► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘US Economy’

Jealousy As An Economic Philosophy, Will It Work?

by Flyovercountry ( 184 Comments › )
Filed under Economy, Progressives, Regulation, unemployment at June 29th, 2011 - 8:00 pm

So, today I saw this statement written down by an Obama supporter.

Over 50,000 manufacturing plants in America have been shut down over the past decade.I don’t care who is at fault. Today, nearly 44 million Americans are living below the poverty line, the largest number on record. The poor and middle classes have suffered. It is time for wealthy corporations to contribute as well. 

So, why do we need a basic understanding of economics anyhow? What good does a basic understanding of any economic theory do for us? Hopefully, this essay will answer those questions. Let me start by saying, a complete ignorance of how an economy works is how we got landed with Obama in the first place. Basically, there are two different schools of economic thought competing for our affections in today’s world. There is the Keynesian school, (named after its author Maynard Keynes for those about to become hysterical with the thought that I might be claiming that Barack Obama is from Kenya and not Hawaii.) There is also the Austrian school. The Keynesian school holds that government is the best tool to spur economic growth and development. The major countries in the industrialized world to have followed this model were the old Soviet Union, Greece, and until the early 90’s, communist China. It was also the basis for economic thought for the Soviet satellite nations, Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, etc. The major industrial nations which have followed the Austrian school have been the United States, New Zealand, Singapore, Hong Kong, and Chile. This sets up a video.

No matter the track record of failure which has been witnessed by the proponents of the Keynesian school over the last century, politicians press onward. The reason why? To put it bluntly, it allows them to make irresponsible promises to a willing electorate. Face it, we all would like free stuff. Promise me a bag of goodies from the public largess, and tell me someone else would be able to pay for it. Don’t concern me with trite little details of who that someone will ultimately be, just tell me it will be a big benevolent government with no identifiable face. The problem of course, is that our government does nothing to earn any of its own funds. Every penny a government spends must be confiscated from its citizens. That leaves a set of very limited choices for any group of ruling leaders. One, pitch taxes to currently maximize revenue to pay for the bag of goodies, or two, spend money it does not have and force future generations to pay for today’s party. Why try to guess and argue over the results of this path? We have a wonderful laboratory in existence today, which will show us quite clearly what the results of this economic philosophy will be. How has this all worked out for Greece? About a year ago, Greece received a bail out to stem the tide of their last round of riots from the EU. Here we are a year later, and they have their collective, (pun intended,) hands out again. In 1981, Greece elected a Socialist leader who promised hope and change. How has it worked out for them?

On the converse side, every where capitalism has been tried, and freedom been tried, it has succeeded with unparalleled success. The wealth created by the free nations of the world is unprecedented. Our poorest citizens are much better off than the poor of any other nation. People are constantly whining about the destruction of the middle class, but at the same time, a middle class only exists in those nations which employ a free market system. Our middle class in America enjoys one of the highest living standards in the world today. Putting aside for the moment that the argument posited above depends entirely on invoking feelings of jealousy in all of us, let’s follow it to its natural conclusion. Let’s pretend that we all just got together and passed a, “Too much profit tax,” on every corporation in America. When ever any company exceeded the predetermined amount of allowable profit, they would be forced to pay whatever penalty the mob deemed necessary. What do you believe the results would be? If I were a CEO of any company, I would lead my team to produce what ever the limit was, and then stop. So, if I sold gasoline for example, we would sell how ever much gas it took to reach our limit, and not another drop beyond. I might have to send all of my employees home for the last half of the year, but too bad for them, the government set the limits. People who purchased my product might need to continue driving to work and to soccer games for their children, but hard cheese for them, they determined through the law of the land the fact that I was not permitted to produce beyond my limitations. The other alternative of course would be to pass along the increased costs of taxation directly to the consumer. The very people we profess to be helping would be screwed by our efforts.

BP did not create our society to be dependent on oil. We all found a use for the oil BP produced, and then we bought a lot of it. Now that it has become so useful, our demagogic leaders are telling us that use of oil is our basic right and that BP is suddenly evil for selling it to us. Question: What will we do when we put every oil producing company out of business?

By the way, in addressing the above statement in purely political terms, Boeing tried, and was shot down in extreme regulatory fashion, to create thousands of manufacturing jobs in South Carolina very recently. It seems that competitive pressures and a shifting of their market place made it a profitable decision to build a new airplane, one which they currently are not manufacturing. So why is it that the same folks who are so busy looking out for us little guys are not allowing Boeing to create these thousands of high paying jobs which will also create jobs for other industries which will be needed to service Boeing and her employees? Any way, I will leave you with Milton Friedman and the miracle of the pencil. This is the best explanation of how a robust economy works. A subject on which the author of the above statement really needs an education.

Crossposted at Musings of a Mad Conservative.

What to Expect From the Fed

by coldwarrior ( 119 Comments › )
Filed under Economy, government, Misery Index at April 6th, 2011 - 12:00 pm

The Fed’s mandate is to do two things: Promote Maximum Employment AND Promote Stable Prices. They have to fight inflation (less dollars in the system) while trying to make sure there is enough credit in the market so that businesses can borrow at low interest rates to expand and operate to create jobs.

Inflation (too much money in the system) versus employment (cheap credit=more money in the system). The Fed’s only tool is money supply.

So, here is what to expect from the Fed:

Bernanke Faces Possible Fed Split on Maintaining Stimulus

 

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke may have to overcome divisions among policy makers should he seek to maintain record stimulus past June, minutes of the Fed’s March 15 meeting indicate.

A “few” among the central bank’s 17 governors and regional bank presidents said tighter credit may be warranted this year, while a “few others noted that exceptional policy accommodation could be appropriate beyond 2011,” the Federal Open Market Committee said in the minutes, released yesterday in Washington.

Stocks and Treasuries fell on speculation the Fed may start to tighten policy sooner than previously forecast after it completes its $600 billion bond-purchase program in June…

You’ve got lower-than-desired growth and the potential for higher-than-desired inflation here, and it definitely complicates the picture from a policy standpoint,” said Hembre, chief economist and investment strategist in Minneapolis at Nuveen Asset Management, which oversees about $197 billion.

Several FOMC members “indicated, in light of recent developments, that the risks to their forecasts of inflation had shifted somewhat to the upside,” the minutes said.

Inflation Readings

Since the March FOMC meeting, reports showed the labor market and inflation have picked up while consumer confidence slipped and new home sales dropped to a record low. Some regional Fed presidents who were skeptical of stimulus have talked about the need to tighten credit, and Bernanke has yet to indicate his preference for the Fed’s next move.

Even with the division, Bernanke and his top deputies, Vice Chairman Janet Yellen and New York Fed President William Dudley, are unlikely to favor tighter policy this year, Hembre said. “They’re the leadership,” Hembre said. “They’ll dominate the debate and they’ll win.”

While the decision last month to continue the bond purchases was unanimous, the Fed said a few of the 10 voting members of the committee thought evidence of a stronger recovery, higher inflation and rising inflation expectations “could make it appropriate to reduce the pace or overall size of the purchase program,” the minutes said. “Several others” said they “did not anticipate making adjustments.”

Yield Climbs

U.S. stocks erased gains following the release of the minutes. The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index was little changed at 1,332.63 at the close of trading in New York after rising as much as 0.4 percent before the Fed report. The yield on the 10- year Treasury note climbed to 3.48 percent from 3.42 percent the day before.

In releases since the Fed meeting, the Commerce Department reported that the central bank’s preferred price measure, which excludes food and fuel, was up 0.9 percent from a year earlier in February, the most since October. Including all items, prices rose 1.6 percent, compared with a 1.2 percent 12- month increase through January, the biggest monthly increase since December 2009.

Several FOMC members “indicated, in light of recent developments, that the risks to their forecasts of inflation had shifted somewhat to the upside,” according to the minutes. Bernanke said on April 4 in Stone Mountain, Georgia that policy makers must watch inflation “extremely closely” for evidence that rising commodity costs are having more than a temporary impact on consumer prices.

‘Abrupt Change’

“I don’t think we’re going to get a fast or abrupt change in policy,” said Stephen Stanley, chief economist at Pierpont Securities LLC in Stamford, Connecticut, on Bloomberg Radio’s “The Hays Advantage.”

“But clearly the center of gravity, I think, is starting to slowly but surely shift to a more hawkish bent as the inflation data start to pick up a little bit,” said Stanley, a former Fed researcher, using a term for Fed officials who are more inclined to tighten credit to fight price increases.

The Fed’s reluctance to tighten contrasts with some of its counterparts. European Central Bank policy makers have signaled that they may raise their benchmark interest rate from a record low of 1 percent when they next meet April 7, while China raised borrowing costs yesterday for the fourth time since the global financial crisis to limit the risk of asset price bubbles in the world’s fastest-growing major economy.

‘Moderate Pace’

Fed staff economists at the meeting gave a forecast for a “moderate pace” of 2011 and 2012 growth similar to projections at the last session in January, while lowering their forecast for the unemployment rate. Even so, “the jobless rate was still expected to decline slowly and to remain elevated at the end of 2012,” the minutes said.

Hembre said he reduced his U.S. growth forecast for 2011 yesterday to 2.5 percent from 3 percent, and for the first quarter to 3 percent from 3.5 percent, because “it looks like a fairly weak quarter for domestic demand in spite of the fact that we had a payroll tax cut in the first quarter that boosted disposable income.”

 

You’ve got lower-than-desired growth and the potential for higher-than-desired inflation here, and it definitely complicates the picture from a policy standpoint,” said Hembre, chief economist and investment strategist in Minneapolis at Nuveen Asset Management, which oversees about $197 billion.

Low growth coupled with inflation…throw in $4 gas and we just might be headed for it…Stagflation.

Normally, low growth and an enemic economy would have no threat of inflation, except now, we have high oil that makes everything more expensive AND we have entirely too many dollars in the system…both produce inflation. High oil makes transportation and manufacturing costs higher = inflation. Combine that with too many dollars multiplied by the velocity of money that will go higher as GDP rises (economy improves even slightly) and we have unstoppable inflation. It would be easier if the economy was booming, then the Fed could raise interest rates and slow everything down or if the4re werent supply side shocks and too much money in the system the Fed could lower rates to get the place running again. This isn’t an option, interest rates are at ZERO for all intents and purposes and businesses are afraid to expand because of the cost of new employees.

There is no short term fix for this.  Regulation and taxation has to become more Employment Friendly (notice I didn’t say ‘business friendly’ see it’s all how you word it, like Pro-Choice instead of Pro-Abortion) and the government (and that means every0ne) has to reign in the economy and cut cut cut to get the debt and deficit eliminated or at least back to a level where it is not destroying the economy for all of us. That means tough cuts for everyone.

Econ Rap

by snork ( 35 Comments › )
Filed under Economy at March 30th, 2010 - 6:00 pm

This youtube hit has just passed a million views. It pretty much sums up the Keynesian/Austrian split.

It’s ejumicational.

A couple of related links:

Sophisticated Incompetence Is Britain’s New National Characteristic

What depresses me most about the British situation by comparison with the Greek is that, whereas the latter was brought about by good old-fashioned Levantine crookedness, which at least has the merit of charm, the former was brought about with a good admixture of Anglo-Saxon evangelical self-righteousness, which is quite without charm.

Moreover, in Britain there is a high level of ideological support among the intelligentsia for massive deficits. For example, twenty professors of economic history, some of them very eminent, wrote a letter on March 3 to the Guardian newspaper as follows:

We are economic historians concerned at the recent tone of the debate as to the scale and scope of British public sector debt. History shows, first, that British public debt is not high by the standards of the last 200 years. It is rather low in comparison to the second half of the 18th century, the first three-quarters of the 19th century, and most of the interwar and post-second world war era in the 20th century. It is also low in the context of the developed world; only Germany’s and Canada’s are lower among the larger industrialised powers.

This is exactly the same mental gymnastics going on here, used to justify spending more money that isn’t there.

Why is the Term Risk on Long Term US Debt So High?

It’s impossible to say which prevails, but it’s not unreasonable to assume that there’s at least some default risk pricing in. Our entitlement problem is about to open a gaping hole in the budget, and so far our solution is . . . to enact more entitlements. Unless our politicians start outlining some credible plans for getting our demography-driven disaster under control, bond markets would be perfectly rational to demand a discount that reflects a possible future fiscal crisis.

But our betters say DRINK!!!

Conservative Economics Work

by tqcincinnatus ( 61 Comments › )
Filed under Economy, Politics at August 29th, 2009 - 8:01 am

More evidence that high taxes and unionisation aren’t the economic panaceia that left-wingers seem to think they are.  Toyota has announced that it will be closing down its (formerly) jointly operated NUMMI plant – where the Tacoma is manufactured – in Fremont, California and is moving the production to San Antonio, Texas.

Toyota Motor Corp. officially confirmed Thursday that it will relocate production of the Tacoma pickup from a plant in Northern California to its state-of-the-art manufacturing facility in San Antonio by next summer.

The announcement came hours after the Japanese automaker ended its relationship with a joint venture plant in the San Francisco Bay area as part of an effort to reduce excess production capacity at plants around the globe and return to profitability.

As part of the plan to shift Tacoma production to San Antonio, Toyota will stop making vehicles at the New United Motor Manufacturing Inc. plant — its first manufacturing facility in the United States, which started in 1984 as a 50-50 business deal with General Motors — in March 2010.

San Antonio and Bexar County officials estimate 100,000 Tacomas, about 50,000 less than NUMMI is capable of producing at peak capacity, will be pumped out annually following a $100 million retooling at Toyota’s San Antonio campus.

The Tacoma line not only will diversify the plant with a second vehicle but also is expected to add as many as 1,100 new jobs to the facility over time and will rev its 21 on-site suppliers back up to capacity and employ hundreds of new workers.

[snip]

“This is really a big shot in the arm, especially when you consider that the jobs multiplier is five, and I think that is conservative. By next year, we’ll be running pretty darn strong. We’re already doing well relative to other parts of the country,” Wolff said.

Unfortunately, California stands to lose thousands of well-paying jobs, not only from the NUMMI plant closing, but also from the associated economic ripples that will hit everything from local parts suppliers to local businesses that benefited from the patronage of people employed at the plant.  But like Judge Wolff said, San Antonio (and Texas in general) are doing well relative to other parts of the country – in large part because the lower taxes and non-unionised workforce make the cost of business in Texas so much lower than in California and other Blue parts of the country.  Or, as an article about the plant closure in the LA Times quoted the head of the Automotive Consulting Group as saying,

The Fremont plant, which makes Corolla compact cars and Tacoma pickups for Toyota and, until last week, Pontiac Vibe hatchbacks for GM, was the Japanese company’s only U.S. auto plant with a union workforce. As Japanese and German automakers opened vehicle production to the U.S. beginning in the 1980s, they often have opted for states such as Kentucky, Texas and Alabama, where union shops are more rare.

“It just made sense for Toyota to pull the plug,” said Dennis Virag, president of the Automotive Consulting Group in Ann Arbor, Mich. “When you look at states like Kentucky and Tennessee, California just isn’t competitive in manufacturing with its taxes, regulations and overall cost of doing business.”

Exactly.  When you jack taxes up high and allow unions to force workers to join a shop, you get higher costs of doing business and you drive away jobs, usually to low-tax, right-to-work Southern states.  Net result in this case?  California loses up to 40,000 jobs (per Dianne Feinstein in the LA Times article, factoring in economic ripple effects), while Texas gains a bunch of jobs.  California loses tens of millions spent in its economy, while Texas gains it.  California’s already high unemployment rate gets higher, while Texas’ relatively low rate gets lower.  

This is just one more reason why it makes sense to elect conservatives and not Leftists.