Tag Archives: political economy

Economic Disinformation

Posted on by
Reply

President Barack Obama actually said this out loud to The New York Times:

T]hat [Keystone XL pipeline] oil is going to be piped down to the Gulf to be sold on the world oil markets, so it does not bring down gas prices here in the United States.

Because increased supplies don’t actually decrease prices.  Sure.

Actually, that distorting claim is of a piece with Obama’s steady drumbeat of distortions concerning the effects of his economic policy.

Here are the latest employment statistics, which Obama insists demonstrate that effectiveness and why he should be able to spend and tax even more.

Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 162,000 in July, and the unemployment rate edged down to 7.4%….

That’s against ADP’s mid-week claim of 200,000 new jobs.  And what’s behind that apparent improvement to “only” 7.4% unemployment?

…long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) was little changed at 4.2 million.  These individuals accounted for 37.0% of the unemployed.
…
The number of persons employed part time…was essentially unchanged at 8.2 million in July.

Additionally, the labor force participation rate (the per cent of our adult population actually trying to find work) dropped last month to 63.4%, approaching a 30-year low, as some 240,000 Americans gave up trying to find work in this stagnated-at-lousy economy.  That drop underlies the seeming drop in the headline unemployment rate.

That’s not all.  We see from The Wall Street Journal that actual economic expansion—the GDP growth rate—while still positive, is falling and has done so for some time.

Because Obama’s Keynesian politics have been so effective, and his claims about the wisdom of them have been so accurate.  Never mind that downward trend over the last 7 quarters.

The Dallas branch of the Fed has some interesting charts, also.  This one compares current unemployment duration with the length of unemployment in past recessions.  Careful readers will recognize the recession of ’74-’75 at the end of Jimmy Carter’s term, and the ’81-’82 recession at the start of Ronald Reagan’s terms.

This next graph shows…graphically…the effectiveness of Obama’s economic policy.  No matter who’s estimating, we just don’t catch up.

Last one.  This graph shows how the Obama Recovery compares with our history of economic recoveries.

But Obama says everything is Jake, and those Evil Republicans should get out of his way, so he can do even more of this.

It Isn’t Your Money

Posted on by
Reply

Or, gimme, gimme, gimme.

Treasury Secretary Jack Lew told “Fox News Sunday” that President Obama will neither sign government funding bills that slash domestic spending nor negotiate with Republicans over spending cuts to reduce the federal debt limit.

That’s not all.  He told ABC’s “This Week”

I think the president has made crystal clear, he’s not going to negotiate over the debt limit.

But he’s willing to “work with” all comers.  Sure.

This President, and his cronies in the Senate, are perfectly willing to blow up our credit rating (or what’s left of it after their last fiasco just a couple of years ago) and shut down the government if they’re blocked from taking more of your money away from you (in their demanded higher taxes) or taking more of your children’s money away from them (in their demanded continuing borrowing) and spending ever more of your money (their demanded spending increases).

All because these…politicians…think they know better than you—or your children—what that money should be spent on, and they’re convinced it’s their money and not yours in the first place.

Cynical Goals for our Economy

Posted on by
Reply

Most Democrats want tax-overhaul efforts to fund government programs or contribute to deficit reduction.

Indeed.  In addition, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D, UT) demands that any tax “reform” raise Federal revenues ($975 billion more over 10 years is his minimum bid) for the purpose of supporting increased Federal spending.

“Contribute to deficit reduction.”  How disingenuous.

Here’s a thought: how about tax reform that reduces rates against a backdrop of reduced/eliminated government “programs,” so that the Federal government is out of the way (or at least less in the way) of our economy?  The result would be a robust and growing economy that would both raise revenue for the Feds from that increased activity and that actually would eliminate the deficit instead of cynically perpetuating it.

And from that deficit elimination, facilitate actually paying down a ruinous Federal debt.

A Thought on Global Tax Reform

Posted on by
Reply

UK Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne said he hoped the G-20 countries would commit to the [OECD plan to close international tax law loopholes].

And

The plan aims to plug the gaps created by a complex web of bilateral tax treaties that has expanded since the 1920s, and which now allows for “aggressive” tax planning, where companies adopt legal structures designed to shift their profits to the lowest-tax jurisdictions, regardless of where those profits are earned.

“These gaps have facilitated tax planning by globalized players.  The goal of the action plan is to close down the avenues that we have left open,” said Pascal Saint-Amans, director of the OECD’s Center for Tax Policy and Administration.

And

The UK Parliament’s public-affairs committee has held a number of heated public hearings over the past six months examining whether large companies are paying enough tax.

Never mind that of course business executives engage in careful “tax planning”—they have a fiduciary duty to their bosses, the business owners, to minimize costs and maximize profits.

Nor is there any consideration of whether the G-20 nations (other than, say, Ireland) are charging too much in the way of taxes, cynically without justifying governments’ claimed need for OPM.

And this from Ángel Gurria, OECD Secretary-General.

Although of course we do not expect [businesses] to very happily go there and deposit their more substantive check, I think they will understand that this is a way to keep the systems running better and the trains running on time.

Shades of Alexander Hamilton:

There are some who maintain that trade will regulate itself and is not to be benefitted by the encouragements or restraints of government.  Such persons imagine that there is no need of a common directing power.  This is one of those wild speculative paradoxes among us, contrary to the uniform practice and sense of the most enlightened nations.

As Adam Smith and the empirical evidence of the US’ experience until the early 20th century have shown, Hamilton was wrong then, and Gurria is wrong today.

Here’s a thought: standardize on low/no corporate tax rates.  It’s not government’s money, anyway; the money is the property of the companies and the people who own them.

An Implication

Posted on by
Reply

One of the aspects of the Detroit bankruptcy is this:

…shrinking…[Detroit]’s work force to the point where employee contributions can’t keep pace with the needs of current pension recipients.  The city has just 9,700 workers but 21,000 retirees drawing benefits.

That has meant larger and larger payments by the city to keep the funds solvent.

This is the future of Social Security and Medicare, absent privatization of each and serious immigration reform (which the Senate bill is not).  The outcome nationally, since we don’t get to declare bankruptcy (we can only welch on our debts by repudiating them or by repaying with debased money), is higher taxes and more debt.  And national failure.