A Short History Lesson

Much ado has been made about the Great Depression and of the Panic of 2008, whose effects we’re still feeling.  Here is a brief history of another economic depression, one that could have had devastating impact, the depression that occurred in the US in 1920-1921.

In the 18 months between January 1920 and August 1921, our unemployment rate jumped to 14% or so from about 2%, as estimated from the times’ inexact records; wholesale prices fell more than 40%; and industrial production fell 23%.  From peak to trough, the total of checking accounts and currency fell by nearly 11%.  Some today might have considered the survival of the banking system as a whole to be in the wind.  The farm economy also was hard hit, and there were waves of business failures.  What interventions did the government effect to rescue the nation from this devastation?  The most effective intervention a government can execute with a free economy: it sat on its collective hands and let the economy right itself.

The Harding administration very deliberately ran a budgetary surplus. The Fed, with less than a decade’s worth of bad habits to influence it, raised interest rates, increasing the cost of money (and increasing the value of savings).   In response, the economy in 1922, the first full year of recovery, increased industrial production more than 27%, and by 1923, unemployment was back down to 3%.

What happened?  Market forces, unfettered by Know Betters in the government, happened.  The US and our goods and services were dirt cheap, and bargain-hunting investors from overseas jumped on the opportunity with both feet.  No central banker had to instruct investors in what to do with bargains.  Money flowed into the US, and this inflow delivered a powerful monetary stimulus.

Moreover, that 40% drop in prices meant that Americans’ dollars were able to buy more.  This increase in the value of our money—wonks call it the “real balances effect”—enabled Americans in our aggregate to begin again to buy goods and services.  Which stimulated demand for new production, which stimulated job creation.

And those banks that a Hank Paulson might have panicked over?  The biggest casualty was the little First National Bank of Cleburne, Texas, with its deposits of $2.8 million. That certainly hurt those Cleburne depositors, but the damage was that limited.  No bank was “too big to fail” in those days, and no big bank did.

That depression lasted all of 18 months, and over its course—one more little tidbit—the nation’s debt was reduced by nearly 6%, to a shade under $23 billion.  The Great Depression lasted 10-17 years (depending on who you read) and added billions to our debt—even before WWII, and the Panic of 2008 is still being felt four today, years later, and our national debt still is exploding by trillions of dollars per year.

Yet the Obama administration has cynically ignored the lessons the Harding administration could teach about not intervening in a free economy.  Rather, Obama and his “advisors” have chosen to listen to a fellow Progressive, Franklin Roosevelt, and so to ignore the manifest failures of government intervention into that more publicized depression.  Obama has chosen to double down on those failures with his own interventionist policies, which are exacerbating the Panic of 2008, and the ongoing recession still ensuing (never mind the “official” end of the recession in 2009—ask the millions of Americans who are out of work, and the millions more who have given up and abandoned the labor force altogether, how their recovery is going).

Worse (if that’s possible), the supposedly independent Federal Reserve System has been entirely complicit in these interventionist policies, what with its freely running dollar printing press, its QE2 (preceded by a QE1—why do these sound like failed luxury cruise liners?), its Twist, its artificially depressed interest rates (so much for the widows and orphans who need their savings for living), and so on.

Duplicity in Government

No, I’m not talking about leaking the nation’s secrets for personal political gain, or personally approving, individual by individual, the execution of…individuals…by remote control.  I’m talking about duplicity aimed at maintaining incumbents’ positions in government, and so their personal power.

Here is an example of incumbents increasing the dependency of Americans on government. Here’s an example of falsifying “green” jobs data (as part of a larger investigation into the Labor Department’s “trouble” producing reliable labor data generally.  Select Part 2 from the tabs below the video and either listen to the whole thing, or skip ahead to 49:45 to hear the money part of the duplicity.

Here are a couple of examples that the government allows its unions to perpertrate on people:

  • Sally Coomer: Denied the Right to Choose by SEIU Leaders
  • Claire Waites: Denied the Right to Choose by Teachers Union Leaders

Progressives Didn’t Get It then, Either

[I]n a free enterprise economy, increased production increases the number of jobs.  It might be said that one job creates another, which is true as far as it goes, but open to misinterpretation; for only productive employment does that.  If a man were paid to pick up pebbles on a beach and throw them into the ocean, it would be just the same as if he were in a “government job,” or on the dole; the producers have to supply his subsistence with no return, thus preventing the normal increase of jobs.  Putting the unemployed on the dole does not increase “purchasing power.”  The dole divides up what is already in production.

Isabel Paterson understood this in 1943 in her The God of the Machine [the emphasis is hers], and FDR’s Secretary of the Treasury, Walter Morgenthau, had come to understand it as early as 1939.  But the Progressives then didn’t get it, and the Progressives today still don’t.

Keynesian economics simply does not work in the real world.  Government spending, whether on “jobs” programs or on other goals, is not stimulative; it is depressive of an economy, in no small part by crowding out private demand and private spending for products—and here by increasing the cost of private labor.  The taxes and the borrowing—which are future taxes—which must occur in order to pay for the spending are even more depressive.  The taxes take money out straight out of the hands of the people who have the most interest in its value and the clearest understanding their purpose for their money, and they give it to government bureaucrats for spending on government purposes, whose loftier goals are handed down from on high by fiat.  Meanwhile, the government’s borrowing drives up the cost of debt for private borrowers, who have more carefully thought out purposes for the loans and more carefully thought out plans for repaying those loans.

Paterson’s remarks about jobs and productive jobs, in particular, also were clear then, as she wrote in the era of FDR’s Civilian Conservation Corps.  The distinction is just as clear today, with the added fillip that at least the CCC laborers were doing something.  The present administration’s “jobs” programs have done nothing.  They haven’t even produced jobs, as this note illustrates.

These things were apparent in the latter stages of the New Deal, and they’re apparent today.  This fall, we will have an opportunity to confirm our choice of two years ago and to strengthen it, or to repudiate it.  This fall, we must choose wisely.

Two Economies

We are at a cross-roads in our country and it’s time to force the issue.  We face a generational decision on the kind of economy we want for ourselves—and so the degree of individual freedom we want for ourselves.  We made a choice in the 2010 elections, and it’s time to confirm or repudiate that choice this fall and in the election cycles to come.

There are two basic types of economies available to us: wealth redistribution by government fiat or wealth redistribution by individual choice in a free market.  In this post, I’ll write a little about each type.

Wealth redistribution by government fiat:

When redistribution occurs by fiat, it occurs by taking wealth from some and giving it to others.  I won’t go into the class warfare that this sort of thing can engender, regardless of good intentions.  I’ll write, instead about the outcomes of such redistributions.

This taking of wealth from some necessarily caps the wealth of that some.  Indeed, reducing income inequality often is the explicit goal of this sort of wealth redistribution as that transferred wealth represents “income” to the recipients.

Reducing income inequality, though, ignores a fundamental aspect of human endeavor: we are not endowed with the same degree of talent, of work ethic, of luck.  We do not even have the same desires for what we want out of life.  Thus, income inequality is an inevitable outcome of the application of men to their own efforts and goals.  Capping this—which wealth redistribution necessarily does—in the name of “fairness,” then, prevents those with greater talent or ethic, or even luck, from enjoying to the fullest the fruits of their labors.  By this, it denies those men the equality of opportunity promised them by our social compact.

Worse, this prevents those men even from achieving their fullest potential, because knowing they will have some portion of the results of their efforts taken from them, there is no incentive to excel, to do their best.  Their reach will no longer exceed their grasp.

At least as bad, this also saps the morality of those men: they lose both the incentive and a portion of the means to satisfy their obligation to their fellows.  Government has taken this obligation and the responsibility for its satisfaction away from them and arrogated these to itself.

But what of the recipients of the redistribution: are they not enough better off (the other major purpose of government-forced redistribution) to offset the loss to the successful?  No.  In fact, they’re not any better off at all; they’re worse off.

At this end of the spectrum, incentive to do better is lost: they’ll receive a measure of wealth regardless of their effort.  They lose their sense of obligation to do their best and thereby to not be (or to be as much less of as they can) a burden on the duty (or wealth) of others.  Government as arrogated this responsibility to itself.

These men, also, are denied their promised equal opportunity; they are denied their chance to show the best that is in them—morally as well as economically.

Wealth redistribution by free market individual choice:

The case concerning this is quite straightforward.  First, the answer to an obvious question: how is this redistribution, at all?  The rich get richer, with the seller collecting his price for his good or service, and the poor get poorer for having had to pay those prices.  Actually, not.  That description looks, too narrowly, only at the pecuniary aspect of an exchange of money for a good or service; there is, though, a much broader picture.

Economically, it’s simple.  The desire for those goods and services is demand that stimulates production.  That increased production represents both increased hiring and lower prices.  Those lower prices and higher employment increase demand.  Which generates jobs….  Obviously this won’t go on forever; there will reach a point where the price of labor, which has been increasing as its supply becomes scarcer, makes it uneconomical to continue hiring and producing.  However, that level of full employment is a far higher level of employment than that which obtains in an economy where the wealth passed on to people is as relatively independent of effort as it is in an economy driven by government-forced redistribution.

Thus, wealth is redistributed as a result of the free—voluntary—exchange that exists in a free market.  Those exchanges ultimately create additional jobs, which is increased wealth for all participants.

This voluntary wealth redistribution is short and direct on a personal level, also: rather tautologically, both parties to a (voluntary) transaction are made wealthier by that transaction: each party has obtained something of value to him that he didn’t have before.  After all, if it wasn’t of value, neither party would have been interested in the exchange.  And by completing that exchange, each party now has that thing.

All participants in a régime of free market redistribution are enriched morally, also.  It is in this environment that equality of opportunity is preserved.  It is in this environment that everyone, rich and poor, is able to work to his fullest potential.  It is in this environment that everyone is able to enjoy all of the fruits of his labor.  It is in this environment that everyone retains his moral obligations, the ability to satisfy them (including the obligation of each to help his less fortunate fellows), and by doing so improving themselves.

These men, then, are guaranteed their promised equal opportunity; they are guaranteed their chance to show the best that is in them—morally as well as economically.

Is Anyone Paying Attention?

Over in California, we have this:

  • California Controller John Chiang reported that April 2012 tax collections fell short of that state’s government projections by more than 20%—$2.44 billion.
  • Personal income tax payments were below that state’s government (specifically, Governor Jerry Brown’s) projections by 21.5%—$2 billion.

This, and other “estimating” errors have led to a new budget shortfall estimate of $16 billion—up 77% from an estimate of a bit over $9 billion from just four months ago in January.

To solve this shortfall problem, California’s state government is in the middle of a campaign to get voters who still remain in California to raise the taxes they pay: pushing their sales tax to 7.5% from its current 7.25% and pushing their top marginal income-tax rate to 13.3% from 10.3%.

We also have this going on invis-à-vis California:

  • Since 2009, the business departures from California has gone up by a factor of five.
  • Chief Executive magazine’s annual survey of CEOs, carried in the May issue, found California last in business climate of all the states in the union.

If anyone in that government is paying attention, are they capable of understanding?