The BLS Employment Situation Summary for January 2014

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 17th, 2014

Economics 101

The Unemployment Rate is 13.6% when you count all Unemployed Workers

The economy is getting better and better.  There are more new jobs.  And the unemployment rate continues to fall.  According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).  But this is little succor for the 10,948,000 who have lost their job since President Obama began trying to make the economy better.  No matter what the BLS says (see the Employment Situation Summary posted 2/7/2014 on the Bureau of Labor Statistics).

Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 113,000 in January, and the unemployment rate was little changed at 6.6 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today.  Employment grew in construction, manufacturing, wholesale trade, and mining…

Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (6.2 percent), adult women (5.9 percent), teenagers (20.7 percent), whites (5.7 percent), blacks (12.1 percent),and Hispanics (8.4 percent) showed little change in January. The jobless rate for Asians was 4.8 percent (not seasonally adjusted), down by 1.7 percentage points over the year. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.).

The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more), at 3.6 million, declined by 232,000 in January. These individuals accounted for 35.8 percent of the unemployed. The number of long-term unemployed has declined by 1.1 million over the year.  (See table A-12.)

Once again there are more new jobs and the unemployment rate fell.  Further proof the Obama administration says that their policies are working.  But the low unemployment rate is misleading.  As there are 91,455,000 people who are no longer in the labor force (see Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age).  An increase of 10,948,000 since President Obama entered office.  The BLS doesn’t count these unemployed people as unemployed in their calculation of the official unemployment rate.  If you did that would raise the unemployment rate to 13.6%.  Which is a lot higher than the official 6.6%.  And better reflects public sentiment on the economy.

Ironically, the people hurt most by the Obama economic policies—teenagers, blacks and Hispanics—are also the biggest supporters of the president.  Which tells us they obviously support him for reasons other than the economy.  And apparently put those reasons above having a job.  At least based their respective unemployment rates.

If we count all Unemployed and Underemployed the Current Economic Recovery would take more than 20 Years

Of the people they actually count as unemployed about a third of them have been unemployed for 27 weeks or more.  So a large percentage of the unemployed are not suffering from frictional unemployment.  That brief period of unemployment between jobs.  No.  These people have lost their jobs.  And can’t find new ones.  While others can find only part-time jobs.

The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers) fell by 514,000 to 7.3 million in January. These individuals were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find full-time work. (See table A-8.)

In January, 2.6 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, little changed from a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.) These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. (See table A-16.)

If you add the people up who want a full-time job but can’t get one that’s 9,900,000 who can’t find a full-time job.  If we only add 113,000 jobs a month it will take over 87 months to get these people the full-time jobs they want.  Or more than 7 years.  If we count the last 5 years of the Obama presidency it will take the economic recovery out to 12 years.  If we add the people who have left the labor force to the underemployed (the part-time workers looking for a full-time job) that would extend the economic recovery to 244 months.  Or more than 20 years.  Which is longer than the length of the economic recovery following the Great Depression.

The Obama administration still blames George W. Bush for causing the Great Recession.  But one thing they do say over and over is that it was the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression.  So they are saying that the Great Depression was worse than the Great Recession.  Yet the current economic recovery is on track to last longer than the economic recovery following the Great Depression.

President Obama’s Economic Recovery is on Course to be the Worst Economic Recovery in U.S. History

The Great Depression and the Great Recession share something in common.  In both the government used Keynesian economics to try and pull the nation out of the economic crisis.  With huge government stimulus spending.  You can see evidence of the FDR spending today.  Such as the Hoover Dam.  But you can see little evidence from President Obama’s stimulus spending.  For there are no Hoover Dams anywhere.  Just a lot of empty buildings that housed failed green energy industries.  With no new jobs to show for it.  Such as those good-paying jobs in the green energy industry that President Obama promised his stimulus spending would produce.  But, alas, it did not.  In fact, that’s just one thing this administration is not good at.  Creating jobs.  Even the jobs they created appear suspect.

Employment in manufacturing increased in January (+21,000). Over the month, job gains occurred in machinery (+7,000), wood products (+5,000), and motor vehicles and parts (+5,000). Manufacturing added an average of 7,000 jobs per month in 2013.

In January, wholesale trade added 14,000 jobs, with most of the increase occurring in nondurable goods (+10,000).

Mining added 7,000 jobs in January, compared with an average monthly gain of 2,000 jobs in 2013…

Employment in other major industries, including transportation and warehousing, information, and financial activities, showed little or no change over the month.

These numbers don’t make sense.  Much like Keynesian economics.  The economy created jobs in manufacturing (machinery, wood products, motor vehicles and parts).  Wholesale trade added jobs.  Mining added jobs.  But this new economic activity required no new financing.  Which is odd.  For it takes money to make money.  Also, there were no new jobs in transportation and warehousing.  Which begs the question.  What did they do with all the stuff they made from all those new manufacturing jobs?  Did it ever leave these factories?  Or is there another explanation?  Did the people who entered the labor force just replace people who left it?  For no net change?  Perhaps.

The manufacturing workweek declined by 0.2 hour to 40.7 hours, and factory overtime edged down by 0.1 hour to 3.4 hours.

Or perhaps this explains how they could add jobs in an industry that required no additional financing, transportation or warehousing.  Hiring new workers while shortening the workweek and cutting back on overtime.  Or a combination of this and people leaving the labor force to net out any economic gain from these new jobs.  Whatever the explanation is one thing is certain.  The economy is not improving.  And President Obama’s economic recovery is on track to be the worst economic recovery in U.S. history.  Despite the glowing jobs reports showing new job creation month after month.  And a continuing falling unemployment.  Things they can only show by not counting the 10 million or so who are no longer employed.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Christmas and Keynesian Stimulus

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 23rd, 2013

Economics 101

(Originally published December 24th, 2012)

Christians may not like the Crass Commercialization of Christmas but the Left Loves It

The Left does not have a war on Christmas per se.  For they love the consumer spending part of Christmas.  Which is pure Keynesian.  People go into debt to spend more money at retailers.  They love that part of Christmas.  What they don’t like is the religious stuff.  Especially Jesus.

They don’t like Jesus because He is the God the Christians worship.  Their Lord and Savior.  It’s these Christians that bother the Left.  Because of their opposition to birth control (mostly Catholics), abortion and having fun in general.  The kind of fun adults enjoy.  The kind of things Christians frown on.  Premarital sex.  Gay love.  Drinking and using drugs.  Coarse language and sexual situations on television shows and in the movies.  Things they champion on the Left.  Which makes the Left hate Christianity.  Which they see as nothing but a great killjoy.

It’s the moralizing the Left does not like.  But the one thing Christians don’t like about Christmas, its crass commercialization, they do like.  So the Left will try to band images of Christ from Christmas displays wherever they can.  Despite Christmas being the celebration of Christ’s birth.  But they will gather in Rockefeller Center to party when they light the Christmas tree.  Though they would prefer that we call it the holiday tree.

Retailers often become Profitable for the Year only because of this Temporary Spending Surge at Christmas

So there are two Christmases.  The one where Christians celebrate the birth of Christ.  Wish for peace on earth.  And good will towards man.  And the other Christmas.  The one marked by the orgy of consumer spending.  Much of it funded by one-time Christmas bonuses.  A celebration of demand-side Keynesian economics.  Where people spend their hard earned money instead of saving it.  And when their money runs out they spend even more using their credit cards.

Keynesians have a bunch of charts and graphs showing how great a stimulus this Christmas spending is to the economy.  And mathematical formulas.  They can tell you about the velocity of money. How fast money travels through the economy when it goes from consumer to seller.  The seller then becomes consumer.  And spends the money they just received.  Then the person who receives this money in a sales transaction goes out and spends it as a consumer.  And on and on it goes.  Flying through though the economy at breakneck speed.  Generating a whole lot of economic activity.

Retailers often become profitable for the year only because of this spending surge at Christmas.  In fact, to handle this surge in business they hire a lot of people at Christmas time.  Part-time people.  Proving again that pumping money into the economy creates jobs.  The main tenet of Keynesian monetary policy.  Pump cash into the economy and people will spend it.  Something the Keynesians have been doing since Richard Nixon decoupled the dollar from gold in 1971.  Ending any semblance of responsible monetary policy.  And recessions forever.  At least, that was the plan.

Keynesian Stimulus is nothing more than an Orgy of Temporary Consumer Spending just like at Christmas Time

When the economy slows down and people stop buying stuff businesses have to lay off workers.  So they won’t build stuff that no one will buy.  Laid off workers no longer have money to buy things.  Which causes other business to lay off workers.  So THEY won’t build stuff that no one will buy.  It’s a vicious cycle.  In fact, we call it the business cycle.  The boom-bust cycle.  From expansion to contraction.  From an economy hiring people to an economy laying off people.

Keynesian economics was supposed to remove the contraction side of the business cycle.  By picking up the spending slack.  When consumers stopped spending money the government would step in and replace their spending.  We call it stimulus spending.  Often spending money the government doesn’t have.  So they run a deficit (i.e., borrow money).  Or simply print money.  Which they did a lot of in the Seventies.  Unfortunately, as it turns out, you just can’t do that.  For when you print money you devalue it.  Which raises prices.  As it takes more of these devalued dollars to buy what they once did.

And this is why Keynesian economics doesn’t work.  Because a Keynesian stimulus is nothing more than an orgy of consumer spending.  Just like at Christmas time.  Which happens only for a limited time.  Businesses hire temporary part-time workers at Christmas because this spending does not last.  As it does not last during a Keynesian stimulus.  It doesn’t create any full-time jobs.  Because employers know it is only temporary.  And they know that higher prices will soon follow.  As they do after Christmas when the discounting ends.  Which will reduce future economic activity.  As it does after Christmas.  Once the deals end so too ends the orgy of consumer spending.  Leaving people to deal with the aftermath.  Depleted bank accounts.  A lot of credit card debt.  And a little buyer’s remorse.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

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

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

The Rich are doing well in the Stock Market while the rest of us Suffer in a Jobless Recovery

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 7th, 2013

Week in Review

The stock market is doing well.  Thanks to the Federal Reserve’s flooding the economy with new money.  Which rich people are borrowing to get even richer in the stock market.  But all this monetary stimulus is not creating real economic activity.  Like Keynesian economics says it’s supposed to.  For the Keynesians believe the only thing needed to create economic activity is cheap money.  And government spending.  Which the government is doing.  Running record trillion dollar deficits.  But there is no new economic activity.  They are not creating new, good-paying jobs.  No, it’s quite the contrary.  Some of the most anti-business policies has frozen job creation.  With Obamacare doing much of that freezing.

The problem is that governments embrace Keynesian economics to expand the government.  Not the economy.  They hope the economy will follow.  But if it doesn’t, that’s okay.  For they are more interested in taxing, borrowing, printing and spending.  Because you can get a lot of people to vote for you when you do.  And when stimulus spending fails, why, it just gives them an excuse to pass more stimulus spending legislation.

But businesses aren’t stupid.  They know that when the government expands the money supply they will depreciate the dollar.  So they’re not borrowing any of that cheap money.  Because they know inflation will soon follow.  Raising prices.  And bringing on another recession.  Or keeping us in a perpetual recession.  At most you get a surge of consumer spending.  But that’s it.  Retailers may draw down inventories at wholesalers.  But the wholesalers aren’t increasing their orders with manufacturers.  And the manufacturers aren’t increasing their orders with their raw material suppliers.  So there is no job creation above the retail level.  And very little at the retail level.  So while rich people are taking advantage of the Federal Reserve’s quantitative easing to get rich in the stock market, the rest of us are just seeing flat and stagnant economic growth of a jobless recovery (see Demand for space in U.S. strip malls still weak in first quarter by Ilaina Jonas posted 4/4/2013 on Reuters).

With retail sales struggling to recover and muted demand for space, new construction for neighborhood strip centers remained near record low levels during the quarter, according to the report by real estate research firm Reis Inc…

The data adds to recent evidence that without a stronger labor recovery, the rebound of the U.S. economy continues at a glacial pace, rather than gaining momentum.

“Until the economy begins to create more and better jobs, retail sales will remain listless, demand will remain at low levels, and the vacancy compression will be slow and tedious,” Reis economist Ryan Severino said…

Since the United States began to drag itself out of recession, the national vacancy for neighborhood strip centers is just half a point below the 1990 all-time high of 11.1 percent that was also reached in 2011. Vacancies remain well above their 2005 low of 6.7 percent.

The unemployment rate fell in March from 7.7% to 7.6% with the economy adding only 88,000 jobs.  Horrible economic numbers.  And an unemployment rate that is meaningless.  For 496,000 people disappeared from the civilian labor force in March.  Which is the only reason why the unemployment rate fell.  They didn’t count these 496,000 people who don’t have a job as unemployed.

The economy is horrible.  It is far more horrible than the official government numbers tell us.  And it’s not going to get better anytime soon.  Not with these anti-business policies freezing hiring and hindering new job creation.  Especially Obamacare.  Whose onslaught of new taxes will snuff out whatever life is left in this anemic recovery.

But the Keynesians play with the economic data.  Telling us, as they have been telling us the past 4 years, that we’ve turned the corner.  But the only improvement in the unemployment rate is due to people disappearing from the civilian labor force.  Since Obama became president there has been a permanent decline in the labor force participation rate.  Because President Obama is a Keynesian.  And cares more about the power these horrible policies give him than the economy.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

FT152: “Liberals who expand the welfare state tell us not to feed wild animals because it makes them dependent on handouts.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 11th, 2013

Fundamental Truth

Before there was Money People Traded Things they made with their Human Capital

Which came first?  Money?  Or stuff to buy?  Was there stuff in a store before someone walked in with money to buy it?  Or without anyone having any money to buy stuff would a store owner stock his or her shelves with stuff no one could buy?  It’s a regular chicken and egg question.  Liberal Democrats would say money came first.  Because they believe in Keynesian stimulus spending.  Put more money into people’s hands and they will buy more stuff.  Thus stimulating economic activity.

But if money was all that we needed to stimulate economic activity the government could just print money and hand it out to the people.  Who will take that money and go to the stores to buy stuff.  But here is where the illusion of money creating economic activity ends.  If the government just printed money and gave it to the people no one would have to work.  Which is everyone’s earnest desire.  This is why people buy lotto tickets.  To get money to spend without having to work anymore.  But if no one worked anymore because they could get money from the government printing presses instead of getting it in a paycheck in exchange for work what would these people buy?  If no one had to work anymore who would make the stuff we find on store shelves to buy?  Of course no one would.  So those store shelves would be empty.  And with nothing to buy all the money in the world would be worthless.

So this isn’t a chicken and egg question.  Stuff to buy came long before money appeared on the scene.  Before money people bartered.  They traded things for other things.  Meaning that if you wanted something that you didn’t have you had to create something yourself to trade.  This is barter.  People with human capital (talent and ability) create something they are good at.  They create more than they need.  And take their surplus to meet other people to trade with to get those other things they want.  Things other people made using their human capital.

Search Costs made the Barter System Costly and Inefficient

Money was a solution to a problem.  As the economy got more complex with more things to trade it got more difficult to find people to trade with.  If you made product A and wanted product B you had to find someone who made product B who wanted product A.  Imagine you make vacuum cleaners.  And you want a television.  You go to market looking for people to trade with.  Let’s say you find 3 people who make televisions.  But none of them want a vacuum cleaner.  So you would have to go to another market.  And find other people who made televisions.  Until you found one that wanted a vacuum cleaner.

This time spent trying to find someone to trade with is called search costs.  Which made the barter system costly and inefficient.  For all of that time spent looking for someone to trade with was time not spent making vacuum cleaners.  Giving you less to trade with.  Allowing you to trade for fewer things.  One way to reduce search costs was to bring a third trader into the picture.  Someone that wanted a vacuum cleaner but made smartphones.  Not televisions.  If a television maker wanted a smartphone you could trade a vacuum cleaner for a smartphone.  Then trade the smartphone for a television.  Making barter a little more efficient.  By reducing search costs.  But it could still be very difficult to find three people to trade with.

This is where money comes in.  It serves as that third trader.  You would simply trade your vacuum cleaner for money.  Then trade your money for that television.  Greatly simplifying trade.  By removing half of the trade equation.  All you had to do was to find what you wanted.  And then trade your money for it.  You didn’t have to worry about what the other person wanted.  Because once they got your money they could go and trade it for whatever they wanted.  Money makes trade easier.  As long as it was something that could hold value.  A handful of dirt was not good money because anyone could scoop it up from the ground.  Gold, on the other hand, was very good money.  Because it was very difficult to get gold out of the ground.  Thus it was scarce.  As well as being durable, divisible, fungible, etc.

People Today share their Every Thought on Social Media for Validation that they Matter

Based on this let me ask you another question.  Does Keynesian stimulus spending end recessions?  No.  Because giving people money to spend allows them to spend that money without creating something of value first.  And creating more money out of nothing makes money less scarce.  And less valuable.  Like picking up a scoop of dirt from the ground.  You create too much money and people will return to the barter system.  Because something they create with their human capital will have far more value than a continuously devalued dollar.  Best of all, in a barter system there can be no Keynesian stimulus spending.  Because there is no money.  And no inflation.  Making Keynesian stimulus spending impossible.  For there will only be people creating things with their human capital to trade with other people doing the same.

Those in government, though, don’t give up their Keynesian ways.  For they like spending money.  And being able to create it out of nothing allows them to spend a lot.  Which gives them a lot of power.  By getting people dependent on government benefits.  For once they are they keep voting for those who promise to give more.  And for those who promise not to reduce their current level of benefits.  Allowing a lot of people to withdraw from half of the economic equation.  Instead of using their human capital to bring value to market to trade for other value they let their human capital wither away.  Giving them little reason to get out of bed in the morning.  For when it comes down to it, people want to have a purpose.  They want to matter.  Which is why people today share their every thought on social media.  For validation that they matter.  For others to acknowledge that what they think and say is smart, funny, witty, insightful.

Wild animals are beautiful creatures.  We are attracted to them.  And would like to approach them in the wild.  To gain their trust.  We sometimes feed them because we want to help them.  Because life in the wild is no picnic.  It’s hard.  Brutal.  And these animals are just too cute to suffer.  But the Left frowns on this.  They don’t want us to feed the animals.  For if we make them dependent on us they will never be able to return to a normal life in the wild.  They won’t be able to live without those handouts.  The Left understands this.  Yet they have no problem with making people dependent on government benefits.  Giving them no reason to get out of bed.  Destroying the economy in the process.  Making it ever harder for these benefit recipients to return to the workforce.  Leaving them no purpose in life.  Save one.  To vote Democrat.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Japan clings to the same Keynesian Policies that have Failed for over 20 Years

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 30th, 2012

Week in Review

The fiscal cliff negotiations are all about deficit reduction.  The Right wants to do it with spending cuts.   The Left wants to do it with new taxes.  So they can spend more.  This is why they can’t reach an agreement.  The Right wants to reduce the deficit.  While the Left wants to increase spending.  For benefits.  For education.  For investments in Green Energy.  For infrastructure.  For economic stimulus.  Which will only increase the deficit.  So the Democrats are not exactly sincere when they talk about deficit reduction.  Which is why they can’t make a deal with the Republicans.  Who are serious when they talk about deficit reduction.

Another reason why the Democrats want to spend so much money is that they are Keynesians.  Who believe the government can bring an economy out of a recession with stimulus spending.  Despite that failing every time we’ve tried it.  In the United States in the Seventies.  Again during the Obama administration.  In the Eurozone.  In Asia.  Especially in Japan.  Where they’ve been trying to stimulate themselves out of a recession since their Lost Decade.  The Nineties (see Japan’s New Stimulus: The Race With China To The Bottom by Gordon G. Chang posted 12/30/2012 on Forbes).

The universal consensus is that the fall in manufacturing bolsters the case for Shinzo Abe’s plans to stimulate the economy.  The new prime minister is pursuing a broad-based program of shocking Japan out of its fourth contraction since the turn of the century.

First, Abe is going to prime the pump in a big way…

Second, Abe is going to push the yen down to help struggling exporters…

Third, the just-installed prime minister is leaning on the Bank of Japan to open up the taps…

Markets may love Abe’s stimulus solutions, but they are at best short-term fixes.  Tokyo, after all, has tried them all before with generally unsatisfactory results.  What Japan needs is not another paved-over riverbed—past spending programs have resulted in useless infrastructure—but structural reform to increase the country’s competitiveness.

Tokyo’s political elite, unfortunately, has got hooked on the false notion that governments can create enduring prosperity.  Two decades of recession and recession-like stagnation in Japan are proof that repeated government intervention in the economy does not in fact work.

If you keep trying to stimulate yourself out of a recession with Keynesian policies for over twenty years perhaps it’s time to give up on those failed policies.  Of course to do that may require some spending and tax cuts.  And you know how well that goes over with big government types.  It’s why the Americans can’t make a deal to avoid the fiscal cliff.  And why the Japanese are going to try more of the same failed policies of the past.

Another impetus for these bad policies decisions is what’s happening in China.  Whose economy is much younger than Japan’s economy.  So they don’t have years of failed Keynesian policies digging their economy into a deep hole.  And because of that they’re going to go big.  Their stimulus is going to include the building of cities.  And that’s what the Japanese see.  That, and the (one time) economic explosion of their export economy.  Something they once had in Japan.  And would love to have again.  So they are going to follow China’s lead.  Even though their economic expansion is pretty much at its end.

Although there has been a “recovery” beginning in October, it looks like the upturn is already running out of steam.  China’s technocrats know they’re in trouble: they are apparently planning to increase the central government’s planned deficit for 2013 by 41% to 1.2 trillion yuan ($192 billion).  At present, it is now slated to be only 850 billion yuan.  Much of the shortfall is going toward an urbanization push next year.  Last year, Beijing announced its intention to build 20 new cities a year in each of the following 20 years.

The two biggest economies in Asia are ailing at the same time, and both Beijing and Tokyo have decided that government intervention is the shortest path to long-term growth.  Neither government’s program, however, looks viable.  Unfortunately, both China and Japan are going down the wrong road at the same time.

This could help the U.S. economy.  If they enacted spending cuts for their deficit reduction they could cut tax rates to spur the economy along.  And make the U.S. competitiveness soar while Japan and China dig themselves into deeper holes.  But the Americans, being the foolish Keynesians they are, are going to follow the Japanese and the Chinese into economic stagnation.  And with President Obama’s reelection they will stay Keynesian.  Drive over the fiscal cliff.  And compete with the Japanese to see who can have more lost decades

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Christmas and Keynesian Stimulus

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 24th, 2012

Economics 101

Christians may not like the Crass Commercialization of Christmas but the Left Loves It

The Left does not have a war on Christmas per se.  For they love the consumer spending part of Christmas.  Which is pure Keynesian.  People go into debt to spend more money at retailers.  They love that part of Christmas.  What they don’t like is the religious stuff.  Especially Jesus.

They don’t like Jesus because He is the God the Christians worship.  Their Lord and Savior.  It’s these Christians that bother the Left.  Because of their opposition to birth control (mostly Catholics), abortion and having fun in general.  The kind of fun adults enjoy.  The kind of things Christians frown on.  Premarital sex.  Gay love.  Drinking and using drugs.  Coarse language and sexual situations on television shows and in the movies.  Things they champion on the Left.  Which makes the Left hate Christianity.  Which they see as nothing but a great killjoy.

It’s the moralizing the Left does not like.  But the one thing Christians don’t like about Christmas, its crass commercialization, they do like.  So the Left will try to band images of Christ from Christmas displays wherever they can.  Despite Christmas being the celebration of Christ’s birth.  But they will gather in Rockefeller Center to party when they light the Christmas tree.  Though they would prefer that we call it the holiday tree.

Retailers often become Profitable for the Year only because of this Temporary Spending Surge at Christmas

So there are two Christmases.  The one where Christians celebrate the birth of Christ.  Wish for peace on earth.  And good will towards man.  And the other Christmas.  The one marked by the orgy of consumer spending.  Much of it funded by one-time Christmas bonuses.  A celebration of demand-side Keynesian economics.  Where people spend their hard earned money instead of saving it.  And when their money runs out they spend even more using their credit cards.

Keynesians have a bunch of charts and graphs showing how great a stimulus this Christmas spending is to the economy.  And mathematical formulas.  They can tell you about the velocity of money. How fast money travels through the economy when it goes from consumer to seller.  The seller then becomes consumer.  And spends the money they just received.  Then the person who receives this money in a sales transaction goes out and spends it as a consumer.  And on and on it goes.  Flying through though the economy at breakneck speed.  Generating a whole lot of economic activity.

Retailers often become profitable for the year only because of this spending surge at Christmas.  In fact, to handle this surge in business they hire a lot of people at Christmas time.  Part-time people.  Proving again that pumping money into the economy creates jobs.  The main tenet of Keynesian monetary policy.  Pump cash into the economy and people will spend it.  Something the Keynesians have been doing since Richard Nixon decoupled the dollar from gold in 1971.  Ending any semblance of responsible monetary policy.  And recessions forever.  At least, that was the plan.

Keynesian Stimulus is nothing more than an Orgy of Temporary Consumer Spending just like at Christmas Time

When the economy slows down and people stop buying stuff businesses have to lay off workers.  So they won’t build stuff that no one will buy.  Laid off workers no longer have money to buy things.  Which causes other business to lay off workers.  So THEY won’t build stuff that no one will buy.  It’s a vicious cycle.  In fact, we call it the business cycle.  The boom-bust cycle.  From expansion to contraction.  From an economy hiring people to an economy laying off people.

Keynesian economics was supposed to remove the contraction side of the business cycle.  By picking up the spending slack.  When consumers stopped spending money the government would step in and replace their spending.  We call it stimulus spending.  Often spending money the government doesn’t have.  So they run a deficit (i.e., borrow money).  Or simply print money.  Which they did a lot of in the Seventies.  Unfortunately, as it turns out, you just can’t do that.  For when you print money you devalue it.  Which raises prices.  As it takes more of these devalued dollars to buy what they once did.

And this is why Keynesian economics doesn’t work.  Because a Keynesian stimulus is nothing more than an orgy of consumer spending.  Just like at Christmas time.  Which happens only for a limited time.  Businesses hire temporary part-time workers at Christmas because this spending does not last.  As it does not last during a Keynesian stimulus.  It doesn’t create any full-time jobs.  Because employers know it is only temporary.  And they know that higher prices will soon follow.  As they do after Christmas when the discounting ends.  Which will reduce future economic activity.  As it does after Christmas.  Once the deals end so too ends the orgy of consumer spending.  Leaving people to deal with the aftermath.  Depleted bank accounts.  A lot of credit card debt.  And a little buyer’s remorse.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

President Obama’s Economic Recovery is worse than Ronald Reagan’s and George W. Bush’s Combined

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 8th, 2012

Week in Review

President Obama has said time and again that we can’t go back to the failed policies of the past.  Referring to Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush and their tax cutting ways that stimulated real job creation.  Not the Obama administration Keynesian stimulus spending which has the absolute worst record of job creation in post-war America (see THE SCARIEST JOBS CHART EVER by Joe Weisenthal posted 12/7/2012 on Business Insider).

Despite the strong jobs report, the employment situation in America remains depressing.

Once again, we go back to Calculated Risk, which compares the trajectory of this recovery (red line) with all other post-WWII recoveries.

As you can see, the pace of the downturn was far more severe than anything in previous recessions, and the long march back to pre-recession levels remains incredibly slow.

The chart tells a dismal story.  Ronald Reagan chose tax cuts to pull us out of the 1981 recession.  That recession saw a peak job loss of just over 3%.  And a duration of just over 27 months to recover ALL the jobs that we lost in that recession.

George W. Bush chose tax cuts to pull us out of the 2001 recession following the bursting of Bill Clinton’s dot-com bubble.  That recession saw a peak job loss of just over 2%.  And a duration of about 46 months to recover ALL the jobs lost in that recession.

Bill Clinton’s Policy Statement on Discrimination in Lending basically created subprime lending.  As the Clinton administration pressured lenders to find a way to qualify the unqualified for mortgages.  And the real estate market boomed in the 2000s.  But much like the economic boom in the 1990s it was just a bubble.  That inflated to dangerous heights thanks to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buying those toxic subprime mortgages from lenders so they could approve more of them.  Unloading those toxic mortgages on unsuspecting investors.  Sending this toxic contagion throughout the world.  The resulting 2007 recession saw a peak job loss of about 6.5%.  And a duration of about 58 months AND counting to recover all those  jobs lost in the current recession.  We still have another 3% to go.

This postwar recession is the worst by whatever metric you measure it by.  But the singular aspect of it that makes this recession much longer and deeper in job losses is the Obama administration’s choice of using Keynesian stimulus to try to end it.  Instead of tax cuts.  Which is why the Obama recovery is far worse and more long-lasting in misery than both the Reagan and Bush recoveries added together.  Proving the current economic disaster is an Obama disaster.  For his insistence on using the failed policies of Keynesian stimulus spending instead of the time proven policies of tax cuts.

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

« Previous Entries