Right questions wrong answers

Thomas Sowell and I have many things in common most importantly of which was that we both did our PhDs on Say’s Law and for both of us this was the subject of our first books: here’s his and this is mine. And once you understand Say’s Law, you will never again think of economics in the same way. Rather than Keynes having disproved this law, he made it unfashionable, and thus it has remained for the past three-quarters of a century. But unfashionable or not, it is the indispensable core of economic reasoning which is why its original name was the law of markets. If you want to understand how a market economy works, you must understand Say’s Law.

Anyway. Sowell has put together a column on the nomination of Janet Yellen as the next Chairman of the Federal Reserve (found here) and structures his comments around her incorrigible Keynesian approach to matters economic in much the same way I did myself the other day. This is from Sowell.

The Keynesian economists have staged a political comeback during the Obama administration. Janet Yellen’s nomination to head the Federal Reserve is the crowning example of that comeback.

Ms. Yellen asks: ‘Do policy-makers have the knowledge and ability to improve macroeconomic outcomes rather than making matters worse?’ And she answers: ‘Yes.’

The former economics professor is certainly asking the right questions — and giving the wrong answers.

The amazing part of the way Thomas Sowell writes is how much he can pack into a few hundred words. If you can read what he writes and still not at least start to think that maybe, just maybe, there is something to that classical economic theory after all then you are as incorrigible as Janet Yellen and about as clueless on how to manage an economy as well.

Will the US default? What will happen if it does?

I don’t know if these continuing episodes of the Perils of Pauline are just there to sell newspapers or whether there is more to it and the US might really default on its debt but this is where we are right now. From The Washington Post:

A campaign to persuade House Republicans to lift the federal debt limit collapsed in humiliating failure Tuesday, leaving Washington careering toward a critical deadline just two days away, with no clear plan for avoiding a government default.

Senate leaders quickly moved to pick up the pieces, saying they were “optimistic” that they could reach agreement to advance an alternative proposal that would raise the debt limit through Feb. 7 and end a government shutdown, now in its third week.

But it was unclear whether a deal struck by Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) could pass the Senate before the Treasury Department exhausts its borrowing power Thursday.

So far as principle goes, the imperative of getting the US budget under control seems straightforward enough. But the politics for the President and the Democrats, looking forward to the elections 12 months from now, are much less certain. And with the possibility that the President – being a Bill Ayres protege and all – would actually prefer to harm the US than help it to prosper, what will happen and how it will unfold remains a mystery.

But at some stage either spending is going to start tapering off or the debt limit will not be increased is a certainty. Whether this is the moment is the question, and with the President adament about maintaining the level of spending – and therefore allowing debt to keep on rising – who knows? This may be the moment we find out what happens if the US is even technically able to default on its debt and then what happens if it does. Stay tuned.

The new head of the Fed

janet yellen in star wars

They’ve made Janet Yellen the new Chairperson of the Federal Reserve in the US and the quantitative easing crowd are in ecstasy. It will be a flood money until recovery sets in which means it will be a flood of money for near on ever. As it happens, I met Janet (why not first names, as we were then) when she worked for the OECD and I was representing Australian employers at an OECD meeting in Paris, this one if my memory serves me right, on some aspect of the business cycle – I think it was on consumer and business confidence surveys. I remember the meeting well for a lot of reasons but one that stands out was that the OECD wanted us to agree with them that the economics profession had conquered the business cycle and that recessions were a thing of the past. So I led the rebellion against such idiocy (true) in the person of Janet Yellen who was the OECD person responsible for trying to get us all to agree. It was her bad luck that she had to deal with me because the probability that I then or now would have agreed to such a thing would be in the vicinity of zero-point-zero. She was just another specimen of that same macro menace that continues to lead us from one disaster to another. At the OECD her potential for damage was generally limited. Now, however, there is no end to the harm she might yet do.

This is from one of her big supporters although I suspect her detractors would say exactly the same thing:

The Fed will be looser for longer. The FOMC will continue to print money until the US economy creates enough jobs to reignite wage pressures and inflation, regardless of asset bubbles, or collateral damage along the way.

On past performance there is little doubt she will do exactly that because that was the mentality I met up with all those years ago. But if you would like to see the other side of this same question, you could do worse thanto read this article from The American Thinker. Many fascinating paras to choose from but let me just jump to the section outlining a sketch of the kind of world Janet Yellen and her approach may be laying out for the US as everything finally falls apart, “the perfect storm” as he calls it. Not at all my own forecast; I provide it merely as a contrast to the belief that all will be well as long as we keep flooding the market with money and distorting factor markets for as long as it takes until Janet Yellen finally realises that things are not working out.

As the perfect storm approaches, the regime will address it the only way it knows how — as a revenue, rather than a spending, problem.

And, as the regime becomes more desperate, unwilling to make cuts to anything other than the military, it will look for opportunities to increase revenue, all the while being indifferent to, or ignorant of the negative economic impact of taking more money out of the private sector and transferring it to the government. Like throwing gas on a fire to put it out, it has the opposite effect.

Here are prototypical examples, not literal predictions, of an increasingly desperate regime:

One-time tax on all IRA account balances as though they are current income, without deleting future taxes on gains from the remaining balance, but removing tax credits for subsequent losses;

Reduce the face value on all short-term (2-3 years) Treasuries if redeemed at maturation, plus subtract interest gained from the pay-out, unless, that is, the holder renews their T-bill at the same rate of interest as at the last renewal, or purchase, whichever is lowest;

Forgive student loans to placate young voters disaffected by the unexpected – to them -high cost of their health insurance under the ACA;
Offer federally-subsidized, reduced-interest loans for first-time “poor” home buyers;

Remove tax-exemption on debt incurred by major municipalities (over 500,000 residents);

Remove interest deductions on all mortgages over $300,000;
Require 401Ks, IRAs and Pension Funds to have a certain portfolio percentage in Treasuries;

Accelerate the schedule of required minimum withdrawals from IRAs to kill the stretch IRA concept and boost tax revenues;

Install a national federal sales tax at 1% on all goods and services (soon rising to 2%, and then up);

Remove the tax-exempt status of all non-profit organizations, including churches and charities;

Collect a yearly tax on the endowments of religious and educational institutions (For example, Harvard University received $650 million from the federal government during their last fiscal year. At the end of 2012, Harvard’s endowment was $30,745,534,000 – #1 among universities. It’s time to tax Harvard. It’s only fair.);

Eliminate deductions for state income tax payments;

Install a yearly tax on vehicles based on miles driven (a 2011 CBO suggestion);

Install a minimum tax rate of 50% on all former members of Congress for five years after leaving federal service and joining think, lobbying firms, and PACs.

Gruesome, of course, but by no means impossible. We live in dangerous times.

UPDATE: A trimmer version of the above article may now be found at Quadrant Online under the perfect title, “On Planet Janet the Spending Never Ends“. Comes with the above picture as well.

Where have all the workers gone?

participation rate us 2013

That’s in the US. I hadn’t seen this before but it comes as quite a shock. It is certainly lucky for the President that there’s a D after his party affiliation or else the media would have roasted him alive. Meanwhile back in Australia:

ELECTION of the Abbott government in September might have lifted businesses’ spirits but it failed to spark a hiring spree, with unexpectedly weak jobs growth in September and a further drop in the number of people looking for work.

The unemployment rate fell to 5.6 per cent in September from 5.8 per cent in August but only 9100 new jobs were created, not enough to keep the unemployment rate stable given population growth.

The participation rate – the share of the working-age population in or looking for work – fell to 64.9 per cent, the fourth consecutive monthly fall and the lowest level since 2006.

The total number of people actively seeking work fell a little to 697,000, while full-time employment grew 5000 to 8.1 million and part-time work expanded by 4100 jobs to 3.5 million, according to today’s release from the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

It is a bit early to expect any turnaround from an election that was only a month ago when these data were being collected. Not good figures at all, but they are part of the legacy our new government has inherited, exactly the kind of thing all Coalition governments inherit from their Labor predecessors.

And after all that stimulus spending too

You do know most of our economies are going nowhere, right? So to add to the rest of the tales of woe, there is this from David Uren:

Even assuming that the US overcomes its current budget crisis without wreaking too much damage, businesses in the advanced world may continue to hold back from the investment required to generate jobs and growth. The slowdown in the emerging world, the severity of which has taken the fund by surprise over the past six months, may prove intractable.

The biggest change in the IMF’s outlook in the past six months concerns China. In April, it believed the slowing of China’s growth to just below 8 per cent this year would be a passing pang, with growth returning to 8.5 per cent by 2015 and continuing at that level into the indefinite future.

But it now believes there has been a permanent reduction in China’s potential, and it sees growth slowing to 7.3 per cent next year and to just below 7 per cent beyond 2016. If the pattern of global disappointment continues, China’s long-term growth rate could be below 6 per cent, it says. For the IMF, which traditionally adjusts its forecasts in fractions of a percentage point, this is a huge downgrade.

Public spending beyond some limited amount is a long-term economic disaster. The evidence mounts. But are we learning? We shall see. I will only add that the story presumes that there is a kind of wilfulness in business not investing at the present time. They would if they could so the fact that they don’t tells you something else about how badly our capital base has been mismanaged for the past decade or so in particular.

Only the members of a government and their advisors are apt to believe that members of a government and their advisors are able to direct our resources in a value-adding direction. It is a delusion, but they’re the ones who get to decide. But what a mess their delusions cause!

Keynesian economics is such junk science

It’s not that Greece has forecast a budget surplus that matters but that it has forecast a return to growth and stability going forward. That’s the story in the AFR and although this is all you can see at the link, this is pretty informative as it is:

The government has presented a draft budget for next year forecasting a tenuous return to growth, offering the first real hope that Greece could emerge from a six-year recession.

Well fancy that. They cut spending with a cleaver and the next thing you know they are forecasting a return to economic growth. No riots, no blood in the streets, just a quiet reversal of fortune.

I, of course, mention it because this is such a prime example of how useless Keynesian economic theory is that it is a scandal we haven’t had a mass book burning of all our macro texts. Where besides here are you going to find anyone to explain to you why cutting spending in the midst of recession is good for growth.

Now the story does go on to say that the economy has shrunk by a quarter since 2007. But it’s not the economy that has shrunk but the measured level of GDP. Since most of that shrinkage was in public sector waste, the economy did not shrink at all but actually expanded. With each cut in non-value-adding expenditure the actual effect has been positive. Our macroeconomic data, structured around a Keynesian framework as they are, provide not only zero information about the state of the economy, they may even provide negative information, telling you that things are getting bad when they are in fact on the mend.

The unemployment rate is now going to fall from 27% to 26% which is horrific all round no matter how you look at it. But what they had was unsustainable since most of the jobs lost did not pay for themselves from their own productivity. Now jobs will have to pay their own way. It’s not as pleasant as coasting on the value adding activity of others but it is the only way to create long term growth and stability.

Keynesian economics is such junk science.

US middle class at 1970s poverty level

This is Jimmy Carter we’re talking about here and this is what he said:

Former President Jimmy Carter said Monday that the income gap in the United States has increased to the point where members of the middle class resemble the Americans who lived in poverty when he occupied the White House.

Carter offered his assessment of the nation’s economic challenges Monday at a Habitat for Humanity construction site in Oakland – the first of five cities he and wife Rosalynn plan to visit this week to commemorate their three-decade alliance with the international nonprofit that promotes and builds affordable housing.

The “income gap”, nonsense concept though it may be, used to be constructed to highlight the difference in living standards between rich and poor. Now the middle class has fallen into the lowest class, with all the insecurity and uncertainty that all of it entails. The producing middle classes are being plundered and robbed and it has gotten beyond a joke. And it is the lying despicable media in the US that is covering up every inch of the way. It hasn’t happened here, at least it hasn’t happened yet, because we still have means to fight back.

But there is no reason to be too smug about it. We all have a political class who knows better than us what to do for our own good. How they can be prevented from ruining us by their priorities and expenditure is a conundrum that may yet prove to have no answer.

The world’s economy has gone into a bunker and isn’t coming out

It was the headline that got me:

AP IMPACT: Families hoard cash 5 yrs after crisis

Now that would be interesting. As any good Keynesian would know, it is hoarding cash that is the evidence of consumers going into a bunker. So I looked at the article, which is a very long article, and finally found the actual statement about cash. I have added the bolding below:

HOARDING CASH: Looking for safety for their money, households in the six biggest developed economies added $3.3 trillion, or 15 percent, to their cash holdings in the five years after the crisis, slightly more than they did in the five years before, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

The growth of cash is remarkable because millions more were unemployed, wages grew slowly and people diverted billions to pay down their debts. They also poured money into bank accounts knowing they would earn little interest on their deposits, often too little to keep up with inflation.

People holding slightly more cash in the most recent five years in comparison with the previous five years is not headline news. It is what will happen anywhere as population and inflation rise. People hold more cash because the prices they are paying are going up more or less at the same rate as their nominal wages are going up. Slowly, but slightly higher all the same. What a useless measure but it does remind me once again how useless a Keynesian approach is in understanding what’s going on.

The article does, however, paint a grim portrait of the economic world in which we live. Things are going nowhere and living standards are falling. And why that is could not be more easily explained although not by using a modern macro text. Governments have taken over the spending from the private sector and the result is as dismal as one ought to expect. Governments only waste. Governments only divert resources into sub-optimal forms of production. Governments only follow, never innovate. Increased government spending in absolute terms and as a proportion of total national outlays will make an economy poorer and then if kept up long enough actually poor. This is such obvious common sense that you would have to be a Treasury Secretary not to understand what is going on right before your eyes.

Where’s the RSPCH?

bear food stamps

The American system treats its people worse than it treats its animals in the woods. If by some personal disaster you become dependent on the state in the US, the odds that you will ever make it on your own thereafter become long indeed. The theory of welfare dependency is clear enough, as is the evidence, but for those who fall into the trap, their only option, they feel, is to continue to vote for a living for the rest of their lives.

Not really all that sophisticated

I was drawn to this article by Andrew Bolt which is from The Age. “What the Left Need to Do” is the point, how the left can recapture governments in the Westminster systems of our Anglosphere democracies. As our author laments, poor soul, “every major advanced Westminster democracy in the world – Britain, Canada, New Zealand, Ireland and Australia – now has a conservative-led government.”

And the US would as well if they had a Parliamentary system too since the equivalent to our House of Representatives here in Australia is, strangely enough, the House of Representatives in the United States. But it is a Republican system with a separate elected president which allows for an immense number of irrelevant issues to determine the outcome. Republican governments are poorly designed and aside from the United States, every republic has at one time or another fallen into some form of dictatorship because of the way in which power is concentrated at the top.

I think the problem with left of centre governments is that they are incompetent, that their reach exceeds the resources of a nation and they accordingly direct the economies they run into a ditch. Whatever reason it was that John Howard lost in 2007, it was not because the economy was failing and living standards were going down. But the author of the article, however, thinks the problem is as follows:

Meanwhile progressive parties make a more sophisticated but politically difficult argument: that it is in the national interest to improve health, education, infrastructure and social security – underpinned by a healthy level of progressive taxation. Sometimes this works; witness the high degree of public support in Australia for disability care or the national broadband network. Often it does not; witness the travails of the mining tax and carbon pricing.

Talk about sophisticated! Everybody wants more than they have and the collective desires of the Australian community would easily pass 200% of the available product (2000%?). And everyone wants the ends listed although not necessarily as freebies handed out by the political class. Political judgment is about knowing which of the many possible and desirable objectives to pursue. Labor lost because they wanted carbon taxes (which are, of course, not even in the least desirable), increased taxes on the mining industry, industrial regulation that make industry uncompetitive, school halls, insulation and the list goes on. Meanwhile they impoverish the people they pretend to be helping. They lost because in the end most people could see that Labor policies were making things worse, not better.

The point is that the arguments of the left are not more sophisticated. They merely peddle greed and envy. You should have more even if you didn’t earn it and those over there with more than you have should have less. Not really all that sophisticated at all.