Jobs

Here’s where we are, five years into the Obama “recovery” from the Panic of 2008:

  • 4.1 million fewer full-time workers today than in November 2007
  • 81% of workers are full-time now vs. 83% prerecession—and that per centage is of a smaller labor force than extant in 2007
  • per CBO, employment at the end of 2013 was about 6 million jobs short of where it would be if the unemployment rate had returned to its prerecession level…”if the participation rate had risen to the level it would have attained without the current cyclical weakness”

Real wages have gone nowhere in this recovery:

And this graph of the performance of the Obama “recovery:”

This recovery is some 10 per centage points below the recoveries of the three prior…recessions.

If this sounds like a broken record, it’s because this “recovery” is a broken record.

Federal Transfer Payments to States

Federal transfer payments to state and local governments totaled some $444 billion in 2013; these included payments of $282 billion for Medicaid, $3.4 billion for LIHEAP, $80 billion for SNAP, and some $78 billion for other transfers to the states.

The payments often are synergistic, not at all fixed, too.  For instance, LIHEAP payments are used by the states to magnify SNAP payments, since SNAP contains an energy allowance, a “standard utility allowance.”

Governor Dannel Malloy [D] last week announced that Connecticut would “expend $1.4 million in available federal energy assistance funding” to raise minimum LIHEAP payments for 50,000 beneficiaries, or about a quarter of its food-stamp rolls.  The increase…will “preserve approximately $66.6 million” a year in food-stamp benefits.  So Connecticut will leverage $1 in additional federal LIHEAP funds to reap $48 more from Washington for food stamps.

Mr Malloy’s neighbor Andrew Cuomo jumped for the free lunch the next day by declaring that New York would “dedicate approximately $6 million in additional federal” heating assistance to maintain $457 million in food-stamp payments.

Of course, this is done with taxpayer money, so the money transferred to, say Connecticut, comes in part from nearly bankrupt California, in part from bankrupt Illinois, in part from nearly bankrupt New York, etc.

It would help if the synergies were done away with.  It would help even more, and more permanently if the transfers were done away with, and the States required to see to their own responsibilities without freeloading off other States’ citizens.

Sanctions and Boomerangs

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov says that sanctions applied by us against Russia “would inevitably hit the United States like a boomerang.” But will they, or will they to any serious degree?  Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski doesn’t think so.  Sikorski had some thoughts on the matter in Monday’s Spiegel International Online.

SPIEGEL: The European Union imposed very mild sanctions against Russia on Thursday.  Isn’t it true that Putin, with his gas exports, has far more effective means for countering that pressure?

Sikorski: Only about 30% of the natural gas in the EU originates from Russia.  Norway is a larger supplier.  I do not believe Russia can use it to put us under pressure.  Moscow needs our money.

Indeed.

And

SPIEGEL: Why are the Poles so highly engaged in this conflict?

Sikorski: The Ukrainians are our neighbors. They are fighting for the same things we did back in 1989 – for a country that is more democratic, less corrupt and is European.

On what, then, is President Barack Obama waiting?  What is it of a Russian counterstroke that he fears so?

Sanctions and Competition

Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, and Czech Republic have directly appealed to our Congressional leadership to expedite turning on the export spigot for our natural gas.  These four nations see the directness and immediacy of the advantage of buying natural gas from us rather than from the Russians.

There’s another effect, though, from our increasing our gas, and oil, exports as quickly and as far as we can.  That’s the effect on oil and gas pricing in the global markets.  Such a large and easy increase in supply will depress those prices, which will have a competition-based double whammy on Russia: it will deprive Russia of billions of dollars in income from its own oil and gas exports by lowering the price, sharply, that Russia can demand, through depriving Russia of its energy monopoly.  Keep in mind, also, that the Russian economy almost exclusively is built on oil and gas exports—it has nothing else other than cheap, second tier military equipment, and while that remains a strong Russian industry, it’s not strong enough to carry the Russian economy, much less provide the funding necessary for Russian…adventurism.

The other whammy also is in those sharply lower oil and gas prices.  That decrease will make it easier for erstwhile Russian “clients,” including Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Ukraine, the EU (Germany, France, and Great Britain especially) to get their energy from somewhere more reliable than Russia, and at a cheaper price.

That cheaper price for these others produces a separate whammy for them: cheaper energy can be only to the good for their economies as they struggle to break out of the doldrums remaining from the global Panic of 2008.

But that’s what competition does—it lowers prices and sets economies free to generate prosperity.  An attempt to boycott Russian oil and gas is unnecessary.

Crimea and Sanctions on Russia

Promptly opening the export spigot on our own oil and gas production and accelerating our development of those fields, including on Federal land (which will have minimal production effect today; although it’ll have significant effect in the near- to mid-term by significantly expanding the supply of oil and gas on the global market) will produce an immediate spike down in the global price of oil and gas, which will have an associated immediate negative impact on the value of Russian oil and gas exports.

Blocking Russian access to credit on the global banking system—even just on the American banking system—and requiring cash-only transactions will have a negative impact on Russia’s cash reserves.

Seizing the personal banking and physical assets held by the Russian oligarchs and by Putin will remove billions of dollars’ worth of value from these folks—and it’s the oligarchs as much as a mendacious Russian legislature who are the source of Putin’s political power.

Of course, a significant fraction of the success of the sanctions will depend on how well Europe does its part.  Their participation will go a long way toward identifying who truly believes in the sanctity—as opposed to the convenience—of national sovereignty and who just engages in empty rhetoric for personal gain.  Their participation will go a long way toward identifying who our friends are and who are just summertime soldiers.  Their participation will go a long way toward determining who stands with Ukraine and who are willing only to talk about standing with Ukraine.

We can’t let their timidity stand in the way of our acting, though.  Nor can we let the fact that the sanctions will bring Russian retaliatory sanctions on us deter us.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Friday sanctions imposed by the West “would inevitably hit the United States like a boomerang.”  Their foreign ministry added they “will not accept the language of sanctions and threats,” and will respond if sanctions are imposed.

What sanctions can Russia impose?  They can block further Western/American investment in Russian oil and gas field development.  They can block further Western/American investment in oil and gas delivery systems (read: pipelines).  They can cease existing Western/American investments throughout their economy, not only in their oil and gas industry.  They can begin dumping their holding of American Treasuries.  They even could deny us access via their territory and airspace to our bases in the ‘Stans from which we support our war effort in Afghanistan.

This will hurt us, to be sure.  But who else will it hurt?  Russia can’t develop its oil and gas industry without us—that’s why we’re there.  What they have developed has been being depleted for more than 10 years; those assets are declining in value.  Their economy is utterly dependent on oil and gas.  Recall the damage done Texas’ strictly oil and gas economy during the first Arab oil embargo and the Nixon price controls.

Dumping their US Treasury holding will devalue the rest of what they hold, decreasing their ability to convert the rest into cash with which to complete the now-demanded cash only transaction.

Our war in Afghanistan is winding down, and those bases already are becoming less and less critical to our efforts.

The oligarchs’ loss of their own overseas assets and their loss of access to non-Russian banking, even to their overseas villas and other assets will hurt Putin’s primary supporters where it hurts the most: in their own pocketbooks.

The sanctions that will boomerang on us will boomerang right back on them, and worse.

And our own actions will determine whether our own administration truly believes in the sanctity of national sovereignty, with whom we are friends, whether we stand with Ukraine.  I’ve no doubt where the American people stand.