Category Archives: Economics

Miscellaneous economy stuff

A Market Parallel

Posted on by
Reply

Amity Shlaes has noted some interesting parallels between today’s economic situation and that of 1937, post reelection of another Progressive President (she’s politer than I am).

In this case, “1937” means a market drop similar to the one after the re-election of another Democratic president, Franklin D. Roosevelt, in 1936.

…

[T]he parallels are visible enough to be worth tracing.  They have to do with the danger of big government, and can be captured in a few categories.

Here are those parallels [emphasis added]:

Pre-election spree that sets records.  In the old days, federal spending amounted to about 19 percent or 19.5 percent of gross domestic product. …[from that] federal spending would have dropped back once the worst of the 2008 economic crisis passed.

…even in 2012, when the crisis was long past, the government went on a spree, spending the equivalent of 24.3 percent of the economy, more than the 24.1 percent for the year earlier.

Up until 1936, federal spending flowed at smaller levels than the spending by states and towns combined, with wartime being the exception.  Roosevelt slowly ratcheted up the outlays, and in 1936, Washington spent more than the states and towns.  This shift was dizzying for a country based on the principle of federalism, of strong states.

 

Fearsome attack on the status quo.  In his first news conference on Nov 14, Obama went out of his way to make clear his tax increases would fall on the rich: “What I’m concerned about is not finding ourselves in a situation where the wealthy aren’t paying more or aren’t paying as much as they should.”

Roosevelt was also ferocious, telling the old guard: “I should like to have it said of my first administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said of my second administration that in it these forces met their master.”

When Roosevelt followed through in 1937, both with high taxes and his effort to pack the Supreme Court with more progressives, markets shivered.

Shlaes concludes with

The obvious question is why an announcement by Obama or Roosevelt to cut back just after the election doesn’t reassure those who dislike government expansion.

The answer is that the markets, which observe a giant march forward and then a step backward, don’t believe the step back is permanent.  Giants are giants.  Expansionists tend to revert to expanding government….

In the end, FDR’s Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau, learned that lesson:

We have tried spending money.  We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work.  I want to see this country prosper.  I want to see people get a job.  I want to see people get enough to eat.  We have never made good on our promises.  I say after eight years of this administration, we have just as much unemployment as when we started.  And enormous debt to boot.

The Obama administration, unfortunately, has no Treasury Secretary, or anyone else, capable of (re)learning that lesson.

Why should we care about the stock market, though?  The problem with significant drop in overall market stock prices isn’t just one of hammering rich investors and any workaday American with an IRA, a 401(k), or a 403(b) retirement account.  It’s that selling shares in a company is one of two ways in which businesses raise money (the other being borrowing) for product development or business expansion, either of which means prosperity for the company and, oh by the way, more jobs.  A significant market drop, then, closes off one more avenue for business expansion, jobs, and economic recovery.

Overregulation?

Posted on by
Reply

Is this an example?  Shalini Ramachandran described Dish Network’s travails in expanding into the cell phone network.

The Federal Communications Commission is leaning toward putting limits on how [Dish Network Corp Chairman Charlie] Ergen can use the billions of dollars of spectrum he controls, FCC officials said.

…

The commission…is seriously considering requiring him to limit his use of a slice of the spectrum to protect against interference on a neighboring spectrum band, the officials said—a move that Mr. Ergen said in an interview Thursday “would be a game changer for us.”

…

Current FCC rules require operators using satellite spectrum to offer handsets with a satellite chip, making the devices more expensive.  Dish has been awaiting the FCC’s decision on whether to allow the satellite operator to use its spectrum for a solely ground-based cellular network.

…FCC is close to approving Dish’s request, but with a buffer zone in which Mr Ergen could only operate at low power, which could mean worse wireless service.  …that limit would reduce the capability of Dish’s “uplink” spectrum—which handles the pathway from the cellphone to the tower—by 25%.  An additional 25% on top of that would be impaired due to interference…endangering Dish’s ability to compete in the wireless business….

This raises some questions in my poor, plebeian mind.  An FCC mandate concerning how a private entity might use his private property would seem to be an interference with the property rights of that private entity.  Is the restriction actually necessary to protect the neighboring property owner’s rights?

Should government be involved before the two private entities have had a chance to try to work things out on their own?

How does a satellite chip that uses a part of the spectrum create less interference from that spectrum than the absence of such a chip and continued use of that same spectrum?

Obama’s Economic Policies

Posted on by
Reply

…are actively hurting our economy and our businesses—and so us.  Here are two illustrations.

First, The Wall Street Journal:

Half of the nation’s 40 biggest publicly traded corporate spenders have announced plans to curtail capital expenditures this year or next, according to a review by The Wall Street Journal of securities filings and conference calls.

Nationwide, business investment in equipment and software—a measure of economic vitality in the corporate sector—stalled in the third quarter for the first time since early 2009.  Corporate investment in new buildings has declined.

…

…business investment fell at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1.3%, according to a preliminary estimate from the Commerce Department.  The latest drop included a decline in investment in structures, such as buildings, at a 4.4% annual rate.  Investment in equipment and software stalled after growing at a roughly 5% annual pace in the first six months of the year.

It’s not just Big Business, though, the whole article from which the above excerpt came notwithstanding:

Of the four ways government can principally influence the economy for better or worse—fiscal policy, regulation, monetary policy, and trade—it appears that investors will continue to be forced to rely on monetary policy for help. Taxes will undoubtedly rise for some, and the one effective way the federal government could effectively ease more—regulatory policy—seems less likely now than ever before.  The Wall Street law firm Davis Polk has created a new business of simply keeping track of the seemingly infinite number of rules that will need to be written to complete the process of financial regulation put into place by Dodd-Frank.  Sadly, only 33% of the 398 required rulemakings have been finalized.  (Only 265 rules to go!)  Another 33% have yet to have even been proposed.  Is it any wonder the Fed has had trouble turning excess reserves into effective monetary stimulus?

What are we doing as a company in light of this uncertainty?  We’ve put on hold business expenses short of pencils, and any capital spending we were considering, including an update of the men’s bathroom some have begun to call “the latrine.”  Instead of calling clients and focusing on our research, we are scheduling, probably in vain, conference calls (read fees) with our attorneys and accountants to try to create contingencies against potentially bad outcomes for us in the tax code.  It has forced us to ask ourselves questions that seem at odds with economic growth, like, are there any unintended consequences of employing more than 50 people?

 

h/t for the second for The Spirit of Enterprise

Progressives and Taxes

Posted on by
1

Not only do they still not get it, they’re already operating in bad faith.  Here’s more, via Damien Paletta of The Wall Street Journal.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on Tuesday said higher tax rates on upper-income Americans were a central part of the White House’s deficit-reduction proposal because there was no way to raise enough revenue by only limiting tax breaks.

No doubt.  But that just means it’s a bad proposal.  Notice that this plan proceeds from a couple of false premises.  One is that the Federal government needs more money.  Another is that the only way to cut the deficit is to raise taxes.  (Putting on my best cheesy-ad voice) but wait—there’s more!

Mr. Geithner said there was a lot of “magical thinking” about the amount of revenue that could be raised by capping or eliminating tax deductions and exemptions.  He said this approach wouldn’t come near the roughly $1.5 trillion in revenue the Obama administration believes is necessary as part of a broad deficit-reduction package.

There he goes again, and with his own “magical thinking.”  Geithner’s magic is to repeat the fantasy that the Feds need $1.5 trillion in revenue in order to reduce the deficit.  In the first place, taking that much money out of the private sector will reduce economic output, which will continue, if not increase, the current unemployment rate.  In the second place, taking that much money out of the private sector will lower the amount of tax revenue flowing to the Feds, both directly and through that continued/increased high unemployment rate.  If the government wants to increase revenue, it must support a vibrant, growing economy—which it cannot do when it starves that economy of its fuel, which is money.

Then Geithner says, without a trace of irony,

When you take a cold hard look at the amount of resources you can raise from that top 2% of Americans from limiting deductions you will find yourself disappointed to the relative magnitude of the revenues we need[.]

I won’t repeat myself on his underlying false premise; I’ll just point out the equal truth of his statement from substituting “raising tax rates” for “limiting deductions.”

In the end, the only way to eliminate the deficit (and so to begin paying down the national debt) is to spend less than is collected in revenue, as any third-grader on an allowance understands.  The only way to do this is to spend less.  Only that third-grader would insist on an increase in his allowance.

Tax Rate Cuts and Economic Prosperity

Posted on by
1

Stephen Moore, writing in The Wall Street Journal, makes anew a number of points about the effect of taxes on a free market economy.

1920s: the Coolidge administration reduced income tax rates across the board, including cutting Woodrow Wilson’s WWI top rate of 73% to a peacetime rate of 25%.

  • Tax revenue to the Federal government doubled: the share of taxes paid those making more than $100,000/year ($1 million in today’s terms) rose from 28% to 51%.
  • Minor point: the economy boomed into 1928, raising the income and standard of living for all Americans.

1930s: the Franklin Roosevelt administration raised the top income tax rate to 63%, then to 79%, during the Great Depression.

  • This extended the Depression.
  • Post-war, those continued high rates (with the top rate now at 90%, a level reached during the war) slowed down the recovery and conversion from a war economy to a peace economy.

1960s: the original supply-sider, John F Kennedy, cut tax rates across the board by 30%, saying the lower rates would “boost the economy, produce revenues, and achieve a future budget surplus,” and be “an investment in the future.”

  • Tax revenue to the Federal government rose by 8.6%/year.
  • Unemployment fell to an historical low of 3.4%.
  • Those making $50,000/year (Obama’s $250,000-ers) saw their share of those tax revenues rise to 15% of the total from 12% prior to the rate cuts.
  • Those making $50,000/year also saw their tax payments, in absolute terms, rise 40%.
  • Those especially evil Americans making more than $1 million/year saw their tax payments in absolute terms rise from $311 million to more than $600 million.

1980s: the Reagan administration cut tax rates across the board, lowering the top rate first to 50%, then to 28%.

  • The economy roared.
  • Unemployment fell from the Carter administration’s historic highs to 5.3%.
  • Inflation fell from the Carter administration’s peak of 13.5% to 4.8%.
  • Tax revenue to the Federal government doubled from $517 billion to above $1 trillion.
  • The share of total income taxes paid by the evil top 1% of Americans rose from 18% to 25%.
  • The share of total income taxes paid by the evil top 5% of Americans rose from 35% to 44%.

2000s: the Bush the Younger administration (re)lowered tax rates across the board, this time, for instance, from 39.5% to 35% at the top.  The administration also lowered taxes on capital gains and dividends significantly.

  • Tax revenue to the Federal government rose by $780 billion.
  • Tax payments by millionaires generally doubled: the booming economy both created more millionaires and sharply increased their incomes.
  • The share of total income taxes paid by the evil top 1% of Americans rose from 35% to 41%.

The problem is, though, that President Obama and his fellow Progressives are fully aware of these data.  One has to wonder at Obama’s motives for demanding to raise tax rates.