Tag Archives: political economy

Monetary Policy

Posted on by
Reply

This week’s print version of Der Spiegel has a cover depicting a slowly melting €1 coin captioned Vorsicht, Inflation! Die schleichende Enteignung der Deutschen, or roughly, “Caution, inflation! The creeping expropriation of Germans.”  Inflation erodes the value of (German) wealth.  An English translation of an article summarizing this cover theme can be found here.

Andrew Bosworth, chief portfolio manager for PIMCO in Germany (PIMCO is a global investment management firm of serious proportion), describes the underlying problem:

The industrialized world is stuck in a severe debt and growth crisis.  The central banks are fighting the disease with monetary infusions of previously unknown proportions[.]

Then he notes the problem this “cure” is generating:

[T]he side effect is a slow but dangerous devaluation of money.

And

Gradual inflation has a numbing effect.  It impoverishes the lower and middle class, but they don’t notice[.]

Indeed, paraphrases Spiegel Online,

For the past five years, governments from Berlin to London and from Brussels to Washington have been in crisis mode.  They rescued the banks in 2007 and 2008, then they stimulated the economy and, since 2010, have threatened to drown in their own debts.  The burdens are being pushed up the line, from private investors to central banks and government bailout funds.  But this doesn’t make the debts any smaller.

Despite this, though,

[T]he central banks of the United States, the euro zone, Great Britain and Japan jointly announced their intention to pump even more cheap money into the financial markets…. [The banks and the populations, both] recognize that governments seem to be willing to accept higher inflation if it facilitates debt reduction.

Especially since inflation, devaluing the relevant currencies, devalues the debts measured in those currencies.

What has a German portfolio manager to do with our situation in the US?  The inflation threat from throwing money at the problems of an economic dislocation is a basic principle of economics; it’s not unique to Germany.  Banks aren’t lending, or borrowers aren’t borrowing: throw money at the banks.  Folks aren’t spending because…pick a reason: throw money at the banks.  There’s too little economic activity, generally, because…pick a reason: throw (“stimulus”) money at the economy.  Whatever the mechanism, the response (I do not say “answer”) has been to increase the money supply.

But the outcome, whatever the path, is an enormous increase in the amount of money chasing a supply of goods and services that is not increasing at all in a stagnant economy, or one that’s growing more slowly than the population.  Or, at present, isn’t chasing at all because the recipients of all that money are sitting on it in some way: banks are chary of lending because, for instance, they’ll get hammered by our government for making bad loans, even as they’re currently yelled at by our government for not lending.  Citizens aren’t spending, preferring instead to pay down current debt or to save, husbanding their small wealth against a too uncertain future.  This is the textbook condition for enormous inflation when the dam breaks.

What are the Fed and the Obama administration doing in the US?  Throwing money at the banks (the Fed’s artificially suppressed—to essentially zero—interest rates and QE1, QE2, QE3,…,QE∞(?)) and the administration’s throwing money at our economy (stimulus “investing” nearly annually since winter 2009, sweetheart loans, and loan guarantees).

We have an increasingly vast supply of money chasing a supply of goods and services that is not expanding.

As I mentioned at the top, when inflation does strike, it will hit the poor and middle-income folks much harder than the wealthy: the former already spend the vast majority of their wealth on the necessities of life: food, fuel, clothing, and shelter.  Yes, more personal financial discipline would help—and folks should be exercising this discipline as a matter of course.  They are, too: the trend in savings rates, especially relative to income rates, has been to increase savings since the Panic of 2008 struck.  But the coming inflation explosion can easily overwhelm those efforts.

Heads up.

Solar and Wind Energy Subsidies

Posted on by
Reply

There was sort of a debate presented in The Wall Street Journal a few days ago concerning the efficacy of Federal subsidies for solar and wind energy companies.  I say “sort of” because the Mark Muro’s arguments in favor of the subsidies demonstrate an utter cluelessness of the basics of economics as well as of how well the subsidies have already performed.

For instance, the WSJ‘s lede cites generic proponents as saying in all seriousness,

There is widespread agreement that pulling the plug on the subsidy at this point could hobble the wind-power industry.  Meanwhile, the biggest federal subsidy for solar power, a tax credit for 30% of the cost of installed equipment, is set to drop to 10% at the end of 2016.  A cash grant for up to 30% of solar equipment costs expired at the end of last year.

Proponents say wind and solar subsidies are needed for a few more years to allow these clean, renewable sources of energy to develop to the point where they can compete on price with electricity produced from coal and natural gas.

Yet, if the technology can’t compete in a free market on its own, if it needs the subsidy to survive, the technology is not ready for commercial use or sale.  Spending taxpayer money—private citizen money—on such a thing is a textbook example of Fraud, Waste, and Abuse.  As the proponents admit without realizing it in that second paragraph: “…wind and solar subsidies are needed for a few more years to allow these clean, renewable sources of energy to develop….”

Muro then says in his argument,

Let’s remember the point of these temporary subsidies: to help emerging clean-energy technologies gain toeholds in challenging markets and advance toward unsubsidized price-competitiveness.

And

The ultimate reward is cheaper, cleaner energy and greater energy diversity, which will help guard against price shocks, keep energy costs down through competition and lessen the damage our energy consumption does to the environment….

Except that it isn’t cheaper if it needs subsidies coupled with coal, oil, gas (hydrocarbon) prices that are artificially elevated by government mandates to include “green” additives as the Feds do, or to buy electric power from solar and wind generators, as California does, in order to compete.  Moreover, diversity is reduced, not expanded by limiting us to solar and wind—or even by demanding that we buy a certain amount of solar and wind, regardless of market forces—and actively blocking access to hydrocarbon energy.  And finally, if these really are viable technologies that will deliver cheap energy easily, private investors will flock to invest, and no taxpayer subsidy will be even in the picture.

On top of that, there’s no case for environmental “damage,” given the great amount of cleanup already done, and the falsified “damage” attributed, for instance, to fracking by the EPA.

Muro goes on:

Wind and solar need the help because the barriers for new technologies in the energy industry are tougher than those in any other industry in this country.  Fossil fuels, with the help of their own government subsidies over the years, are thoroughly entrenched, with trillions of dollars’ worth of infrastructure in place.

Never mind that that entrenched infrastructure sits on top of centuries’ worth of economical, unsubsidized hydrocarbon deposits in the ground right here in the US and Canada, and the infrastructure easily can be extended to reach into the deposits in our respective territorial and economic zone waters, as the People’s Republic of China already is doing, filling the vacuum left by the present administration’s slow-walking of drilling permits for American companies.

Additionally, the beef that “the barriers for new technologies in the energy industry” are tough is just a cynical red herring.  Those technical barriers existed for the hydrocarbon industries, also, as they were developing.  Why should solar and wind get special treatment?  Muro has no answer; he merely asserts the “need.”

Muro concludes with this long-standing “promise:”

In sum, onshore wind is likely just a few years away from true subsidy independence, while several forms of solar aren’t far beyond.

Like commercial fusion, we’ve been “just a few years away” for decades.  It’s an empty promise.

As Dr David Kreutzer points out in his argument against these subsidies, though,

Surely some alternatives to fossil fuels will be developed, but they will only work if they are affordable.  Wind and solar aren’t, and that isn’t changed by shifting the costs from consumers and producers to the taxpayers.

Bureaucrats and politicians shouldn’t be the ones deciding which technologies are the most promising or what timeline is too long or what losses are too deep.  The market will do a much better job of answering the question: are wind and solar power really viable?

Let’s get rid of the subsidies and find out.

When Greed Meets Tinker Bell

Posted on by
Reply

State pension funds are another time bomb of malaise (to the tune of a $1.4 trillion shortfall) waiting to explode, and Rhode Island provides an example of the difficulty we each, in our own state, face in defusing it.

Rhode Island passed a massive overhaul (as such things go; they have a long way, yet, before they’ve completely cured their problem) of their state retirement system last year, including such unheard-ofs as raising the retirement age, suspending pension increases for several years, and generating a hybrid retirement plan that combines traditional pensions with 401(k)-like accounts.  Rhode Island’s General Treasurer, Gina Raimondo, says that this reform will save Rhode Islanders $4 billion over the next 20 years (compared to a 2013 budget that proposes spending $8 billion in that year alone, small potatoes, indeed, but a critical start).  This minor reform also seeks to redress astonishing conditions that include 58 percent of retired teachers and 48 percent of state retirees receiving more in their pensions than in their final years of work.

But it’s too much change for some.  The public “service” unions (service: you service me) object: it’s somehow wrong for their members to be responsible for their own retirement funding.  Even a little bit.  Instead, these public “service” unions protest that it’s all unfair.  Rhode Island is reneging on promises to workers, they say.  Bob Walsh, Executive Director of the National Education Association of Rhode Island, goes so far as to insist

What they did was illegal.  We’re deep into a real assault on labor.  It worries me that people who purport themselves as Democrats do this.

Never mind that there’s nothing at all illegal about these changes.  It’s a well-established principle in American jurisprudence that when the conditions extant when a contract was agreed (stipulating arguendo that the agreement was made in good faith by all parties) no longer exist, or have so radically changed that the terms can no longer be met, the contract can be abrogated and either a new one negotiated or the parties involved go their separate ways.  In extreme cases, this is what bankruptcy achieves; although, when the conditions have changed as radically as these have, bankruptcy isn’t necessary.

Never mind, also, these are promises that couldn’t be kept in any event, and both the state government and the public “service” unions at the time knew they could not be kept.  Or they blindly believed real hard in government’s ability to keep collecting funds from…somewhere.  Tinker Bell is alive and well in Public Service Land.

Never mind, finally, that this public “service” union greed at the expense of taxpayers makes “labor” a valid target.

One tear-jerker that the unions are trotting out is this:

North Providence retiree Jamie Reilly left her job as a secretary at age 50 [remember that raising of the retirement age?], thinking her 30 years of state employment would mean good benefits during her later years.  But now she said she may be forced to re-enter the workforce at age 55 because the state has put off pension increases.

“I counted on that money,” Reilly said….  “You work all your life and you plan, and they take it away from you.”

Worked all her life?  She worked 30 years and wanted to be retired for 40.  Workers in the private sector don’t get it that easy; they work until they’re in their mid-60s—a working life 50% longer.

And this one:

Cranston firefighter Dean Brockway said higher retirement ages mean he will have to work several years longer than he expected, and he wonders how he’ll climb stairs in heavy gear in his 60s.

“Could I do something else? I don’t know,” he said. “A lot of us chose to dedicate our lives to public service because to us it’s an honor.  Could I be a carpenter?  I don’t think so. This is what I do.”

Brockway has a legitimate concern, but it’s no different from the concerns of a private sector employee whose work is primarily physical labor.  But if he’s not going to look for alternatives, if he’s not going to try to retrain into something less physically demanding (certainly no stroll in the park for a middle-aged or older person, but assuredly not impossible), he loses sympathy for his plight, which begins to be self-imposed.  Certainly, there’s no more obligation for Rhode Island’s citizens to indemnify him against the outcomes of his choices than there is for them to indemnify similarly situated private sector employees.

Raimondo understands this in all its practicalities—how affordable are the existing programs:

These problems won’t go away.  The longer you wait, the bigger the problems get.  People looking for easy, short-term solutions. … Well, there are none.

Raimondo doesn’t believe in Tinker Bell.

Some Thoughts on the Fed’s Latest Guess at Monetary Policy

Posted on by
Reply

The good folks at Sober Look have a good post on this.  Basically, the Fed’s latest scheme is to buy $40 billion of mortgage debt from lenders every month until the labor market improves.  That’s nearly a trillion dollars every two years.  And its purpose is to hold down mortgage interest rates in particular, rather than interest rates in general, which have already been artificially lowered to near zero (to negative values in some cases in real, inflation-adjusted terms) for several years.

Those nearly non-existent interest rates generally, though, are associated with 43 months of unemployment above 8% (notwithstanding last week’s Labor Department claim of 7.8% unemployment).  Here’s what Sober Look thinks of this latest…idea…from the Fed.  Follow the links, too.

  1. It is not clear what impact asset purchases will have on consumer confidence.
  2. We’ve had extraordinarily low interest rates for quite some time now, yet improvements in job growth have been limited.
  3. Lowering mortgage rates from 3.5% to 3% is not going to have a significant impact on home affordability or materially reduce consumers’ interest expense (see this discussion).
  4. Raising bank excess reserves is not going to accelerate credit expansion.
  5. Fed’s unemployment targets are unrealistic – it’s going to be an exercise in “squeezing blood from a stone” (see discussion).
  6. US real median household income has basically been unchanged since 1994. The Fed’ program is unlikely to improve this metric and could actually impair incomes further by elevating inflation levels.
  7. The market “euphoria” effect is fleeting.

What will restore employment is less government interference—by the Fed and the Congress and the Executive—in our economy so that free market forces can start an actual recovery.  Which will lead to increased hiring; leading to more savings (in absolute terms, if not relatively), which are funds that can be loaned to support home purchases or business expansion (each of which is jobs) and to more spending, which supports business expansion (which is jobs); leading to increased hiring; leading to….

Blasts from the Past

Posted on by
Reply

This is what FDR’s Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau wrote in his diary in the depths of the Great Depression after years of explosive spending, rapidly increasing debt, enormously high unemployment, rising taxes and tax rates, and drastic intrusion of government controls into our economy:

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.

Although slow to (re)learn the lesson, Morgenthau wasn’t the first to articulate the failure of government spending to accomplish much of anything good.  Ludwig von Mises had some remarks on the matter, too.

When the government spends more, the public spends less.  Public works are not accomplished by the miraculous power of a magic wand.  They are paid for by funds taken away from the citizens.

And

It is obviously futile to attempt to eliminate unemployment by embarking upon a program of public works that would otherwise not have been undertaken.  The necessary resources for such projects must be withdrawn by taxes or loans from the application they would otherwise have found.  Unemployment in one industry can, in this way, be mitigated only to the extent that it is increased in another.

And

Government spending cannot create additional jobs.  If the government provides the funds required by taxing the citizens or by borrowing from the public, it abolishes on the one hand as many jobs as it creates on the other.

And

A policy of deficit spending saps the very foundation of all interpersonal relations and contracts.  It frustrates all kinds of savings, social security benefits and pensions.

Now contrast that with what the present administration has done, and the wonderful effects that explosive spending, rapidly increasing debt, enormously high unemployment, the constant threat of rising taxes and tax rates, and drastic intrusion of government controls into our economy have had on our economy and on jobs for Americans.