The Minimum Wage Debate

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 16th, 2013

Economics 101

A Fall in Economic Activity follows a Surge in Keynesian Stimulus Spending

The minimum wage argument is a political argument.  Because it’s a partisan one.  Not one based on sound economics.  Such as the classical school of economics that made America the number one economic power in the world.  Thrift.  Savings. Investment.  Free trade.  And a gold standard.  Then you have the politicized school of economics that replaced it.  The Keynesian school.  Which nations around the world accept as sacrosanct.  Because it is the school of economics that says governments should manage the economy.  Thus sanctioning and enabling Big Government.

Keynesian economics is all about consumption.  Consumer spending.  That’s all that matters to them.  And it’s the only thing they look at.  They completely ignore the higher stages of production.  Above the retail level.  They ignore the wholesale level.  The manufacturing level.  The industrial processing level.  And the raw material extraction level.  Which is why Keynesian stimulus fails.  Just putting more money into consumers’ pockets doesn’t affect them.  For they see the other side of that stimulus.  Inflation.  And recession.  And they’re not going to expand or hire more people just because there is a temporary spike in consumer spending.  Because they know once the consumers run through this money they will revert back to their previous purchasing habits.  Well, almost.

Keynesian stimulus is typically created with an expansion of the money supply.  As more dollars chase the same amount of goods prices rise.  And people lose purchasing power.  So they buy less.  Which means following a surge in Keynesian stimulus spending there follows a fall in economic activity.  Which is why the higher stages of production don’t expand or hire people.  Because they know that for them the economy gets worse—not better—after stimulus spending.

A Stronger Economy would help Minimum Wage Workers more than Raising the Minimum Wage

Increasing the minimum wage shares the Keynesian goal of putting more money into consumers’ pockets.  And many of the arguments for increasing the minimum wage mirror those arguments for Keynesian stimulus.  Even to reverse the consequences of previous Keynesian policies (see Everything You Ever Needed to Know About the Minimum Wage by Jordan Weissmann posted 12/16/2013 on The Atlantic).

The federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour, which means that depending on the city you’re in, 60 minutes of work will just about buy you a Chipoltle burrito (without guac). By historical standards, it’s fairly low. Thanks to inflation, the minimum wage is worth about $3.26 less, in today’s dollars, than when its real value peaked in 1968.

It’s a Keynesian argument that says putting more money into people’s pockets will increase economic activity.  That’s the rebuttal to the argument that a higher minimum wage will reduce economic activity (by raising prices with higher labor costs).  For they will take those higher wages and spend them in the economy.  More than offsetting the loss in sales due to those higher prices.

The whole concept of Keynesian stimulus is predicated on giving consumers more money to spend.  Like raising the minimum wage.  Either with stimulus money raised by taxes.  From borrowing.  Or printing.  Their favorite.  Which they have done a lot of.  To keep interest rates low to spur housing sales in particular.  But with this monetary expansion comes inflation.  And a loss of purchasing power.  So the Keynesian policies of putting more money into consumers’ pockets to stimulate economic activity has reduced the purchasing power of that money.  Which is why the minimum wage in real dollars keeps falling.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1.57 million Americans, or 2.1 percent of the hourly workforce, earned the minimum wage in 2012. More than 60 percent of them either worked in retail or in leisure and hospitality, which is to say hotels and restaurants, including fast-food chains.

…Almost a third of minimum-wage workers are teenagers, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Some in retail sales get a commission added on to their hourly wage.  Many in the food and leisure industry earn tips in addition to their hourly wage.  So some of those who earn the minimum wage get more than the minimum wage.  Those who don’t are either unskilled entry level workers.  Such as students who are working towards a degree that will get them a higher-paying job.  Those working part-time for an additional paycheck.  Those who work because of the convenience (hours, location, etc.).  Those who have no skills that can get them into a higher-paying job.  Or because these entry-level jobs are the only jobs they can find in a bad economy.

A stronger economy could create better jobs.  And higher wages.  For it is during good economic times that people leave one job for a better job.  And employers pay people more to prevent good employees they’ve already trained from leaving.  So they don’t have to start all over again with a new unskilled worker.  This would be the better approach.  Creating a stronger economy to allow unskilled workers to move up into higher skilled—and higher paying—jobs.  For you can’t have upward mobility if there are no better jobs to move up into.

On one side of the debate, you mostly have traditionalists who believe that increasing the minimum wage kills some jobs for unskilled workers, like teens…

On the other side, you have researchers who believe that increasing the minimum wage doesn’t kill jobs at all and may even give the economy a boost by channeling more pay to low-income workers who are likely to spend it.

The Automotive industry has long fought for tariff protection.  For the high cost of their union labor made their cars costlier than their imported competition.  The legacy costs of an aging workforce (health care for retirees and pensions) required a government bailout to keep General Motors and Chrysler from going belly-up.  And it was this high cost of union labor that caused the Big Three to lose market share.  Shedding jobs—and employees—as they couldn’t sell the cars they were making.

So higher wages raise prices.  And reduce sales.  Leading to layoffs.  And reduced economic activity.  The unions believe this.  That’s why they fight so hard for legislation to protect themselves from lower-priced competition.  You would have to believe that the economic forces that affect one part of the economy would affect another.  And those economic forces say that higher wages kill jobs.  They don’t increase economic activity.  They just help the lucky few who have those high-paying jobs.  While many of their one-time coworkers found themselves out of a job.

When the minimum wage goes up, the theory says, businesses shape up. Managers find ways to make their employees more productive. Turnover slows down, since people are happier with their paychecks, and the unemployed snap up jobs elsewhere in town. Meanwhile, Burger King and McDonald’s can raise their prices a little bit without scaring off customers.

Managers finding ways to make their employees more productive?  Do you know what that means?  It means how they can get more work out of fewer employees.  No worker wants to hear management talk about productivity gains.  For that usually means someone will lose their job.  As the remaining workers can do more with less because of those productivity gains.  So that’s a horrible argument for a higher minimum wage.  Because fewer people will have those bigger paychecks.  Made possible by reducing costs elsewhere.  As in laying off some of their coworkers.

Based on data from 80s and early 90s, Daniel Aaronson estimated that a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage drove up the price of McDonald’s burgers, KFC chicken, and Pizza Hut’s pizza-like product by as much as 10 percent. Assuming that holds true today, it means that bringing the minimum wage to $10.10 would tack $1.60 onto the cost of your Big Mac.

McDonald’s will never win the award for having the healthiest food.  And that’s fine.  People don’t go there to eat healthy.  They go there for the value.  As it is one of the few places you can take a family of four out for about $25.  Adding another $1.60 per burger could add another $6.40 to that dinner out.  For a family living paycheck to paycheck that may be just too much for the weekly budget.  Especially with inflation raising the cost of groceries and gasoline.  Thanks to those Keynesian economic policies.

Raising the Minimum Wage will not Result in any of the Lofty Goals the Economic Planners Envision

There is a lot of anger at these minimum wage companies paying their employees so little.  Some of their minimum workers have gone on strike recently to protest their low pay.  As they are apparently not working at these companies because they love the work.  So suffice it to say that no one is yearning to work at these companies.  And that some may outright hate these jobs.  So why in the world would we want to punish them by paying them more?  Removing all ambition to leave the jobs they hate?

If you raise the minimum wage what happens to other jobs that pay what becomes the new higher minimum wage?  Putting their earnings on par with unskilled entry-level jobs?  Jobs that require greater skills than entry-level minimum wage jobs?  Will they continue to work harder for the same wage as unskilled workers?  Will they leave their more difficult jobs for an easier entry-level job?  Will they demand a raise from their employer?  Keynesians would say this is a good thing.  As it will drive wages up.  It may.  But to pay these higher labor costs will require cost cuts elsewhere.  Perhaps by shedding an employee or two.

Raising the minimum wage will not result in any of the lofty goals the economic planners envision.  For if putting more money into consumers’ pockets is all we need to create economic activity then we wouldn’t have had the Great Recession.  The stagflation of the Seventies.  Or the Great Depression.  Keynesian stimulus spending didn’t create new economic activity to prevent any of these.  So why would a rise in the minimum wage be any different?

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

October 2013 Employment Situation Summary

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 11th, 2013

Economics 101

Although there were 204,000 New Jobs in October 720,000 Workers left the Labor Force

The worst economic recovery since that following the Great Depression continues (see Employment Situation Summary by the Bureau of Labor Statistics posted 11/8/2013).

Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 204,000 in October, and the unemployment rate was little changed at 7.3 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today…

Both the number of unemployed persons, at 11.3 million, and the unemployment rate, at 7.3 percent, changed little in October…

The civilian labor force was down by 720,000 in October.

If the Obama administration was an employment agency that found people jobs someone would have fired the management team by now with numbers like this.  204,000 new jobs for 11.3 million unemployed people is a success rate of 1.81%.  Worse, although there were 204,000 new jobs 720,000 workers left the labor force.  Which means that for every new job we lost 3.5 existing jobs.  So for one step forward in fixing the economy the administration takes 3.5 steps backwards.  Which means we’re moving in the wrong direction with the economy.

After a near-trillion dollar stimulus bill and quantitative easing up the wazoo what do we have to show for it?  Not a whole hell of a lot.  Other than more debt.  And inflationary pressures just waiting to be unleashed.  Taking us back to the stagflation and misery of the Seventies.  The heyday of Keynesian economics.

Solid Economic Growth starts at Raw Material Extraction

Before John Maynard Keynes gave us Keynesian economics the economy hummed along based on classical economic principles.  Including, but not limited to, thrift.  Savings.  Investment.  A sound banking system.  And a strong currency.  People saved their money.  Banks accumulated their savings into investment capital.  Banks made this capital available to investors.  And interest rates were determined by our savings rate.  The more we saved (i.e., the more thrifty we were) the lower interest rates were.  These are the economic principles that made the United States the number one economy in the world.

Another key concept of classical economics is the stages of production.  From the extraction of raw materials to manufacturing to wholesale goods to retail goods.  In a healthy economy there is growth at all stages.  And solid economic growth starts at raw material extraction.  For this feeds manufacturing.  Which feeds wholesale goods.  Which feeds retail goods.  Where consumers spend their money.  The fatal flaw of Keynesian economics is that it focuses only on consumer spending.  Not at these higher-order stages of production.  And when Keynesians try to end a recession while ignoring them they fail.  And get job numbers like these.

Employment in retail trade increased by 44,000 in October, compared with an average monthly gain of 31,000 over the prior 12 months…

Manufacturing added 19,000 jobs in October, with job growth occurring in motor vehicles and parts (+6,000), wood products (+3,000), and furniture and related products (+3,000). On net, manufacturing employment has changed little since February 2013…

In October, employment showed little or no change elsewhere in the private sector, including mining and logging, construction, wholesale trade, transportation and warehousing, information, and financial activities.

This is not the picture of an improving economy.  Consumers are spending money.  Thanks to low interest rates and a record amount of government benefits.  But the economic activity is greatest at the consumer level.  As evidenced by the largest increase in jobs at the retail level.  There are fewer job gains at manufacturing.  And even less at the whole sale level and raw material extraction.  Meaning the new economic activity is greatest at the consumer level.  Because of cheap (and free) money.  But there are no new jobs at the highest stage of production.  Raw material extraction.  Because they see no real economic recovery.  Only Keynesian ‘hot’ money that will cause a surge in consumer spending.  And a surge in inflation.  Leading to a continued sluggish economic recovery.  Or a fall back into recession.  And the last thing they want should that happen is higher costs.  Or more debt.  So they don’t spend more or invest during periods of Keynesian stimulus.

President Obama’s Greatest Supporters are suffering some of the Greatest Unemployment

The October 2013 Employment Situation Summary paints a grim economic picture.  People continue to leave the labor force.  And the government’s efforts to stimulate economic activity isn’t stimulating anything above the consumer level.  As the higher stages of production fear the coming inflation.  And possible recession.  This after 5 years of President Obama’s Keynesian economic policies.  Further proving the futility of Keynesian economics.  And the failure of the Obama administration.  Whose policies have stalled new hiring.  And pushed people from full-time to part-time.

The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers) was little changed at 8.1 million in October. These individuals were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find a full-time job.

Those individuals who had their hours cut or can’t find a full-time job are in large part due to the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).  Which is not only destroying any economic recovery.  But the Affordable Care Act is also making health insurance unaffordable.  Which will make these economic numbers worse as the carnage spreads to employer-provided health insurance.  As people will have to both pay for health insurance AND pay for all of their health care out-of-pocket thanks to those high deductibles.  Which won’t help the unemployment numbers.  For as consumer spending falls so does hiring.

Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (7.0 percent), adult women (6.4 percent), teenagers (22.2 percent), whites (6.3 percent), blacks (13.1 percent), and Hispanics (9.1 percent) showed little or no change in October. The jobless rate for Asians was 5.2 percent.

It is interesting, or rather ironic, that the president’s greatest supporters are suffering some of the greatest unemployment.  Teenagers.  Blacks.  And Hispanics.  Who seem to never lose their faith.  No matter how much President Obama’s policies favor old white men and women.  And Asians.  It’s not for the lack of spending, either.  For the Obama administration has spent more domestically than any other president.  But it is only his rich Wall Street cronies who are doing well.  And other rich people.  Not the rank and file Obama supporters.  Yet they remain Obama supporters.  So far, at least.  These continual bad job numbers AND the unaffordable Affordable Care Act may change things.  Especially when these continue to fall disproportionally on teenagers, blacks and Hispanics. 

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Economic Indicators

Posted by PITHOCRATES - May 20th, 2013

Economics 101

To Better Understand the Economy we should Study the Economic Indicators Investors Study

If you’ve lost your job you have a pretty good idea about the state of the economy.  It’s bad.  An unemployed person is like a soldier in the trench.  He or she doesn’t need to examine any data to understand what’s happening in the economy.  They know firsthand how bad things are.  But generals far behind the lines don’t have that up close and personal economic experience.  So they have to examine data to understand what’s going on.  Just as government officials, investors and economic prognosticators have to examine data.  Giving them an understanding of the state of the economy.  So they can know what the unemployed know.  The economy sucks.

Government officials want positive economic data so they can say their policies are working.  Whether they are or not.  In fact, they will parse the data to serve them politically.  When necessary.  Such as during the run-up to an election.  So their reports on the economy are not always, how should we say, full of truthiness.  For they can take some bad economic data and put a positive spin on it.  Completely changing the meaning of the data.  The unemployed won’t believe the rosy picture they’re painting.  But those in the trenches may.  And those in the rear with the gear.  After all, they have jobs.  So things don’t really seem that bad to them.

No, for a better picture of the economy you should listen to the people with skin in the game.  Those who are making bets on the economy.  Investors.  And business owners.  Who are risking their money.  And if we look at what they look at we can get a better understanding of the economy.  See what bothers them.  What pleases them.  And what excites them.  So what do they look at?  Economic data we call economic indicators.  Because they indicate the health of the economy.  And give an idea of what the future holds.  There are a lot of economic indicators.  The government compiles most of them.  They each give a little piece of the economic puzzle.  And when you put them together you see the bigger picture.

With a Rise in Housing Starts a Rise in Durable Goods should Follow Creating a lot of New Jobs

As far as economic indicators go retail sales is a big one.  Because consumer spending is the vast majority of economic activity in the new Keynesian economy.  (John Maynard Keynes changed the way governments intervene in the private sector economy in the early 20th century.)  Keynesians believe consumer spending is everything.  Which is why governments everywhere inflate their money supplies.  To keep their interest rates artificially low.  To encourage people to borrow money.  And spend.  When they do retail sales increase.  Signaling a healthy economy.  When they fall it may mean a recession is coming.  Of course, if retail spending rises more than expected investors get nervous.  Because it could mean inflation is coming.  Which the government will try to prevent by raising interest rates.  Thus cooling the economy.  And hopefully sending it into a soft landing.  But more often than not they send it into recession.

Another economic indicator is housing starts.  A lot of economic activity comes from building houses.  Building them generates a lot.  And furnishing them generates even more.  So governments are always trying to do everything within their power to encourage new housing.  They keep interest rates artificially low.  Encouraging people to get mortgages.  And they’ve pressured lenders to lower their lending standards.  To get more people with bad credit (or no credit) into houses.  Which led to subprime lending.  The subprime mortgage crisis.  And the Great Recession.  So more housing starts can be good.  But too many housing starts can be bad.  Generally, though, if they are increasing it’s a sign of an improving economy.

Before Keynesian economics the prevailing school of economic thought was classical economics.  Which we used to make America the world’s number one economic power.  Unlike Keynesians in the classical school we looked higher in the stages of productions.  Where real economic activity took place.  Raw material extraction.  Industrial processing.  Manufacturing.  And wholesaling.  An enormous amount of activity before you reach the consumer level.  All of these higher order economic activities fed into the making of durable goods.  Those things we bought to fill those new houses.  Which is why we like rising housing starts.  Because a rise in durable goods should follow.  And when we’re producing more durable goods we’re employing more people.  Making the durable goods economic indicator a very useful one.

One should Always be Skeptical when the Government says their Policies are Improving the Economy

The Producer Price Index (PPI) tells us how the prices are moving above the consumer level.  So if the PPI is rising it tells us the costs to produce consumer goods are rising.  And these higher costs will flow down the stages of production to the consumer level.  Causing a rise in consumer prices.  So the PPI forecasts what will happen to the CPI.  The consumer price index.  When it rises it means inflation is entering the picture.  Which the government will try to prevent by raising interest rates.  To cool the economy down.  And lower the prices at both the consumer and producer level.  Again, trying to send the economy into a soft landing.  But usually sending it into recession.  Which is why investors pay close attention to the PPI.  So they can get an idea of what will happen to the CPI.  So they can buy and sell (stocks and/or bonds) accordingly.

The rest of us can get an idea of what these investors think about the economy by following the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA).  Which is the weighted ‘average’ of 30 stocks.  (We calculate it by dividing the sum of the 30 stock prices by a divisor that factors in all stock splits and changes of companies in the Dow 30).  As a company does well in a growing economy its stock price grows.  And if investors like what they see in other economic indicators they bid up the stock price even further.  So a rising DJIA indicates that investors believe the economy is doing well.  And will probably even improve.  But sometimes investors have a little irrational exuberance.  Such as during the dot-com bubble in the Nineties.  Where they poured money into any company that had anything to do with the Internet.  Making a huge bet that they found the next Bill Gates or Steve Jobs.  Of course, when that blind hope faded and reality set in those inflated stock prices came crashing down to reality.  Causing a long and painful recession in the early 2000s.  So even investors don’t always get it right.

When the dot-com bubble burst it threw a lot of people out of a job.  Increasing the unemployment rate.  Another big economic indicator.  But one that can be massaged by the government.  For they only count people out of a full-time job who are looking for full-time work.  The official unemployment rate (what we call the U-3 rate) doesn’t count people who gave up looking for work.  Or people who took a couple of part-time jobs to make ends meet.  A more accurate unemployment rate is the U-6 rate that counts these people.  For while the official unemployment rate fell below 8% during the run-up to the 2012 election the U-6 rate was showing a much poorer economic picture.  And the labor force participation rate showed an even poorer economic picture.  The labor force participation rate shows the percentage of people who could be working who were actually working.  So the lower this is the worse the economy.  The higher it is the better the economy.  So while the president highlighted the fall of the U-3 rate below 8% as a sign of an improving economy the labor force participation rate showed it was the worst economy since the Seventies.  Something the unemployed could easily understand.  But those who had a job believed the less than honest U-3 economic indicator.  Believed the president was making the economy better.  When, in fact, he had made it worse.  Which is why one should always be skeptical when the government says their policies are improving the economy.  For they are more concerned about winning the next election than the people toiling away in the trenches.

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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Four Trillion Yuan of Keynesian Stimulus Spending provided an Economic Recovery in China that lasted about 2 Years

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 22nd, 2012

Week in Review

Before the early 20th century we looked at economics differently.  We looked at it correctly.  We understand the importance of savings to capital formation.  And we understood the stages of production.  How economic recovery didn’t happen until it reached the higher stages.  Those stages the farthest away from retail sales.  The raw material industry.  The manufacturing industry.  Who make the components the assembly plants use to build consumer goods.  When these higher stages businesses recover then there is an economic recovery.  Because it takes time for those higher stages goods to make it down to the retail level.  So they don’t invest until they know there is a real economic recovery.

This is why Keynesian stimulus spending doesn’t work.  When central banks increase the monetary base it can create a surge of economic activity.  But it also depreciates the currency.  And raises prices.  Higher prices lead to an economic slowdown.  It’s just a matter of time.  Which is why the higher stages of production don’t respond to economic stimulus because by the time their new goods reach the retail level the higher prices will already be slowing down economic activity.  Meaning there will be no demand for their expanded production.  So they will have to lay off employees and shutter facilities.  Resulting in another recession.  Or just a resumption of the previous one.  Only worse.  Because the depreciated currency leaves consumers with less purchasing power.  So they can’t buy as much as they once did.  Creating further excess capacity.  Further layoffs.  And a worsening of the recession they tried to end with that Keynesian stimulus spending.

The Chinese are all Keynesians when it comes to economic policy.  So when their economic activity slowed they went to the go-to Keynesian solution.  Expand the monetary base (see China Slowdown Seen Longer Than 2009 by Government Researcher by Bloomberg News posted 9/20/2012 on Bloomberg).

With the 2008 crisis, China enacted a 4 trillion yuan ($586 billion at the time) stimulus and opened up bank lending to revive expansion. Year-over-year growth, after decelerating for seven quarters, bottomed at 6.2 percent in the first quarter of 2009 and accelerated to 11.9 percent a year later…

Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, who pledged last week to employ monetary and fiscal policies to spur growth, has accelerated infrastructure-project approvals while refraining from introducing a stimulus package on the scale of the one during the financial crisis.

There was a burst of economic activity following the stimulus.  Something all Keynesians in the United States point to.  Saying the reason why the American stimulus didn’t work was because it wasn’t big enough.  Like it was in China.  (They say this even though the Chinese spent less than the Americans.)  Where it worked so well that they need to spur growth with new monetary and fiscal policies this year.  After the new economic growth that began about 2 years ago fizzled out.  Which was far better than the American stimulus that provided no economic growth.  Even though they spent more.  Proving that Keynesian stimulus policies don’t end recessions.  They just offer false hope.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Phillips Curve

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 17th, 2012

Economics 101

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Great Depression, FDR, New Deal, John Maynard Keynes, Labor Unions, Collusion, Unemployment, Lend-Lease and Stages of Production

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 11th, 2012

History 101

FDR increased the Power of Labor Unions and allowed Big Corporations to Collude with Each Other

Those in mainstream economics (i.e., Keynesian economics) studied the Great Depression and determined that the problem was a lack of spending.  Which is why they cheer FDR and his New Deal programs.  Because the New Deal spent enormous amounts of money.  And according to prevailing Keynesian thought that was all that was needed to end the Great Depression.  Spending.  And if the private sector wasn’t going to spend money then the government could.  And the government’s spending could replace all that economic activity that disappeared when the private sector stopped spending.  So the government spent.  But in those 10 to 15 years they failed to pull the nation out of the Great Depression.

According to Keynesian thought, and John Maynard Keynes himself who visited FDR in the White House, the government needed to spend money.  Even money they didn’t have.  Keynes urged the president to deficit spend.  To run huge deficits in the short term to kick-start the economy.  Keynes showed that it was the only way with a lot of figures and math.  FDR later said Keynes was more a mathematician than an economist.  Still, FDR spent.  But he did even more.  Believing part of the reason for the lack of spending was the evils of capitalism.  There was just too much competition keeping prices low.  And businesses selling at low prices couldn’t pay high wages.  Ergo to stimulate economic activity FDR wanted to increase the cost of doing business.

FDR increased the power of labor unions to help them negotiate higher wage packages.  And he allowed big corporations to collude with each other so they could raise their prices so they could afford to pay those higher union wages.  These two things really helped workers get better pay.  Some 25% higher they otherwise would have had.  This was a big win for labor.  And for the socialists and communists in America who hated capitalism.  (The 1930s were a time of nationalist, socialist, fascist and communist movements sweeping the world.  And strong elements in the U.S. wanted to join these movements.  The Soviet Union even had agents working inside the Roosevelt administration.)  In fact, they were angry that FDR didn’t take this chance to deliver the deathblow to capitalism once and for all by nationalizing some big industries.  Something FDR wasn’t willing to do.

FDR did Everything in his Power to Increase Wages & Prices because of the Massive Deflation of the Great Depression

Then came the alphabet soup of make-work agencies.  Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) paid young unemployed men to do landscaping and other outdoor activities.  Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) paid young men to build dams and other water related activities.  Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) raised food prices by paying farmers not to grow crops and to kill off some of their livestock herds instead of bringing them to market.  National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) reduced unfair competition by letting big corporations collude with each other to keep their prices high.  Public Works Administration (PWA) was a whole new agency that built roads and bridges.  Works Progress Administration (WPA) paid for more construction work for men, sewing work for women and arts projects for the creatively inclined.  National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) gave more power to unions to keep their wages (and the prices of the things they made) high.  And many other alphabet agencies.

Most of these programs passed between 1933 and 1935.  So FDR put a lot of money into workers’ pockets during the 1930s.  And according to Keynesian economics all that money would cause an explosion in consumer spending.  Thanks to the Keynesian multiplier.  For every dollar a consumer received from the government it would generate up to $5 of new GDP.  Which was probably one of the mathematical equations Keynes discussed that so underwhelmed FDR.  And that formula is 1/(1-MPC).  Where MPC stands for the marginal propensity to consume (and if it’s 0.80 you get a multiplier of 5).  If a person receives $100 and spends $80 then their MPC is 0.80 or 80%.  This is basically trickle-down economics Keynesian style.  If the person above spends that $80 those receiving it will spend $64.  Those who receive $64 will spend $51.20.  And so on until these other people create an additional $400 of economic activity in addition to that original $100.

And FDR couldn’t ask for a better time to spend that money.  During the Great Depression.  He was doing everything in his power to increase wages and prices because of the massive deflation of the Great Depression.  So even though he was trying to raise prices they were still low throughout much of the economy.  Which meant a little bit of money bought a lot of stuff.  Because deflation strengthened the dollar.  Giving it more purchasing power.  Allowing buyers to get a lot of bang for the buck.  Especially those union workers making 25% more than they normally would have been making.  Talk about kick-starting an economy.  It was so easy.  They even had mathematical formulas saying this would end the Great Depression.  The Great Depression was as good as over.

Had President Obama not been Elected the Great Recession would have Ended some time in 2010

The unemployment rate topped out at around 25% in 1933.  Excluding the government make-work, the true unemployment rate didn’t fall below 20% until 1936.  And never got below 14% until 1941.  When America began tooling up to build the instruments of war.  To become the Arsenal of Democracy.  A few things happened during this time to greatly reduce the unemployment rate following 1941.  The war removed a lot of men from the workforce to serve in the military.  The Supreme Court found parts of the New Deal unconstitutional.  And there was a split in organized labor that helped conservatives (Republicans and Democrats) gain power in Congress.  And they shut down some of those liberal New Deal programs.  So while one war began (World War II) another ended (the war on business).

And how did things progress after they ended their war on business?  Pretty well.  The unemployment rate fell.  To 14.6% in 1940.  To 9.9% in 1942.  To 1.9% in 1943.  To 1.2% in 1944.  Then it soared back up to 1.9% in 1945.  With the war over the unemployment rate rose again.  But nowhere near where it was during FDR’s New Deal 1930s.  From 1948 to 1968 it averaged 4.7%.  Not too bad considering full employment is 5%.  So for the 30 years or so following the end of New Deal policies the economy returned to full employment.  And stayed at full employment.  The conservatives in Congress needed but 4 years to do what FDR couldn’t do in 10 years with his Keynesian, New Deal policies.

Yes, the war helped.  A lot.  It pulled a lot of men out of the workforce.  And American industry ramped up to provide the war material for war.  However, we financed that buildup with deficit spending and American war bonds.  As most of that war material went to our allies via Lend-Lease.  Which means we gave most of it away to allow others to fight the war.  So it was little different than Keynesian spending.  So why did the war spending work when all those alphabet soup make-work agencies didn’t?  Because of the stages of production.  Putting more money into consumers’ hands only helped the retail and wholesale stages.  It did not do anything to stimulate the manufacturing or raw commodities stages.  Especially with those high union wages and lack of competition thanks to the collusion to keep prices high.  All that did was pay the very few who actually had jobs very well.  While making it economically foolish to hire any new workers because of the exceptionally high cost of labor (25% higher than it would have been without the New Deal programs).  That high cost of business just slammed the brakes on economic activity.  Economic activity picked back up only after conservatives in Congress undid some of the damage of the New Deal.  In fact, had it not been for FDR’s New Deal the Great Depression would have ended some 7 years earlier.  Extrapolating this to the Great Recession today one could estimate that the Great Recession would have ended 7 years earlier had it not been for the Keynesian policies of President Obama.  So if the current recession lasts as long as the Great Depression and President Obama wins a second term and continues his anti-business policies the recession will last 7 years longer than it need be.  Or, had President Obama not been elected it would have ended some time in 2010.  Giving us full employment today instead of 14.7% U-6 unemployment.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

The August Unemployment Rate falls to 8.1% as the Unemployed Quit Looking for Jobs that just aren’t There

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 9th, 2012

Week in Review

The August job numbers are out.  And they’re horrible (see Why unemployment rate fell: Fewer people seek jobs by CHRISTOPHER S RUGABER and Christopher S. Rugaber, Associated Press, posted 9/7/2012 on Yahoo! News).

The unemployment rate fell to 8.1 percent from 8.3 percent in July. But that was only because more people gave up looking for jobs. People out of work are counted as unemployed only if they’re looking for a job…

The number of people working or looking for work shrank in August by 368,000, the government said…

Here’s a milestone that’s difficult for President Barack Obama to brag about: There are 133.3 million Americans working — 261,000 short of the number when he was inaugurated in January 2009.

Democrats can talk all they want about new jobs they added each month with their policies but there has been no recovery.  Despite their exuberant cheerleading and the Recovery Summer of 2010 there are still fewer people working today than there were when President Obama began implementing his policies.  And it’s worse if you look at the U-6 unemployment rate.  Which measures people who gave up looking for work as well as those working part time because they can’t find full time work.  The August U-6 unemployment rate is 14.7%.  So the real unemployment rate is 6.6 points higher than the official rate.  Or 81.5% higher.

The Obama administration has tried just about every Keynesian tool in the Keynesian toolbox.  From stimulus spending.  To quantitative easing (i.e., printing money).  And here we are almost 4 years later with a U-6 unemployment rate of 14.7%.  Why?  Because Keynesian economics is just a way to empower government.  It does not create real economic growth.  Like policies that favor the stages of production.  Policies that create a business-friendly environment.  From resource extraction to industrial processing to manufacturing to consumer sales.

The Keynesians only focus on the last stage.  And leave in place policies that hurt the upper stages.  Which explains why their policies don’t create real economic growth.  While those who do focus on these upper stages of production have strong economic growth.  Like JFK.  And Ronald Reagan.  A couple of tax-cutters that created a business-friendly environment.  That generated the kind of economic activity that no Keynesian has ever matched.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Jimmy Carter, Malaise, Ronald Reagan, Austrian Economics, Morning in America, Barack Obama, Keynesian Economics and Great Recession

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 4th, 2012

History 101

It was Morning in America again because Ronald Reagan reduced the Misery Index by 42.7%

Ronald Reagan was a supply-sider when it came to economics.  Of the Austrian school variety.  In fact, one of his campaign promises was to bring back the gold standard.  A very Austrian thing.  The Austrian school predates the Keynesian school.  When the focus was on the stages of production.  Not on consumer spending.  These policies served the nation well.  They (and the gold standard) exploded American ingenuity and economic activity in the 19th century.  Making the U.S. the number one economy in the world.  Surpassing the nation that held the top spot for a century or more.  Perhaps the last great empire.  Great Britain.

Following the stagflation and misery (misery index = inflation rate + unemployment rate) of the Seventies Reagan promised to cut taxes and governmental regulations.  To make it easier for businesses to create economic activity.  Easier to create jobs.  And he did.  Among other things.  Such as rebuilding the military that the Carter administration severely weakened during the Seventies (it was so bad that the Soviet Union put together a first-strike nuclear option.  Because they thought they could win a nuclear war with Jimmy Carter as president).  During the 1980 campaign Reagan asked the people if they were better off after 4 years of Jimmy Carter.  The answer was no.  Four years later, though, they were.  Here’s why.  (Note:  We used so many sources that we didn’t source them here to save space.  The inflation rate and unemployment rates are for August of the respective years.  The dollar amounts are annual totals with some estimates added to take them to the end of 2012.  The debt and GDP are not adjusted for inflation as they are only 4 years apart.  Gas prices and median income are adjusted for inflation.  There may be some error in these numbers.  But overall we believe the information they provide fairly states the economic results of the presidents’ policies.  (This note applies to both tables.))

Reagan entered office with some horrendous numbers.  The Carter administration was printing so much money that inflation was at 12.9% in 1980.  Added to the unemployment rate that brought the misery index to 20.6%.  A huge number.  To be fair Carter tapped Paul Volcker to be Fed Chairman and he began the policy of reigning in inflation.  But Carter did this far too late.  The only way to cure high inflation is with a nasty recession.  Which Volcker gave Ronald Reagan.  But it worked.  By 1984 inflation fell 8.8 points or 66.7%.  Even with this nasty recession the unemployment rate fell 0.2 points or 2.6%.  Which shaved 8.8 points off of the miserable index.  Or reducing it by 42.7%.  This is why it was morning in America again.  The Left to this day say “yeah, but at what cost?” and point to the record deficits of the Reagan administration.  Saying this is the price of tax cuts.  But they’re wrong.  Yes, the debt went up.  But it wasn’t because of the tax cuts.  Because those tax cuts stimulated economic activity.  GDP rose 12.6% by 1984.  And tax receipts even increased with those lower tax rates.  Because of the higher GDP.  By 1984 Reagan’s policies increased tax revenue by 28.9%.  And on a personal level the median income even increased 0.4%.  And this following a very bad recession a few years earlier.  Finally, gas prices fell 22.2%.  And the way Americans feel about rising gas prices this was truly morning in America again.

To Top off the General Malaise of the Obama Economy Gas Prices Soared while Median Income Fell

Barack Obama is a Keynesian through and through.  A believer in pure demand-side economics.  To that end his administration focused everything on increasing consumer spending.  Tax and spend policies.  Income redistribution.  Deficit spending.  Anything to make America ‘more fair.’  Raising taxes on the rich so the poor can spend more money.  With the Keynesian multiplier they believe this is the path to economic prosperity.  Just doing everything within their power to put more spending money into the hands of poorer people.  Increasing government regulation, fees and fines as well as taxes to bring more money in Washington so they can redistribute it.  Or spend it directly on things like roads and bridges.  Or solar power companies.  Even paying people to dig a hole and fill it back in.  Because these people will take their wages and spend them.  Creating economic activity.

So President Obama put Keynesian economics to work.  Beginning with a $787 billion stimulus bill.  Investments into green energy and the jobs of the future.  Like a Department of Energy loan of $528 million to the now bankrupt Solyndra.  Which was only one of many loans.  The bailout of the UAW pension fund (aka the auto bailout).  The government poured $528 million into GM.  And President Obama touted the Chevy Volt, boasting that GM would sell a million each year bringing his green goals to fruition (GM is struggling to sell 10,000 Volts a year).  A lot of malinvestment as the Austrians would say.  But a Keynesian sees any government expenditure as a good investment.  Because if all the people who receive this government money spends at least 80% of it (while saving only 20%) the Keynesian multiplier will be five.  Meaning that the net gain in GDP will be five times whatever the government spends.  So how has that worked for the president?  Well, here are his numbers:

The government spent so much money that the federal debt increased by $5.4 trillion.  Trillion with a ‘T’.  That’s over a trillion dollar deficit each of the president’s 4 years in office.  And his last year isn’t even a whole year.  Unprecedented until President Obama.  And what did all of that federal spending get us after about 4 years?  An unemployment rate 2.1 points higher.  Or 33.9% higher than when he took office.  Inflation fell but it did nothing to spur GDP growth which grew at an anemic 3.1%.  Which is less than a percentage point a year.  Which is why the Great Recession lingers still.  Meanwhile the Chinese are having a bad year with a GDP growth of 7.8%.  So all of that spending didn’t help at all.  In fact, it made things worse.  The economic activity is so bad that even tax receipts fell 2.2% after four years of President Obama.  Which has many in his party saying that we need to raise tax rates.  Contrary to what Ronald Reagan did.  And to top off the general malaise of the Obama economy gas prices soared 107.6% under his presidency.  While the median income fell 7.3%.  One has to look hard to find any positive news from the Obama economy.  And there is one.  Inflation did fall.  But even that really isn’t good.  As it may be an indicator of a looming deflationary spiral.  Giving America a lost decade.  Like Japan’s Lost Decade.

The Flaw in Keynesian Thinking is that it Ignores the Layers of Economic Activity above the Consumer Level

So there you have an Austrian and a Keynesian.  Both entered office during bad economic times.  Although things were much worse when President Reagan took office than when President Obama took office.  The misery index was 20.6% in 1980.  It was only 11.6% in 2008.  About half as bad for President Obama than it was for President Reagan.  It came down 16.4% under Obama.  But it came down 42.7% under Reagan.  Which is why it isn’t morning in America under President Obama.  Reagan increased tax receipts by 28.9 % by the end of his first term.  They fell 2.2% under Obama.  Adjusted for inflation Reagan averaged annual deficits of $348 billion.  That’s billion with a ‘B’.  Obama averaged $1.324 trillion.  That’s trillion with a ‘T’.  Or 280% higher than Ronald Reagan.  Gas prices fell 22.2% under Reagan.  They rose 107.6% under Obama.  Median income barely rose 0.4% under Reagan.  But it fell 7.3% under Obama.  In short there is nothing in the Obama economic record that is better than the Reagan economic record.

And why is this?  Because Obama’s policies are Keynesian.  While Reagan’s policies were Austrian.  Reagan focused on the stages of production to improve economic activity.  Cutting taxes.  Reducing regulatory compliance costs.  Creating a business-friendly environment.  A system that rewarded success.  Whereas Obama focused on consumer spending.  Tax, borrow and print (i.e., quantitative easing).  So the government could spend.  Putting more money into the pockets of consumers.  Which stimulated only the last stage in the stages of production.  So while some consumers had more money it was still a business-unfriendly environment.  Where tax, regulatory and environmental policies (as well as the uncertainty of Obamacare) hindered business growth everywhere upstream from retail sales.  From raw material extraction to industrial processing to construction to manufactured goods.  Where these Obama’s policies punish success.  For the bigger you get the more you pay in taxes and regulatory compliance costs.

The greatest flaw with Keynesian economics is that it looks at aggregate supply and demand.  With a focus on consumer spending.  And ignores the layers of economic activity that happens before the consumer level.  The Austrian school understands this.  As did the British when she became one of the greatest empires of all times.  As did America during the 19th century.  No nation became an economic superpower using Keynesian economics.  Japan grew to be a great economic power during the Fifties and Sixties.  Then went Keynesian in the Eighties and suffered their Lost Decade in the Nineties.  Some Keynesians like to point to China as an example of the success of Keynesian economics.  But they still have a fairly restrictive police state.  And their economic policies are hauntingly similar to Japan’s.  Some have even posited that it is very possible that China could suffer the same fate as Japan.  And suffer a deflationary spiral.  Resulting in a lost decade for China.  Which is very plausible considering the Chinese practice state-capitalism where the state partners closely with businesses.  Which is what the Japanese did in the Eighties.  And it hasn’t been great for them since.  As it hasn’t been great in America economically since the current administration.

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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

« Previous Entries