were demanding a PC with a graphical user interface (GUI).  But Apple was innovative.  They created something they thought the people would want.  And they did.  They took a risk.  And the Macintosh with its mouse and GUI took off.  Apple manufacturing increased and added jobs.  Retail outlets for the Macintosh expanded and created jobs.  Software firms hired more engineers to write code.  And other firms hired more people to engineer and manufacture PC accessories.  There was a net increase in jobs and wealth.  Just as Say’s Law predicts.  Supply-side economics works.

Of course, the Left hates Reagan and attacked Reaganomics with a vengeance.  They attacked Reagan for being pro-rich.  For not caring about the poor.  And they revised history.  They say the only thing the Reagan tax cuts gave us were record deficits.  Of course, what those tax cuts gave us were record tax receipts.  The government never collected more money.  The House of Representatives (who spends the money), awash in cash, just spent that money faster than the treasury collected it.  The record shows Reaganomics worked.  Lower tax rates spurred economic activity.  More activity generated more jobs and more personal wealth.  Which resulted in more people paying more taxes.  More people paying taxes at a lower rate equaled more tax revenue in the aggregate.  It works.  And it works every time people try it. 

Because Reaganomics worked and showed the Left’s policies were failures, they had to attack Reagan.  To discredit him.  They had to destroy the man.  Except when they’re running for elected office.  Then they strive to show how much more Reagan-like they are than their conservative opponents.  Because they know Reaganomics worked.  And they know that we know Reaganomics worked.

GEORGE W. BUSH was routinely called an ‘idiot’ by the entertainment community, the media and his political foes.  Yet this ‘idiot’ seems to have outwitted the elite of the liberal Left time and time again.  I mean, if their policies were winning, they would be no reason to have attacked Bush in the first place.  The Left hated him with such vitriol that they said he blew up the Twin Towers on 9/11 as a justification for invading Iraq for her oil.  It was Big Oil’s lust for profit, after all, that was driving this Texan’s Big Oil policies.  And taking Iraq’s oil would increase Big Oil’s sales and give her even more obscene profits.

If Bush was an idiot, he must have been an idiot genius to come up with a plan like that.  Then again, gasoline prices crept to $4/gallon following the Iraq War.  Had all that oil gone on the market according to plan, that wouldn’t have happened.  Unless the plan was to keep that oil OFF of the market, thus, by rules of supply and demand, the price of oil (and the gasoline we make from it) would go up thus enriching Big Oil through higher prices resulting from a lower sales volume.  My god, what evil genius.  For an idiot.  Of course, gas taxes, numerous summer gas blends (required by the government’s environmental policies), an aging and over-taxed pipeline infrastructure and insufficient refinery capacity (the government’s environmental policies make it too punishing even to consider building a new refinery) to meet increasing demand (soaring in India and China) had nothing to do with the rise in gas prices.

IS THE POLITICAL Left evil?  Probably not.  Just amoral.  They have an agenda.  They survive on political spoils and patronage.  Old time politics.  Enrich themselves through cronyism.  If tribute is paid they’ll extend favorable treatment.  If tribute is not paid, they will release their wrath via hostile regulation, litigation, Congressional investigation and punitive taxation.  Just like they did to Big Tobacco (and, no, it wasn’t about our health.  They could have just made tobacco illegal.  But they didn’t.  Why?  It just brings in way too much money to the government.  Via sin taxes.  And federal lawsuits.  And with it being addictive, it’s a frickin cash piñata for them.)

They know few agree with their philosophy.  But they don’t care.  It’s not about national prosperity.  It’s about power.  And they want it.  That’s why they can’t debate the issues.  They know they can’t win.  So they attack the messenger.  Not the message.  If you don’t believe that, you can ask Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, Sarah Palin and just about any other Republican.  Well, you can’t ask Lincoln or Reagan.  But you can guess what they would say.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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