Tag Archives: spending

Tomorrow

Posted on by
Reply

I’ll kick the habit tomorrow.  I promise.  I need to get ready, get my mind right, build up to the effort.

That’s what Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama said last Sunday about his spending addiction.  Speaking through his senior campaign advisor, David Axelrod, on “Fox News Sunday,” he said,

You can’t balance the budget in the short term, because to do that would be to ratchet down the economy.

What an awesome display of economic ignorance, even for someone who’s never worked in a real economy in his life.

The economy isn’t already ratcheted down?  With 23 million Americans still out of work or actively underemployed (as in, scratching with part-time jobs, but wanting full-time work)?  With fewer Americans employed today than at the start of his term?  With unemployment above 8% for his entire term?  With a “recovery” since that Panic’s definitional end in early 2009 the worst in American history?  With the Obama tax increases and the rest of his “taxmageddon” set to hammer us in a shade over three months?  With three years of trillion-dollar-plus deficits?  With the nation’s debt $5 trillion larger—one-third larger—than at the start of his term?

Then Obama insisted, again using Axelrod’s mouth, that he’s created 4.3 million jobs since the Panic.  Never mind that while accepting that figure there remain those fewer Americans employed today than then.  Never mind that Obama continues to decline to offer any evidence that he’s responsible for those “added” jobs, that they were not added by what would otherwise be an ordinary business cycle recovery, suppressed by his policies.

Obama insisted, also (through Axelrod, again), that our auto industry was “saved” by his bailout.  Never mind that of the seven major car companies in the American auto industry (GM, Chrysler, Ford, Toyota, Hyundai, Honda, Nissan—all of which import their constituent parts from overseas, and all of which assemble those parts in their plants in the US), only two took his bailout money, and those two are still suffering under significant government ownership.  The other five car companies—albeit generally without significant union employment, and so not in league with Obama—didn’t need “help” at all; the industry was never at risk.  And never mind that had GM and Chrysler been allowed to go through bankruptcy, they would have recovered much faster, without government encumbrances, and without stiffing senior creditors in favor of Obama’s unions.

If the time to balance the budget isn’t now, then when will it be time?  Oh, yeah.  Tomorrow.  I just need another day.

Renewable Energy

Posted on by
Reply

Has German Chancellor Angela Merkel figured out something Barack Obama hasn’t?  As recently as last June, her government had set a goal that by 2020, renewable energy (vis., wind and solar) would comprise 35% of Germany’s electricity production.  In the first half of 2012 (ending that June), Germany already was generating 25% of its electricity from wind and solar, among other renewables.

Then some other things became apparent.  Germany’s Renewable Power Act requires power companies to buy wind- and solar-originated electricity in significant quantities.  Their largest industrial electricity users consume 18% of the electricity produced,  However, they pay only 0.3% of the extra costs generated by those required buys—German taxpayers pay the difference.

The power grid hasn’t kept up with the growth in alternative energy sources—like the offshore windparks in the Baltic and North Seas off the country’s north coast.  Many of those projects are at a standstill, with no way to deliver the power they generate to the mainland.

That Renewable Energy Act provides incentives to build wind turbines, but it doesn’t provide incentives to build the natural gas-fired power plants the country needs for when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing (see the figure).

Withal, German consumers are faced with skyrocketing electricity bills.

Now Merkel is changing her mind.  She; her Environment Minister, Peter Altmaier; and her Economy Minister, Philipp Rösler are meeting with industry and union representatives “to discuss the rising costs for consumers.  In the run up to that meeting, Altmaier has indicated that he hopes to…put the brakes on the current rush toward renewables.”

In the US, we have these: green energy subsidies (guaranteed loans, tax credits) and a Federal requirement that power companies buy power from renewable energy producers.

Off the New England coast, special interests found the views from their beach front manses would be offended by wind farms, and the potential farms themselves were declared a “hazard” to aircraft, so they are not even being built.  In central California, environmentalists won’t allow some solar farms to be built and won’t allow the power cables that would deliver solar electricity to cities to be built.

The EPA still requires ethanol to be blended into our gasoline, even though not enough of that is being produced to meet EPA requirements, much that is produced is exported, and the whole charade is driving up the cost of food.

Maybe we should, in  this case, try Obama’s meme of being more like Europe, or at least more like Germany.

Government Spending

Posted on by
1

Much of this originated as a comment to a Gay Patriot post.  I strongly recommend the post and then the accumulating commentary.

It’s important to note at the outset that government has no money of its own.  It only can act as intermediary in the (forced) process of transferring money from one group of private citizens to another.

Now a few remarks on government spending.  First, much of the money taken from private individuals and/or their businesses (which are just agencies of private individuals) to pay for government spending is lost to friction, including outright waste (I won’t get into losses to graft.  Could the graft be identified, it’d be rooted out.  Right?).  The waste includes money spent on government middlemen, money spent on government contractors hired to oversee the transfers and transferees, time and money spent schmoozing with lobbyists (both the good ones who are only identifying constituent needs—Congressmen generally fit this bill, for instance—and the bad ones, who are sure to take a taste of their own as the money flows, or to provide some vig in return for future consideration), and so on.

Second, money taken from private individuals to pay for government spending—whether through current taxes, current borrowing (future taxes), or printing money (future inflation)—is money that is not spent in the private sector, or husbanded against future spending in the private sector.  Thus, the multiplier effect of government spending, such as it is, is cancelled, if not exceeded, by the known, and fairly large, multiplier effect of private spending that is lost.  In many sequences of private spending, for instance, that multiplier effect runs out to 1.7x.  The best Keynesian estimate for the government spending multiplier is 1.5x.

Third, those husbanded funds generally are deposited in financial institutions as savings, and these deposits then are loaned to borrowers: these deposits are the primary source of loanable funds.  Taxes, then, reduce the amount of private money available for saving and so reduce the amount of lending that can occur.  This effect isn’t enough to cause a credit crunch like the one coming out of the Panic of 2008, but it hasn’t helped.  Further, that future inflation from printing to support excessive public borrowing devalues the funds that are saved.

There’s more.  As government debt grows, more private funds become husbanded, not against future spending goals in the private sector, but against those future taxes.  And even more borrowing is encouraged by that inflation (in the period before the recession that is the inevitable result of that high inflation)—in both the private and government sectors—since the repayment will be with inflation-devalued dollars.  Then that inevitable recession hits, and payback becomes, as they say, a bitch.

In sum, government spending isn’t zero-sum, it’s negative sum.

Update: clarified the second point.

A Thought on Our Economy These Last Few Years

Posted on by
Reply

Both the Pew Research Center and the Congressional Budget Office have published reports in the last week that talk about the condition of our economy and the fiscal cliff that awaits us in a few short months.  Others have commented extensively on the reports themselves; I want to talk about some of the information that lies between the reports’ lines.

The Pew report focuses on the plight of the middle class, referring to “The Lost Decade of the Middle Class ” in its own headline.  The report points out, among other things, that middle class annual income has shrunk from $73k in 2001 (and 2008) to $69.5k in 2010, their most recent data.  Pew notes, also, that median middle class household net worth has fallen from $153k in 2008 to $93k in 2010.

The CBO report, on the other hand, has the following to say: if the Obama tax increases and the sequester spending cuts are allowed to go through at the start of 2013, the deficit will be cut roughly in half as a per cent of GDP, but at a cost of economic contraction of 0.5% on the year.  On the other hand, if the tax increases and spending cuts are put off for another year, the deficit will remain a damaging 6.5% of GDP, unemployment still will be at 8%, and the economy will grow an anemic 1.7%.  This is the fiscal conundrum the present administration’s Keynesian policies have created.

Plainly, the administration’s policies have been an utter failure; they have not produced economic recovery.  Indeed, the middle class, whom Progressives pretend to favor so much, have been devastated by those policies.  Still, Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama wants four more years in which to do more of the same—or more so, since he’d have “more flexibility” after re-election, when he’d be beholden to no one.

After all, Obama says

The private sector is doing fine.

Hmm….

Some Notes on Energy Subsidies

Posted on by
Reply

Here are some data taken from the US Energy Information Administration’s report Direct Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy in Fiscal Year 2010.

The following table is excerpted from the EIA report’s Table ES4, and it shows the amount of subsidy that each energy source received along with the per centage of the total of nearly $12 billion in subsidies handed out that each energy source received.

2010 Total (millions)

Share of Total Subsidies and Support
oal $1,189 10.0%
Natural Gas and Petroleum Liquids $654 5.5%
Nuclear $2,499 21.0%
Renewables $6,560 55.3%
    Biomass $114 1.0%
    Geothermal $200 1.7%
    Hydropower $215 1.8%
    Solar $968 8.2%
    Wind $4,986 42.0%
    Unallocated
Renewables		 $75 0.6%
Transmission and Distribution $971 8.2%
Total $11,873 100%

 

This table, excerpted from the report’s Table ES5, gives an indication of the relative amount of energy we taxpayers are receiving for our subsidy.

Share of 2010 Generation (percent)
Coal 44.9%
Natural Gas and Petroleum Liquids 25.0%
Nuclear 19.6%
Renewables 10.3%
    Biomass Power 1.4%
    Geothermal 0.4%
    Hydroelectric 6.2%
    Solar 0.0%
    Wind 2.3%
Total 100.0%

 

Notice that: coal, natural gas, and oil get 15.5% of the total subsidies while producing nearly 70% of our nation’s energy; renewables get over 55% of the subsidies and produce just 10% of our energy.

As the Wall Street Journal tells us that DoE, which owns the EIA,

…warned that “Focusing on a single year’s data does not capture the imbedded effects of subsidies that may have occurred over many years” for other energy sources.

Of course.  Because if we did consider such things, we’d have to notice that renewable energy subsidies have been costing taxpayers for 40 years—since the ’70s—with next to nothing to show for it.

“Get rid of the subsidies for the fat-cat oil and gas companies,” says Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama.  Ignoring the snide tone of his remark (albeit paraphrased by me), I agree—get rid of the oil and gas company subsidies.  Get rid of the alternative energy subsidies, too.  If the (renewable) energy industry cannot survive in the market on its own, this simply demonstrates that the industry isn’t ready for the market.

At least the oil and gas and coal companies, with their subsidies, are generating actual electricity, though: look at solar—it’s getting 8% of the total subsidies handed out, and generating no electricity (can you say, “Solyndra?”).  Not a watt, except for rounding error to get to that zero.