Tax Cuts, Roaring Twenties, Farm Prices, Smoot-Hawley Tariff, Stock Market Crash, New Deal, Great Depression and the Great Recession

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 6th, 2012

History 101

(Originally published March 20, 2012)

Tax Cuts and the Small Government Policies of Harding and Coolidge gave us the Roaring Twenties

Keynesians blame the long duration of the Great Depression (1929-1939) on the government clinging to the gold standard.  Even renowned monetarist economist Milton Friedman agrees.  Though that’s about the only agreement between Keynesians and Friedman.   Their arguments are that the US could have reduced the length and severity of the Great Depression if they had only abandoned the gold standard.  And adopted Keynesian policies.  Deficit spending.  Just like they did in the Seventies.  The decade where we had both high unemployment and high inflation.  Stagflation.  Something that’s not supposed to happen under Keynesian economics.  So when it did they blamed the oil shocks of the Seventies.  Not their orgy of spending.  Or their high taxes.  And they feel the same way about the Great Depression.

Funny.  How one price shock (oil) can devastate all businesses in the US economy.  So much so that it stalled job creation.  And caused high unemployment.  Despite the government printing and spending money to create jobs.  And to provide government benefits so recipients could use those benefits to stimulate economic activity.  All of that government spending failed to pull the country out of one bad recession.  Because of that one price shock on the cost of doing business.  Yet no one talks about the all out assault on business starting in the Hoover administration that continued and expanded through the Roosevelt administration.

Herbert Hoover may have been a Republican.  But he was no conservative.  He was a big government progressive.  And believed that the federal government should interfere into the free market.  To make things better.  Unlike Warren Harding.  And Calvin Coolidge.  Who believed in a small government, hands-off policy when it came to the economy.  They passed tax cuts.  Following the advice of their treasury secretary.  Andrew Mellon.  Which gave business confidence of what the future would hold.  So they invested.  Expanded production.  And created jobs.  It was these small government policies that gave us the Roaring Twenties.  An economic boom that electrified and modernized the world.  With real economic growth.

If an Oil Shock can prevent Businesses from Responding to Keynesian Policies then so can FDR’s all out War on Business

The Roaring Twenties was a great time to live if you wanted a job.  And wanted to live in the modern era.  Electric power was spreading across the country.  People had electric appliances in their homes.  Radios.  They went to the movies.  Drove cars.  Flew in airplanes.  The Roaring Twenties was a giant leap forward in the standard of living.  Factories with electric power driving electric motors increased productivity.  And reduced air pollution as they replaced coal-fired steam boilers that up to then powered the Industrial Revolution.  This modernization even made it to the farm.  Farmers borrowed heavily to mechanize their farms.  Allowing them to grow more food than ever.  Bumper crops caused farm prices to fall.  Good for consumers.  But not those farmers who borrowed heavily.

Enter Herbert Hoover.  Who wanted to use the power of government to help the farmers.  By forcing Americans to pay higher food prices.  Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve raised interest rates.  Thinking that a boom in the stock market was from speculation and not the real economic growth of the Twenties.  So they contracted the money supply.  Cooling that real economic growth.  And making it very hard to borrow money.  Causing farmers to default on their loans.  Small rural banks that loaned to these farmers failed.  These bank failures spread to other banks.  Weakening the banking system.  Then came the Smoot-Hawley Tariff.  Passed in 1930.  But it was causing business uncertainty as early as 1928.  As the Smoot-Hawley Tariff was going to increase tariffs on just about everything by 30%.  Basically adding a 30% tax on the cost of doing business.  That the businesses would, of course, pass on to consumers.  By raising prices.  Because consumers weren’t getting a corresponding 30% pay hike they, of course, could not buy as much after the Smoot-Hawley Tariff.  Putting a big cramp in sales revenue.  Perhaps even starting an international trade war.  Further cramping sales.  Something investors no doubt took notice of.  Seeing that real economic growth would soon come to a screeching halt.  And when the bill moved through committees in the autumn of 1929 the die was cast.  Investors began the massive selloff on Wall Street.  The Stock Market Crash of 1929.  The so-called starting point of the Great Depression.  Then the Smoot-Hawley Tariff became law.  And the trade war began.  As anticipated.

Of course, the Keynesians ignore this lead up to the Great Depression.  This massive government intrusion into the free market.  And the next president would build on this intrusion into the free market.  Ignoring the success of the small-government and tax cuts of Harding and Coolidge.  As well as ignoring the big-government free-market-intrusion failures of Herbert Hoover.  The New Deal programs of FDR were going to explode government spending to heights never before seen in peace time.  Causing uncertainty like never seen before in the business community.  It was an all out assault on business.  Taxes and regulation that increased the cost of business.  And massive government spending for new benefits and make-work programs.  All paid for by the people who normally create jobs.  Which there wasn’t a lot of during the great Depression.  Thanks to programs like Reconstruction Finance Corporation, Federal Emergency Relief Administration, Civilian Conservation Corps, Homeowners Loan Corporation, Tennessee Valley Authority, Agricultural Adjustment Act, National Industrial Recovery Act, Public Works Administration, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Glass–Steagall Act, Securities Act of 1933, Civil Works Administration, Indian Reorganization Act, Social Security Act, Works Progress Administration, National Labor Relations Act, Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, Surplus Commodities Program, Fair Labor Standards Act, Rural Electrification Administration, Resettlement Administration and Farm Security Administration, etc.  Oil shocks of the Seventies?  If an oil shock can prevent businesses from responding to Keynesian policies then an all out war on business in the Thirties could do the same.  And worse.  Far, far worse.  Which is why the Great Depression lasted 10 years.  Because the government turned what would have been a normal recession into a world-wide calamity.  By trying to interfere with market forces.

Only Real Economic Growth creates Jobs, not Government Programs

The unemployment rate in 1929 was 3.1%.  In 1933 it was 24.9%.  It stayed above 20% until 1936.  Where it fell as low as 14.3% in 1937.  It then went to 19.0%, 17.2% and 14.6% in the next three years.  These numbers stayed horrible throughout the Thirties because the government wouldn’t stop meddling.  Or spending money.  None of the New Deal programs had a significant effect on unemployment.  The New Deal failed to fix the economy the way the New Dealers said it would.  Despite the massive price tag.  So much for super smart government bureaucrats.

What finally pulled us out of the Great Depression?  Adolf Hitler’s conquering of France in 1940.  When American industry received great orders for real economic growth.  From foreign countries.  To build the war material they needed to fight Adolf Hitler.  And the New Deal programs be damned.  There was no time for any more of that nonsense.  So during World War II businesses had a little less uncertainty.  And a backlog of orders.  All the incentive they needed to ramp up American industry.  To make it hum like it once did under Harding and Coolidge.  And they won World War II.  For there was no way Adolf Hitler could match that economic output.  Which made all the difference on the battlefield.

Still there are those who want to blame the gold standard for the Great Depression.  And still support Keynesian policies to tax and spend.  Even today.  Even after 8 years of Ronald Reagan that proved the policies of Harding and Coolidge.  We’re right back to those failed policies of the past.  Massive government spending to stimulate economic activity.  To pull us out of the Great Recession.  And utterly failing.  Where the unemployment rate struggles to get below 9%.  The U-3 unemployment rate, that is.  The rate that doesn’t count everyone who wants full time work.  The rate that counts everyone, the U-6 unemployment rate, currently stands at 14.9%.  Which is above the lowest unemployment rate during the Great Depression.  Proving once again only real economic growth creates jobs.  Not government programs.  No matter how many trillions of dollars the government spends.

So much for super smart government bureaucrats.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Tax Cuts, Roaring Twenties, Farm Prices, Smoot-Hawley Tariff, Stock Market Crash, New Deal, Great Depression and the Great Recession

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 20th, 2012

History 101

Tax Cuts and the Small Government Policies of Harding and Coolidge gave us the Roaring Twenties

Keynesians blame the long duration of the Great Depression (1929-1939) on the government clinging to the gold standard.  Even renowned monetarist economist Milton Friedman agrees.  Though that’s about the only agreement between Keynesians and Friedman.   Their arguments are that the US could have reduced the length and severity of the Great Depression if they had only abandoned the gold standard.  And adopted Keynesian policies.  Deficit spending.  Just like they did in the Seventies.  The decade where we had both high unemployment and high inflation.  Stagflation.  Something that’s not supposed to happen under Keynesian economics.  So when it did they blamed the oil shocks of the Seventies.  Not their orgy of spending.  Or their high taxes.  And they feel the same way about the Great Depression.

Funny.  How one price shock (oil) can devastate all businesses in the US economy.  So much so that it stalled job creation.  And caused high unemployment.  Despite the government printing and spending money to create jobs.  And to provide government benefits so recipients could use those benefits to stimulate economic activity.  All of that government spending failed to pull the country out of one bad recession.  Because of that one price shock on the cost of doing business.  Yet no one talks about the all out assault on business starting in the Hoover administration that continued and expanded through the Roosevelt administration.

Herbert Hoover may have been a Republican.  But he was no conservative.  He was a big government progressive.  And believed that the federal government should interfere into the free market.  To make things better.  Unlike Warren Harding.  And Calvin Coolidge.  Who believed in a small government, hands-off policy when it came to the economy.  They passed tax cuts.  Following the advice of their treasury secretary.  Andrew Mellon.  Which gave business confidence of what the future would hold.  So they invested.  Expanded production.  And created jobs.  It was these small government policies that gave us the Roaring Twenties.  An economic boom that electrified and modernized the world.  With real economic growth. 

If an Oil Shock can prevent Businesses from Responding to Keynesian Policies then so can FDR’s all out War on Business

The Roaring Twenties was a great time to live if you wanted a job.  And wanted to live in the modern era.  Electric power was spreading across the country.  People had electric appliances in their homes.  Radios.  They went to the movies.  Drove cars.  Flew in airplanes.  The Roaring Twenties was a giant leap forward in the standard of living.  Factories with electric power driving electric motors increased productivity.  And reduced air pollution as they replaced coal-fired steam boilers that up to then powered the Industrial Revolution.  This modernization even made it to the farm.  Farmers borrowed heavily to mechanize their farms.  Allowing them to grow more food than ever.  Bumper crops caused farm prices to fall.  Good for consumers.  But not those farmers who borrowed heavily.

Enter Herbert Hoover.  Who wanted to use the power of government to help the farmers.  By forcing Americans to pay higher food prices.  Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve raised interest rates.  Thinking that a boom in the stock market was from speculation and not the real economic growth of the Twenties.  So they contracted the money supply.  Cooling that real economic growth.  And making it very hard to borrow money.  Causing farmers to default on their loans.  Small rural banks that loaned to these farmers failed.  These bank failures spread to other banks.  Weakening the banking system.  Then came the Smoot-Hawley Tariff.  Passed in 1930.  But it was causing business uncertainty as early as 1928.  As the Smoot-Hawley Tariff was going to increase tariffs on just about everything by 30%.  Basically adding a 30% tax on the cost of doing business.  That the businesses would, of course, pass on to consumers.  By raising prices.  Because consumers weren’t getting a corresponding 30% pay hike they, of course, could not buy as much after the Smoot-Hawley Tariff.  Putting a big cramp in sales revenue.  Perhaps even starting an international trade war.  Further cramping sales.  Something investors no doubt took notice of.  Seeing that real economic growth would soon come to a screeching halt.  And when the bill moved through committees in the autumn of 1929 the die was cast.  Investors began the massive selloff on Wall Street.  The Stock Market Crash of 1929.  The so-called starting point of the Great Depression.  Then the Smoot-Hawley Tariff became law.  And the trade war began.  As anticipated.

Of course, the Keynesians ignore this lead up to the Great Depression.  This massive government intrusion into the free market.  And the next president would build on this intrusion into the free market.  Ignoring the success of the small-government and tax cuts of Harding and Coolidge.  As well as ignoring the big-government free-market-intrusion failures of Herbert Hoover.  The New Deal programs of FDR were going to explode government spending to heights never before seen in peace time.  Causing uncertainty like never seen before in the business community.  It was an all out assault on business.  Taxes and regulation that increased the cost of business.  And massive government spending for new benefits and make-work programs.  All paid for by the people who normally create jobs.  Which there wasn’t a lot of during the great Depression.  Thanks to programs like Reconstruction Finance Corporation, Federal Emergency Relief Administration, Civilian Conservation Corps, Homeowners Loan Corporation, Tennessee Valley Authority, Agricultural Adjustment Act, National Industrial Recovery Act, Public Works Administration, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Glass–Steagall Act, Securities Act of 1933, Civil Works Administration, Indian Reorganization Act, Social Security Act, Works Progress Administration, National Labor Relations Act, Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, Surplus Commodities Program, Fair Labor Standards Act, Rural Electrification Administration, Resettlement Administration and Farm Security Administration, etc.  Oil shocks of the Seventies?  If an oil shock can prevent businesses from responding to Keynesian policies then an all out war on business in the Thirties could do the same.  And worse.  Far, far worse.  Which is why the Great Depression lasted 10 years.  Because the government turned what would have been a normal recession into a world-wide calamity.  By trying to interfere with market forces.

Only Real Economic Growth creates Jobs, not Government Programs

The unemployment rate in 1929 was 3.1%.  In 1933 it was 24.9%.  It stayed above 20% until 1936.  Where it fell as low as 14.3% in 1937.  It then went to 19.0%, 17.2% and 14.6% in the next three years.  These numbers stayed horrible throughout the Thirties because the government wouldn’t stop meddling.  Or spending money.  None of the New Deal programs had a significant effect on unemployment.  The New Deal failed to fix the economy the way the New Dealers said it would.  Despite the massive price tag.  So much for super smart government bureaucrats.

What finally pulled us out of the Great Depression?  Adolf Hitler’s conquering of France in 1940.  When American industry received great orders for real economic growth.  From foreign countries.  To build the war material they needed to fight Adolf Hitler.  And the New Deal programs be damned.  There was no time for any more of that nonsense.  So during World War II businesses had a little less uncertainty.  And a backlog of orders.  All the incentive they needed to ramp up American industry.  To make it hum like it once did under Harding and Coolidge.  And they won World War II.  For there was no way Adolf Hitler could match that economic output.  Which made all the difference on the battlefield.

Still there are those who want to blame the gold standard for the Great Depression.  And still support Keynesian policies to tax and spend.  Even today.  Even after 8 years of Ronald Reagan that proved the policies of Harding and Coolidge.  We’re right back to those failed policies of the past.  Massive government spending to stimulate economic activity.  To pull us out of the Great Recession.  And utterly failing.  Where the unemployment rate struggles to get below 9%.  The U-3 unemployment rate, that is.  The rate that doesn’t count everyone who wants full time work.  The rate that counts everyone, the U-6 unemployment rate, currently stands at 14.9%.  Which is above the lowest unemployment rate during the Great Depression.  Proving once again only real economic growth creates jobs.  Not government programs.  No matter how many trillions of dollars the government spends. 

So much for super smart government bureaucrats.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

The Europeans try to Shake Down the World with their Emission Trading Scheme but China, Russia, India and the US fight Back

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 18th, 2012

Week in Review

The European Union thought that they had struck gold.  Their little Emission Trading Scheme.  Which would force foreign governments to fund a large portion of their chronic budget deficits.  By forcing them to buy permits to emit carbon in their airspace.  As well as other nations ‘ airspace.  Even in airspace over the high seas.  A bold scheme their Emission Trading Scheme.  Though not strictly legal.  And requiring a submissive airline industry that has no problem saying “make me your bitch” to the Europeans.   Which doesn’t look to be the case (see U.S. sides with China against airlines emissions tax by Tim Devaney posted 3/15/2012 on The Washington Times).

The European Union’s plan to impose a tax on international airlines for their carbon emissions has run into fierce head winds, with the Obama administration joining China, India and other powers in a growing global drive to force the EU to back down…

“It’s a tricky one: Fight a trade war with the entire world, or back down,” said Richard Aboulafia, vice president of analysis at Virginia-based Teal Group. “I’m thinking they’re going to back down.”

China is one of the biggest opponents of the plan, which would tax airlines for their carbon outputs for flights to or from Europe. The controversial part of the tax, which has drawn complaints that the fee is illegal under international trade law, is that it is assessed based on the entirety of the flight distance, not just the part spent over European airspace.

Hitting back at Europe where it counts, China has canceled plans to purchase 55 jets worth $14 billion from Airbus.

On Thursday, it suspended a purchase of 10 Airbus A330s, a move made just days after Airbus complained to European politicians about China having put off buying 10 A380 superjumbos and 35 A330s.

China and Russia have said their airlines will not comply with the emissions charge, which could keep their carriers from traveling to Europe altogether. Congress has considered a similar measure.

At a meeting last month in Moscow, almost 30 countries adopted a resolution threatening Europe with eight forms of retaliation they would consider if the charge is not scrapped. Among those measures are bringing legal cases before international trade forums, not granting European carriers landing rights and routes, and new levies against EU national airlines…

Airlines aren’t necessarily opposed to paying for their emissions in European airspace, which is unquestionably under EU jurisdiction, but chafe at being charged for emissions over other parts of the world. For example, European airspace takes up only 9 percent of a flight from San Francisco to London, according to Airlines for America. The rest is over the U.S., Canada and the high seas, but airlines would be charged for the entire 5,371-mile trip.

Money talks and a silly Emission Trading Scheme walks.  Or soon will.  Unless the Europeans want to take on the whole world.  Plunging the international economy into a trade war.  Could they be so arrogant?  Well that’s a silly question.  Of course they can be.  But will they put their silly environmentalism where their economies are?  And do they think the world is so ignorant not to see that this is just a way to get others to pay for their chronic budget deficits?  The world is betting they’re not.  And will back down.  Which they’d be wise to do.  For if they thought they had deficit problems before an international trade war directed at them they ain’t seen nothing yet.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Raising the Debt Ceiling may be Worse than Default

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 30th, 2011

Despite U.S. Debt Crisis, U.S. still the World’s Safe Asset of Choice

As Congress debates over the debt ceiling…blah blah blah…Armageddon.  Funny thing is, the U.S. debt problem is not that bad.  When compared to the debt problem in Europe (see Err, over here by Schumpeter posted 7/29/2011 on The Economist).

AS THE August 2nd deadline for a resolution of America’s debt-ceiling row approaches, other news is being drowned out. America’s debt debacle provokes rubber-necking fascination but the euro crisis is still the bigger threat to financial stability.

The chances (admittedly diminishing with time) are that America will get its house in order and avoid default; and that a ratings downgrade will happen but not threaten the pre-eminence of Treasuries as the world’s safe asset of choice. In contrast, the euro area’s crisis is already in full swing and policymakers, as this week’s issue of The Economist makes plain, have not found a way to stop it.

Things are worse in the European Union.  Especially the Eurozone.  And though Armageddon is at hand in the U.S., we’re still the “world’s safe asset of choice.”  So the end of the world as we know it may not be at hand.  But the out of control government spending and debt is fast approaching European levels.  So if we don’t cut our spending and reduce our deficits, we will follow lockstep behind Europe into fiscal ruin.  And then, of course, Armageddon.  

Partisan Democrats decry Republican Partisanship

So this Republican partisanship needs to end.  They need to be bipartisan.  Like the Democrats.  That is, when they’re not being partisan themselves (see For Reid, Durbin, and Obama, a (very) partisan record on debt ceiling by Byron York posted 7/30/2011 on The Washington Examiner).

A look at Reid’s record, however, shows that in the last decade his own voting on the issue of the debt ceiling is not only partisan but perfectly partisan. According to “The Debt Limit: History and Recent Increases,” a January 2010 report by the Congressional Research Service, the Senate has passed ten increases to the debt limit since 2000.  Reid never voted to increase the debt ceiling when Republicans were in control of the Senate, and he always voted to increase the debt ceiling when Democrats were in control…

At look at Durbin’s record shows that he, too, has voted along absolutely partisan lines.  In the last decade, Durbin never voted to increase the debt ceiling when Republicans were in control and always voted to increase the debt ceiling when Democrats were in control.  As for Obama, there were four votes to raise the debt ceiling when he was in the Senate.  He missed two of them, voted no once when Republicans were in charge, and voted yes once when Democrats were in charge.

So the Democrats have a history of being just as partisan as the Republicans.  Even now, as they decry the Republican’s partisanship, they refuse to compromise at all on what they’ve always wanted.  More taxes.  And more borrowing.  So they can spend a lot more.

Democrats open to Compromise, as long as it’s the Republicans doing the Compromising

And they’ve drawn a line in the sand.  No meaningful cuts without new taxes (see Senate Kills Debt Bill, Bipartisan Talks on Hold by Steven T. Dennis posted 7/29/2011 on Roll Call).

“We’ve got a closet full of triggers,” he said. But, he added, “I came to the conclusion that we are negotiating with ourselves. The Republicans will not agree to any triggers that have any revenues in it.”

And Reid noted that Democrats have drawn a line in the sand against any cuts to entitlement programs without revenue.

The Republicans refuse to raise taxes because America is still wallowing in the Great Recession.  Democrats refuse to drop their request to raise taxes.  And flat out refuse to cut entitlements.  Like Social Security.  Medicare.  And the new Obamacare.  Because, though fiscally responsible, it’s not politically expedient.  Which is going to become a BIG problem soon.

Repeal Obamacare and all our Current Troubles go Away

Health care spending will take the U.S. to European levels of spending and debt (see CMS Projections Confirm Runaway Health Care Spending by Kathryn Nix posted 7/29/2011 on The Foundry).

As the economy recovers and the major provisions of Obamacare kick in, national health spending is projected to grow at quite a clip—increasing, on average, 5.8 percent each year. By 2020, the nation will spend $4.54 trillion on health care, or close to 20 percent of GDP. (For the sake of comparison: In 2010, federal tax revenue totaled 14.9 percent of GDP, and all federal spending combined amounted to 23.8 percent of GDP.)

Of course, every cloud has a silver lining.  An S&P report calls for real spending cuts of $4 trillion or more over 10 years to avoid the credit downgrade.  And look at this.  Obamacare will cost $4.54 trillion over some 10 years.  Imagine that.  Save the AAA bond rating.  Leave Social Security and Medicare intact.  And all you have to do is cut one program that no one is receiving any benefits from yet.  Repeal Obamacare.  And all our current troubles go away.

Or you can Devalue the Currency

Of course, that’s one way of solving the current crisis.  There appears to be another.  One that is a bit more destructive (see Answers to the 7 big “what-ifs” of debt default by Lauren Young posted 7/30/2011 on Reuters).

Traders say Asian central banks, among the world’s biggest dollar holders, have been steady buyers of alternatives to the dollar such as the Singapore dollar and other Asian currencies as well as the Canadian, Australian and New Zealand dollars. “Foreigners are at the vanguard of the drop in the dollar,” says Dan Dorrow, head of research at Faros Trading, a currency broker/dealer in Stamford, Connecticut. “I don’t think anyone expects a catastrophic U.S. default. But a downgrade will make them more aggressive in moving away from the dollar…”

The bottom line? It will be more expensive to travel overseas, drink French wine or buy Japanese cars.

A little trade war anyone?  A weak currency is like a tariff.  It makes imports so expensive that we stop buying them.  And buy American instead.  Thus increasing U.S. GDP.  And there is a corollary to this.  Can you guess what that is?  Here’s a hint.  It does something to our exports.  And our vacation market.

Fixing our Economy by Destroying other Economies

A weak currency not only makes your imports more expensive, it also makes your exports less expensive.  Which helps your export market.  And encourages people to vacation in your country because those stronger, foreign currencies can buy so much more (see U.S. Economy: Growth Trails Forecasts as Consumers Retrench by Shobhana Chandra posted 7/29/2011 on Bloomberg).

The improvement in the difference between imports and exports added another 0.6 point [of U.S. GDP].

Overseas sales will remain a backstop for factories. Dow Chemical Co. (DOW), the largest U.S. chemical maker, said demand is “strong” in markets abroad.

“We captured strong growth in Latin America, and the emerging geographies more broadly, while North America experienced moderate growth,” Andrew Liveris, chief executive officer, said on a July 27 conference call with analysts.

So perhaps this is the grand plan.  Increase spending to unsustainable levels.  Incur record debt.  This spending and debt triggers a downgrade of U.S. sovereign debt.  Which devalues the U.S. dollar.  Which places a de facto tariff on imports.  And provides a subsidy for our exports.  And it makes the U.S. a vacation destination.  Until our trading partners retaliate for fixing our economy by destroying their economies.  Like everyone is saying the Chinese are doing by keeping their own currency weak.

Repealing Obamacare would Please the Credit Rating Agencies

So the only bright spot in the U.S. economy is other economies.  Where they’re experiencing growth.  And can easily afford U.S. goods.  Which is about the only market buying them these days.  But for the world’s largest economy (for now) to rely solely on exports can be a bit risky.  Especially if it triggers a trade war.  Which, incidentally, helped trigger the Great Depression.

No, it would probably be more prudent to keep that AAA rating by cutting spending.  Before we spend ourselves to European ruin.  That’s the key to everything.  In particular cutting the fastest growing government expenditure.  Health care.  Which makes repealing Obamacare made to order.  No one is benefitting from it yet.  So no one will even notice this cut.  Other than the credit rating agencies.  Who will stand up and applaud this action. 

For just raising the debt ceiling doesn’t solve the real problem.  In fact, raising the debt ceiling without the $4 trillion in spending cuts will just push us closer to European ruin.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

LESSONS LEARNED #73: “Politics is about overspending and vote-buying while getting some poor dumb bastard to pay for it.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 7th, 2011

Great Britain’s Costly World Wars

The 18th century was a time for adventure.  Exploring brave new worlds.  Discovering new species of plant and animal.  And new peoples.  But most of all it was a time for war.  World war.  As the great mercantilist empires raced to establish colonies in those brave new worlds.  And bumped into each other in the process.  Great Britain, Prussia and Portugal fought against against France, Spain, Austria, Russia and Sweden in the Seven Years’ War.  They fought for control of trade routes.  And each other’s colonies.  They fought from 1756 to 1763.  In Europe, Asia, Africa, South America, North America, the Caribbean, the Philippines and on the high seas.

Great Britain’s secretary of state, William Pitt, committed to total war.  He went all in.  Thanks to his allies fighting in Europe on land he had armies available for the colonial theaters.  And he had the Royal Navy.  That ruled the seas.  It was a formidable force.  And the British Empire grew.  From Gibraltar to the Indian subcontinent to the Philippines to the Caribbean.  And, of course, Canada.  It was a great victory.  But a costly one.  As total war tends to be.  And with more empire to manage and protect, Britain needed a larger standing army.  And a larger Royal Navy.  Costing even more money.  Especially in North America.  Where there was a lot of Indian activity on the frontier.  It only seemed fair to King and Parliament that their American colonists paid their fair share.  And the taxation started coming. 

The king needed money.  And the landowners in England were already overtaxed from years of war.  Taxing them further could cause problems in Parliament.  Because they had representation with their taxation.  But there was a lot of untapped wealth across the Atlantic Ocean.  The American colonies.  And they had no representation in Parliament.  So they would tax them to replenish the royal coffers.  And to help maintain the sprawling empire.  So they taxed.  And the Americans balked.  Then Parliament passed some acts to punish the colonists.  One thing led to another that led to a shot at Lexington that was heard ’round the world.  The American Revolution for independence from the British Empire was on.  And it, too, would be costly for Great Britain.  Eight more years of war.  And it would end with the loss of the American colonies.  Worse, it gave the French some ideas that led to the French Revolution.  And, ultimately, Napoleon.  That would plunge Great Britain back into another costly world war. 

Rhode Island:  Smallest State but Biggest Pain in the Ass

But Great Britain wasn’t the only nation with a large war debt.  The new United States of America also had a huge war debt.  And her finances were a mess.  People had debts.  States had debts.  And the Confederation Congress had debt.  Millions borrowed from Holland and France to fight the war.  And money was owed from before the war.  Including to British merchants that had to be honored for America needed trade with the British Empire.  And the protection of that trade provided by the Royal Navy.  So a lot of money was owed to a lot of people.  Which a lot of people didn’t have.  State legislations passed debtors’ laws that provided some relief to debtors by making it okay for them not to repay their loans.  Of course, this destroyed the credit markets.  Because people won’t loan money if the law says no one has to pay it back.  Worse, states were printing their own currencies.  And forcing people to accept it as legal tender.  Even though it wasn’t worth the paper it was printed on.  States were charging import duties on interstate trade.  Other states were charging some states more for their goods.  The love was gone.  States circled the wagons.  The war was over so they said screw the confederation .  It was a mess.  And soon after the war the economy was collapsing.

The United States was the Rodney Dangerfield of the international community.  It got no respect.  And most thought it was only a matter of time before they fell on their face and rejoined the British Empire.  The new nation needed legitimacy.  Which is hard to do when you’re broke.  You have no army or navy.  And the individual states were making their own treaties.  Making their own currency.  Collecting their own tariffs.  Life was simpler for the rest of the world when the Americans were British Americans.  For then she had a single seat of government to treat with.  A single currency.  A uniform tariff.  The Articles of Confederation just wasn’t getting it done.  So there was a drive to revise them to address some of these shortcomings.  Such as a national tariff to help pay down the national debt.  But one of the shortcomings was the revision process itself.  Any change required unanimous consent.  Which was a problem when it came to tariffs.

You see, tariffs are a source of revenue.  Imported goods come in on ships.  That have to dock.  In a port.  Before they offload a customs official reviews the manifest.  And verifies the cargo.  It’s simple math.  You have a list of what’s on a ship.  You apply a tariff.  Get your money.  Then you let the ships unload their cargo.  It’s very straight forward.  All you need is a port.  Which Rhode Island had.  And she refused to give up her right to collect those tariffs.  Because they collected a lot of revenue.  From her merchants.  And from all the merchants in the land-locked states that used her port.  It was very lucrative.  Her taxpayers loved it.  Because someone else was paying their taxes.  They were getting a free ride.  Thanks to those tariffs.  Which was great for them.  But it almost doomed the fledgling new nation.  Because whenever the Confederation Congress tried to amend the Articles of Confederation to include a national tariff, Rhode Island always voted “no.”  She refused to give up her cash cow.  Even if it meant the collapse of the new nation.  (Eventually delegates would meet in Philadelphia in 1787 and write a new constitution to replace the Articles of Confederation.  And some 100 years later America became a superpower.  No thanks to Rhode Island, of course.)

The EU and their Mercantile Emissions Trading Scheme

A clever government is always trying to think of ways to get other people to pay for their excessive spending.  And by ‘clever’ I mean devious.  To find some dumb bastard to pick up their tab.  Preferably not their own taxpayers.  Especially taxpayers who vote.  Because that’s the funny thing about taxpayers.  They don’t like paying taxes.  They will because they understand certain public goods require public funding.  Like an army and a navy to protect their nation from foreign enemies.  They’ll pay for these because they don’t want to be invaded or have their cargo ships boarded by pirates on the open seas.  But they’re not going to willingly pay for a big fat welfare state.  Not if they have to make sacrifices in their own lives so others don’t.  That’s just slavery by another name.  People just don’t like oppressive governments that take their money.  Or their liberty.  But if they could get some nice government benefits without having to pay for them, why, that’s a different story.

This is a lesson governments have learned well.  This is the basis for socialism (from those according to ability to those according to need).  And the progressive income tax (the more you earn the more you pay).  You get the smaller group of rich people to pay more than their fair share.  Then you take their money and spend it on the larger group of poor people who will forever love you.  And vote for you.  It’s a sound theory.  Until you can’t raise taxes anymore without throwing the economy into recession.  Or causing a taxpayer revolt.  So advanced nations that can’t tax anymore have found other sources of revenue.  Thanks to global warming.

Global warming is a hoax created to impose more government control over our lives.  To create more fees.  And a font of new taxation.  The University in East Anglia led the charge in this false science.  Leaked emails have since proven that they did play with the numbers to advance their agenda.  Though debunked it still has deep roots in the UK.  And Europe.  They refuse to let it go because of the riches it promises to deliver.  And with the UK and Europe suffering debt crises, they need those riches.  And the European Union is acting bold.  And extralegal.  They created an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).  Anyone that produces carbon dioxide has to pay for that privilege.  And that ‘anyone’ is pretty much everyone in industry and transportation.  By buying permits that ‘allow’ you to emit this product of combustion.  Including all international flights flying into EU airspace.  Which the non-EU airlines have a problem with.  Who are already struggling under the high cost of fuel.  But the EU is standing firm.  To save the planet.  And coincidentally pouring vast sums of money into their coffers.  So they can transfer the cost of their irresponsible government spending to non-Europeans buying tickets to travel to Europe.  But this can’t end well.  Other nations will respond with some measures of their own to ‘tax’ EU planes coming into their airspace.  Worse, when they can no longer sell the fraud of global warming to a gullible people, the nations who bought those permits may want their money back.  To help with their own irresponsible spending.  And with the sums involved, they will no doubt exhaust no legal avenues.  Perhaps even exploring other avenues.  Something extralegal.  Just like they did in the EU when they set up their ETS.

Spend First, Pay Later, then Suffer the Consequences

That’s the problem with spending first then trying to figure out clever ways to get someone to pay for that spending later.  Politicians tend to look at short-term benefits.  Not long-term consequences.  Had Great Britain known what the ultimate price would be for their tax policies they no doubt would have pursued a different course.  And avoided the 8 years of the American Revolutionary War.  And the subsequent Napoleonic Wars.  Which all added up to quite the pretty farthing.

Of course, Great Britain’s woes go back to the costly Seven Years’ War.  Which grew out of a trade war.  Resulting from the mercantile policies of competing empires for overseas colonies.  And trade.  The EU’s ETS is sort of a throwback to those mercantile policies.  That may very well result in a trade war itself.

Funny how history repeats.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Save the Economy or Save the Planet, it’s One or the Other

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 5th, 2011

Pushing back against the EPA’s Assault against Business

With the economy in the toilet where it will probably remain for a long time to come, a lot of people have given up on environmentalism.  They take a look around them and see that things look pretty good.  Environmental-wise.  In fact, it’s a regular paradise compared to all the environmentalists’ alarmist predictions from a decade or two ago.  Which look rather silly today.  Children in the UK will no longer know what snow is.  The overwhelming stench of dead fish decaying on America’s beaches (killed by warming ocean temperatures).  Flooded coastal areas due to melting of Arctic ice.  None of it happened as predicted.  We got all worked up over nothing.  That’s why environmentalism is more of a young person’s game.  Because after you lived through 20-30 years of failed predictions, you tend to grow a little skeptical.  Especially during times of high unemployment.

That’s why a lot of people don’t give a rat’s rear end about global warming now.  They want a job.  And the way they see it, all this environmentalist nonsense is killing the job market.  And the Republican-controlled House they’re starting to push back on the job killer itself.  The EPA (see Soaring emissions posted 6/2/2011 on The Economist).

The Republicans’ chief concern is the EPA’s authority, as affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2007, to regulate emissions of greenhouse gases. But more broadly they worry that the EPA is constantly tightening restrictions on pollution, at ever higher cost to business but with diminishing returns in terms of public health. They point to a slew of new rules about industrial boilers, cooling water at power plants, the disposal of coal ash, and emissions of mercury, ozone and other chemicals from smokestacks, which cumulatively, they say, will have a crippling effect on power generation and other industries. “Even God,” says Joe Barton, a Republican congressman, “couldn’t meet some of the ozone standards.”

…The Republican leadership in the House has accused the administration of plotting to raise the price of energy through onerous regulation, in an effort to promote otherwise uncompetitive green technologies. It wants the EPA to give more weight to the impact on the economy and jobs when drawing up future rules.

The Obama administration has.  And is.  Trying to raise the price of ‘cheap’ energy to promote their green energy initiatives.  It’s on record they want gasoline to cost as much in the U.S. as it does in Europe (as in $8/gallon).  To make more costly and shorter-range electric cars easier to sell.  And they want to do the same with cheap fossil fuel-produced electricity.  To make more costly and less reliable wind and solar generated electricity easier to sell.

EPA officials appear baffled by this barrage of hostility… The agency, they say, already conducts cost-benefit analyses of all important regulations, in addition to submitting them for expert review and public comment. Every dollar spent on pollution controls mandated by the Clean Air Act, including the ozone restrictions that Mr Barton is complaining about, will bring $30 in benefits to public health, the EPA reckons.

Expert review and comment?  By who?  It certainly isn’t the businesses affected by their regulations.  Who know exactly the costs their regulations will add.  No, they can’t be the experts.  Not when they are protesting the onerous costs these regulations are adding.

And the $30 in benefits for every dollar spent on pollution controls is a specious argument.  No one can know this.  It’s made up math based on fallacious assumptions and unrealistic projections.  Much like the math they used some 2-3 decades ago when they made all those alarmist global warming predictions that never came true.

Saving the Trees but Killing the Planet

We were saving the trees going to a paperless world thanks to the Internet.  Little did we know that we were killing the planet by saving those trees (see Could the Net be killing the planet one web search at a time? by Alex Roslin, for Post Media News, posted 6/3/2011 on The Vancouver Sun).

Ironically, despite the web’s green promise, this explosion of data has turned the Internet into one of the planet’s fastest-growing sources of carbon emissions. The Internet now consumes two to three per cent of the world’s electricity…

The bulk of all this energy is gobbled up by a fast-growing network of huge “server farms” or data centres that form the backbone of the Internet. They are hush-hush facilities, some the size of five Wal-Marts, packed from floor to ceiling with tens of thousands of computers…

All those computers have a voracious appetite for energy, especially for cooling equipment to prevent overheating.

This means that every time you do an Internet search you’re releasing polluting carbon into the atmosphere.  Because the majority of our cheap and reliable electricity is produced with cheap and reliable fossil fuels.  And some of these server farms are fossil fuel beasts with voracious appetites.

Apple’s mega-facility is part of a cluster of gigantic new data centres coming on line in North Carolina that are powered largely by cheap and highly polluting coal power. Google has a 44,000-square-metre data centre in the state that eventually will consume an estimated 60 to 100 MW. Facebook has a 28,000-square-metre facility under construction there that will eat up 40 MW.

Greenpeace calls the three facilities “North Carolina’s dirty data triangle.” Coal, it says, is the most polluting of all fossil fuels and the world’s single largest source of greenhouse gas emissions.

“The technologies of the 21st century are still largely powered by the dirty coal power of the past,” the environmental group said in a report card on the IT sector in April, titled How Dirty is Your Power?

There is a reason why we use so much coal.  And it’s not because we hate the planet.

North Carolina offers industrial customers one of the lowest electricity rates in the U.S. — 5.8 cents per kilowatt hour, versus the U.S. average of 6.7 cents.

It just so happens that the state’s electricity is also some of the dirtiest in the country. Nearly two-thirds of the state’s electricity comes from coal.

And here is the tradeoff between global warming and jobs.  Coal is dirty but cheap.  Which keeps electricity costs down.  Which attracts business.  Like in North Carolina.  Other locations lost these new jobs because their environmental policies made energy more expensive in those locations.

The real solution, [Bill St. Arnaud, an engineer and green IT consultant in Ottawa] said, is for governments to impose measures like carbon taxes and emissions caps that make dirty energy less attractive financially.

“The planet is warming up, and it’s going to get very bad. We need a price on carbon. It’s the only way to get people to move off coal because coal is currently so cheap,” he said.

The environmentalist want to raise the cost of electricity.  So cheap coal-generated electricity isn’t so cheap.  So business have no less costly solution.  Thus guaranteeing their costs will rise.  Making them look elsewhere to cut costs.  As in not hiring people.  Or laying them off.  All the while passing these higher costs onto the consumer.  Increasing their utility costs.  As well as the goods they purchase.  Leaving them with less disposable income.  Thus reducing economic activity.  With them buying less business will sell less.  Which means they won’t expand.  Instead, they’ll probably cut their production.  And lay off people.

However you look at it, increasing the cost of energy ends badly for the consumer.  And that’s exactly what the EPA wants to do.  And the Obama administration.  So they can implement their green initiatives.  And, of course, adding a tax on carbon, the most abundant byproduct of energy production, provides a lot of revenue for an overextended federal government.  Which is, I’m sure, just a coincidence.  And by coincidence I mean it’s the driving force behind all green initiatives.  Increasing tax revenue.

The EU wants to Emission Tax the World’s Airlines

But this is not an American phenomenon.  It’s even bigger in the European Union.  And they’re looking to export their regulations to other nations (see Airlines, EU in escalating trade row over emissions by David Fogarty and Pete Harrison posted 6/5/2011 on Reuters).

Global airlines attacked the European Union on Sunday over its plan to force them into the bloc’s emissions trading scheme, as the EU vowed to stand firm against threats of retaliation…

The EU will require all airlines flying to Europe to be included in the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) from January 1 next year. The system forces polluters to buy permits for each tone of carbon dioxide they emit above a certain cap.

You want to fly to the EU?  Well, that’s fine, but there’ll be an additional tax.  You see, we’re trying to save the planet.  And our treasury.  As these EU bailouts are getting expensive.  And don’t appear to be ending any time soon.

Airlines say the scheme will increase costs and comes at a time when fears are growing about a faltering global economy, which could slash industry profit expectations…

“The last thing that we want to see is a trade war,” said Giovanni Bisignani, director-general of the International Air Transport Association. The EU had to heed a “growing chorus of countries strongly opposing an illegal extraterritorial scheme.”

“We have to absolutely avoid this because the risk of retaliation for Europe that is in survival mode would be the kiss of death,” he told Reuters on the sidelines of IATA’s annual meeting in Singapore.

The younger people today may not know what a trade war is.  It’s when one country raises the price of doing business in your country to every other country trying to do business in your country.  This is to protect the higher-priced domestic industries.  By removing lower-priced consumer alternatives.  When countries retaliate by doing the same you get a trade war.  And it is the consumer who suffers.  Because everything they buy becomes more expensive.  Oh, and it was a trade war that caused the Great Depression.

Under the scheme, the aviation sector will receive 213 million carbon permits, called EU Allowances (EUAs) in 2012 and then 209 million from 2013 to 2020, representing the cap. As many as 82 percent of them will be given free to airlines, meaning most of the rest will have to be bought from the market.

With six months before the sector joins the ETS, opposition is growing.

A China Southern executive has said the China Air Transport Association is preparing to sue the EU over the issue, a Chinese media report said.

“The opposition is broad,” said Andrew Herdman, Director-General of the Association of Asia Pacific Airlines, which represents 15 airlines such as Cathay, Japan Airlines and Singapore Airlines…

China says Europe should adjust the ETS to reflect the differences between rich and poor countries, while Vijay Mallya, chairman of India’s Kingfisher Airlines, said he could not accept it.

The EU may know what’s best for the planet.  And their bank.  But the world doesn’t appear that it will sit back and transfer sovereignty and money to them without a protest.  Or a fight.  Perhaps even a trade war.  Which would be a bad thing as much of the world tries to pull itself out of the worst recession since the Great Depression.  And it would be a terrible shame for history to repeat itself on that score.  For one Great Depression was quite enough.

Carbon Taxes and Carbon Trading kills Jobs and crashes Economies

Green energy initiatives are just a cover for massive tax increases.  For desperate nations who can’t control their spending.  That’s why nations everywhere are fighting against carbon taxes and trading.  They see the cost to business.  And the jobs they will kill.  It’s not that they want to kill the planet.  They just don’t want to subsidize another nation’s financial problems.  Or see their own economies crash.  Which it will under a carbon taxing/trading scheme.

Environmental policies and economic activity are a trade off. You advance one by reducing the other.   Which makes advancing environmental policies during recessionary times difficult.  Because it’s one thing to save the planet when you have a job.  But another when you don’t.  At such a time, yes, you care about the planet.  But you care more about your family.  You think to yourself that the planet can take care of itself.  It survived ice ages.  Cataclysmic meteorite collisions.  Huge volcanic explosions.  Droughts.  Fires.  Hurricanes.  Tornadoes.  Earthquakes.  Plagues.  And if it can survive all that, you think it’ll be able to survive your having a job so you can support your family.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

LESSONS LEARNED #44: “Liberal Democrats have to lie because there are more taxpayers than tax consumers.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 16th, 2010

Lying to Make Future Liberal Democrat Voters

Ask anyone some questions about the Great Depression and they’ll probably get them wrong.  Why?  Because their history teachers revised history to make government look better.  Government wore the white hats.  And business wore the black hats.  Because their teachers were public school teachers.  And the teacher unions are one of the strongest unions in the country.  The government takes care of them.  And, in return, the public school teachers takes care of government.  By turning out as many future liberal Democrat voters as they can.

So what did our teachers teach us about the Great Depression?  Evil rich people caused it.  By speculating in the stock market.  And it was their speculation that caused the Great Crash which caused the Great Depression.  Rich business people bad.

Then Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) rode into Washington and saved the day.  FDR expanded federal power and went to work to fix things.  He punished the rich (raised taxes).  Created a huge federal bureaucracy to manage the economy.  And spent money like there was no tomorrow.  Public works programs.  Even gave us Social Security.  He made everything better.  Big hearted government people good.

That’s the history in our history books.  The only problem is that it’s wrong.

Tax Cuts and the Roaring Twenties

This is the story told because it favors those who favor expanding government.  Big Government wants to tell us what’s best for us.  And our public schools want to shield our children from their parents.  Because they (and Big Government) are smarter than parents.  So they revise history.  And lie to our kids.

Really?  Come on, they’re not really lying to our kids.  I mean, what reason could they possibly have to lie to our kids?  Just look at the demographics.  The far Left, those in government who like to spend money and tell us how to live our lives, are about 20% of the population.  The other 80% have real jobs and pay taxes.  And this is a problem.  How do you convince 80% of the people (who pay taxes) to pay more taxes so the government can spend it against their wishes?  All the while having the government telling these taxpayers how they should live their lives?  Easy.  You lie.  And you lie to their kids.

There was an economic boom before the Great Depression.  The economy was roaring so strong that they called it the Roaring Twenties.  And it had nothing to do with speculation.  We were building automobiles.  Electrifying the country.  Selling electrical appliances.  And building radios.  This was no speculative bubble.  It was real and strong economic growth.  And guess what kicked it off?  Tax cuts.

Higher Tax Rates Shelter Wealth instead of Creating Jobs

They don’t talk about this in the history books.  Because no public school teacher or government bureaucrat likes tax cuts.  Because economic growth created by tax cuts sends a very simple yet powerful message.  We don’t need Big Government.

Following World War I, government was a bureaucratic behemoth.  With a huge federal debt.  Fighting world wars can do that.  The Progressives, who gave us Prohibition and other nanny-state-like things, liked that big bureaucracy.  They liked activist government.  But even they knew that a high debt was not good.  And being the zero-sum economists they were, they knew only one way to reduce that debt.  Higher taxes.  And their candidate for the 1920 election, James M. Cox, promised to do just that.  And he lost the election.  Proving that Progressives don’t understand economics.  Or the American people.  Those Americans who have jobs, at least.

Warren G. Harding won that election.  And his secretary of the treasury, Andrew Mellon, understood economics.  To find a better secretary of the treasury you have to go all the way back to our first one.  Alexander Hamilton.  Mellon understood business.  And understood rich people.  High tax rates did not bring in more tax money.  Why?  Because rich people know how to shelter their wealth.  But give them a lower tax rate where they can make and keep what they earn, they’ll invest that money and create jobs.  They’ll pay more in taxes (even at a lower tax rate) because they’re not sheltering their wealth.  Their employees will pay more in taxes because they’ll have jobs.  And this is what happened during the Roaring Twenties.  People were working.  Making durable goods (cars, electrical appliances, radios, etc.).  Times were good.  Very good indeed.

Government Activism Gives us the Great Depression

The United States became an economic juggernaut during the 1920s.  The Americans were eclipsing the Europeans.  We were not a superpower yet.  But the Europeans saw the writing on the wall.  They wanted to form their own union of European states to compete against the economic powerhouse that was the United States.  We were kicking ass and taking names.  And no one could hold a candle to us.  We were unstoppable.

Then Herbert Hoover became president.  He was a progressive republican.  He liked activist government.  Hoover was a Big Government Keynesian and wanted to use the powers of government to end the business cycle.  He believed high wages meant high prosperity.  And in parity between farm and nonfarm prices.  He was everything FDR would become.  In fact, the Hoover administration started a lot of the FDR New Deal programs.

Farmers had mechanized their farms.  They plowed more fields than ever.  And grew more than ever.  With bumper crops prices fell.  Normally not a problem.  You just sold more.  But the war was over.  European farmers were farming again.  Not only did they not need our crops, they slapped tariffs on our exports to protect their farm prices.  So farmers couldn’t sell enough to make a profit at the lower prices.  Farmers went bankrupt.  Farm loans went unpaid.  Farm banks failed.  The Federal Reserve failed to provide liquidity to help other farm banks in trouble.  More failed.  This rippled into the nonfarm banks.  Which contracted the money supply.  Business started to hoard their cash because of the tight credit market.  They cut back on production.  Laid people off.  Then the Smoot-Hawley Tariff went to committee in Congress.  Business responded, knowing that that higher tariffs on imported goods they used would increase their cost of production.   They hoarded more cash.  Cut back on production.  Congress passed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff.  Other nations respond by imposing their own tariffs.  This resulted in a trade war.  Business sales fell.  Production fell.  More banks failed.  Hello Great Depression.

Tax Cuts Stimulate Economic Activity

This is the part they don’t teach you in history class.  It was government involvement that killed one of the strongest bull markets in history.  And would prolong the Great Depression.  The growth of government and the anti-business climate created great uncertainty.  And that didn’t go away until World War II.  When James Byrnes (head of the Office of War Mobilization) allowed business to make fat profits if they could deliver the vast quantity of war material needed to defeat Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo.  And they did.  The Arsenal of Democracy won World War II.  Private business doing what they do best.  Business.

But liberals like to spend money.  Our money.  And tell us what’s best for us.  To do that, though, they need us to vote for them.  And telling us that they want to take more of our money while telling us what’s best for us won’t make us vote for them.  It didn’t help Cox to tell the truth in 1920.  And no other presidential candidate since.  Because the 20% of the population that agrees with them isn’t enough to win an election.  You need some of the 80% who have jobs and pay taxes.

History has shown tax cuts stimulate economic activity.  They did when Warren Harding cut taxes.  When JFK cut taxes.  And when Ronald Reagan cut taxes.  This truth doesn’t make a good argument for raising taxes, though.  So our public schools and Big Government revise that part of history.  And lie to our kids.  Until they bleat “Business bad.  Government good.”  Like good future liberal Democrat voters.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Printing Money and Screwing Friends

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 12th, 2010

My Coworker, the Cheap Canadian Bastard

I worked with a Canadian once.  A real cheap bastard.  Yeah, he had some financial issues.   But they weren’t my issues.  And I got tired of subsidizing his problems by driving him to lunch every day.  And I got tired of the conversations.  He brought up every negative story about America.  Belittled our president.  Chastised America for not signing on to the Kyoto Protocol.  And said that we did not honor our trade agreement concerning softwood lumber (that his government was subsidizing in order to undersell their American competitors).

What really bothered me was that he was a Canadian that lived near the border but worked in the U.S.  He criticized America but he chose to work in America instead of Canada.  Why?  Because he could get paid more in America.  And there were the perks of crossing the border every day.  He gassed his car up in the United States.  And his wife’s car.  Why?  Because our gas prices were cheaper.  Yeah, he would criticize America until he was blue in the face, but he took every opportunity to escape the taxes that paid for all those things that made his country superior to mine.

Now don’t get me wrong.  I like Canada.  I just don’t like hypocrisy.  He made good money over here.  And with a much more favorable exchange rate back then, that translated into big dollars on the other side of the border.  Back when the American dollar was strong and the Canadian dollar was weak, he did very well.  Those strong American dollars exchanged into a whole lot more Canadian dollars.  Which allowed him to buy a whole lot more stuff than his fellow Canadians.  In fact, a lot of Americans vacationed in Canada back then.  Because the American dollar bought more in Canada than it did in America.

Have Cheap Cash, Will Travel – In Canada

So what’s the point talking about this cheap bastard?  Exchange rates.  And whenever there’s a currency war on the horizon, I can’t help but think about this cheap bastard.  See how he, a Canadian working in America, lived very well with a cheap Canadian dollar.  We paid him in strong U.S. dollars.  He then could use those strong U.S. dollars to buy gas and other ‘less taxed’ items on the U.S. side of the border.  (If he brought in and exchanged weak Canadian dollars for strong U.S. dollars, that same amount of gas would cost him more.)  And when he took those strong U.S. dollars across the border back into Canada, he exchanged them and got so many weak Canadian dollars in return that he alone stimulated the local economy.

Of course, he wasn’t the only one bringing strong American dollars into Canada.  When those strong dollars were exchanged for weak ones, the Canadian tourism industry boomed.  People could vacation in Canada for a week for what a weekend in America would cost.  Canadians traveling into America, on the other hand, paid more for less.  A weekend in America would cost what a week in Canada would cost.

In the above example, you can see how the nation with the weaker currency has more economic activity than the nation with the stronger currency.  Now, to understand international trade and foreign exchange rates, make the following substitutions in the above example:

  • Canada -> America
  • America -> China/Germany/Brazil/other U.S. trading partner

Alone Against the World.  And Alan Greenspan

Well, America is devaluing their currency.  They’re printing money to buy back treasury debt.  Supposedly to stimulate the economy by injecting more liquidity. But our problem is not a liquidity problem.  It’s a lack of consumer spending because of high unemployment.  And a fear of being unemployed soon.  So this will do little to solve our problems.  But it will make our exports cheaper.  And our trading partners’ imports more expensive.  In other words, we’re trying to fix our broken economy by flooding our trading partners’ economies with cheap American goods.  Which is pissing them off big time (see Reuters’ Analysis: German tempers fray as U.S. policy gulf widens by Stephen Brown and Andreas Rinke posted 11/10/2010).

Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble, 68, said last week that the U.S. Federal Reserve decision to buy $600 billion of government bonds undermined U.S. credibility and was “clueless.” There was no point, he said, in pumping money into the markets.

China and Brazil were among those echoing his comments but U.S. officials were particularly stung by Schaeuble and German Economy Minister Rainer Bruederle saying the Fed move amounted to “indirect manipulation” of the dollar to boost exports; this at a time when Washington is criticizing China for exactly the same kind of strategy.

“It’s not acceptable for the Americans to criticize China for currency manipulation then slyly help the dollar by printing at the Federal Reserve,” Schaeuble told Der Spiegel magazine.

And speaking of Brazil, President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said warned America not to rely on exports alone (see Brazil’s Lula Says World Headed For ‘Bankruptcy’ Unless Rich Nations Act posted 11/11/2010 on the Dow Jones Newswires).

“If they don’t consume, and they just bet on exports, the world will go into bankruptcy,” he told reporters as leaders at the Group of 20 industrial and developing nations headed into a two-day summit in the South Korean capital.

Even Alan Greenspan, former Federal Reserve Chairman, is expressing concern over the impact of American policy on foreign exchange rates (see Greenspan warns over weaker dollar by Alan Beattie in Seoul posted 11/10/2010 in the Financial Times).  In that same article, Mervyn King, governor of the Bank of England, warned that this currency manipulation could trigger a trade war that would make the next 12 months worse than the previous 12 months.

We’re All Cheap Bastards Now

When it comes down to it, I guess we’re all cheap bastards.  We all want some unfair advantage in life.  Like my one-time Canadian coworker.  And I can understand how our trading partners feel.  I’ve worked with and been lectured for years about how my country should change.  All the while he prospered quite handsomely from the way things were.  Of course, I can take some solace in the dollar’s slide.  It’s trading pretty much at parity with the Canadian dollar now.  It’s gotten so bad that I’ve heard my old friend has since found work on his side of the border.  Good for him.  Now he can truly embrace all those taxes that he spoke so highly about while he was avoiding them for all those years.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

The Fed to Buy $600 Billion in Government Bonds

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 5th, 2010

The Fed’s $600 billion government bond Purchase may Worsen the Recession

The Fed is preparing to buy some $600 billion in government bonds.  They call it quantitative easing (QE).  The goal is to stimulate the economy by making more money available.  The problem is, though, we don’t have a lack of money problem.  We have a lack of jobs problem.  Unemployed people can’t go to the store and buy stuff.  So businesses aren’t looking to make more stuff.  They don’t need more money to borrow.  They need people to go back to work.  And until they do, they’re not going to borrow money to expand production.  No matter how cheap that money is to borrow.

This isn’t hard to understand.  We all get it.  If we lose our job we don’t go out and buy stuff.  Instead, we sit on our money.  For as long as we can.  Spend it very carefully and only on the bare necessities.  To make that money last as long as possible to carry us through this period of unemployment.  And the last thing we’re going to do is borrow money to make a big purchase.  Even if the interest rates are zero.  Because without a job, any new debt will require payments that we can’t afford.  That money we saved for this rainy ‘day’ will disappear quicker the more debt we try to service.  Which is the opposite of what we want during a period of unemployment.

Incidentally, do you know how the Fed will buy those bonds?  Where they’re going to get the $600 billion?  They going to print it.  Make it out of nothing.  They will inflate the money supply.  Which will depreciate our currency.  Prices will go up.  And our money will be worth less.  Put the two together and the people who have jobs won’t be able to buy as much as they did before.  This will only worsen the recession.  So why do they do it?

Quantitative Easing May Ease the Global Economy into a Trade War

A couple of reasons.  First of all, this administration clings to outdated Keynesian economics that says when times are bad the government should spend money.  Print it.  As much as possible.  For the economic stimulus will offset the ‘negligible’ inflation the dollar printing creates.  The only problem with this is that it doesn’t work.  It didn’t work the last time the Obama administration tried quantitative easing.  As it didn’t work for Jimmy Carter.  Of course, when it comes to Big Government policies, when they fail the answer is always to try again.  Their reason?  They say that the government’s actions that failed simply weren’t bold enough.

Another reason is trade.  A cheaper dollar makes our exports cheaper.  When the exchange rates give you bushels full of U.S. dollars for foreign currency, those foreign nations can buy container ships worth of exported goods.  It’s not playing fair, though.  Because every nation wants to sell their exports.  When we devalue the dollar, it hurts the domestic economies of our trading partners.  Which they want to protect as much as we want to protect ours.  So what do they do?  They fight back.  They will use capital controls to increase the cost of those cheap dollars.  This will increase the cost of those imports and dissuade their people from buying them.  They may impose import tariffs.  This is basically a tax added to the price of imported goods.  When a nation turns to these trade barriers, other nations fight back.  They do the same.  As this goes back and forth between nations, international trade declines.  This degenerates into a full-blown trade war.  Sort of like in the late 1920s.  Which was a major factor that caused the worldwide Great Depression.

Will there be a trade war?  Well, the Germans are warning this action may result in a currency war (see Germany Concerned About US Stimulus Moves by Reuters).  The Chinese warn about the ‘unbridle printing’ of money as the biggest risk to the global economy (see U.S. dollar printing is huge risk -China c.bank adviser by Reuters’ Langi Chiang and Simon Rabinovitch).  Even Brazil is looking at defensive measures to protect their economy from this easing (see Backlash against Fed’s $600bn easing by the Financial Times).  The international community is circling the wagons.  This easing may only result in trade wars and inflation.  With nothing to show for it.  Except a worse recession.

Businesses Create Jobs in a Business Friendly Environment

We need jobs.  We need real stimulus.  We need to do what JFK did.  What Reagan did.  Make the U.S. business friendly.  Cut taxes.  Cut regulation.  Cut government.  And get the hell out of the way. 

Rich people are sitting on excess cash.  Make the business environment so enticing to them that they can’t sit on their cash any longer.  If the opportunity is there to make a favorable return on their investment, guess what?  They’ll invest.  They’ll take a risk.  Create jobs.  Even if the return on their investment won’t be in the short term.  If the business environment will reward those willing to take a long-term risk, they will.  And the more investors do this the more jobs will be created.  And the more people are working the more stuff they can buy.  They may even borrow some of that cheap money for a big purchase.  If they feel their job will be there for awhile.  And they will if a lot of investors are risking their money.  Creating jobs.  For transient, make-work government jobs just don’t breed a whole lot of confidence in long term employment.  Which is what Keynesian government-stimulus jobs typically are.

We may argue about which came first, the chicken or the egg.  But here is one thing that is indisputable.  Jobs come before spending.  Always have.  Always will.  And quantitative easing can’t change that.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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