Tag Archives: political economy

Government Spending

Posted on by
1

Much of this originated as a comment to a Gay Patriot post.  I strongly recommend the post and then the accumulating commentary.

It’s important to note at the outset that government has no money of its own.  It only can act as intermediary in the (forced) process of transferring money from one group of private citizens to another.

Now a few remarks on government spending.  First, much of the money taken from private individuals and/or their businesses (which are just agencies of private individuals) to pay for government spending is lost to friction, including outright waste (I won’t get into losses to graft.  Could the graft be identified, it’d be rooted out.  Right?).  The waste includes money spent on government middlemen, money spent on government contractors hired to oversee the transfers and transferees, time and money spent schmoozing with lobbyists (both the good ones who are only identifying constituent needs—Congressmen generally fit this bill, for instance—and the bad ones, who are sure to take a taste of their own as the money flows, or to provide some vig in return for future consideration), and so on.

Second, money taken from private individuals to pay for government spending—whether through current taxes, current borrowing (future taxes), or printing money (future inflation)—is money that is not spent in the private sector, or husbanded against future spending in the private sector.  Thus, the multiplier effect of government spending, such as it is, is cancelled, if not exceeded, by the known, and fairly large, multiplier effect of private spending that is lost.  In many sequences of private spending, for instance, that multiplier effect runs out to 1.7x.  The best Keynesian estimate for the government spending multiplier is 1.5x.

Third, those husbanded funds generally are deposited in financial institutions as savings, and these deposits then are loaned to borrowers: these deposits are the primary source of loanable funds.  Taxes, then, reduce the amount of private money available for saving and so reduce the amount of lending that can occur.  This effect isn’t enough to cause a credit crunch like the one coming out of the Panic of 2008, but it hasn’t helped.  Further, that future inflation from printing to support excessive public borrowing devalues the funds that are saved.

There’s more.  As government debt grows, more private funds become husbanded, not against future spending goals in the private sector, but against those future taxes.  And even more borrowing is encouraged by that inflation (in the period before the recession that is the inevitable result of that high inflation)—in both the private and government sectors—since the repayment will be with inflation-devalued dollars.  Then that inevitable recession hits, and payback becomes, as they say, a bitch.

In sum, government spending isn’t zero-sum, it’s negative sum.

Update: clarified the second point.

Household Income

Posted on by
Reply

How are we doing in the post-recession “recovery” under the Progressive policies of the Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama?  One indication comes from Sentier Research and a report produced by their Gordon Green and John Coder, Changes in Household Income During the Economic Recovery: June 2009 to June 2012. (normally, I provide links to the documents from which I quote, but the folks at Sentier charge for their reports; I’ll not defeat their purpose. The report can be found at their site, here.)

The following graph from the report shows the policies’ impact on incomes of various household types in the period since 2009.  It hasn’t been good for anyone.  Green and Coder normalized household incomes, setting per cent changes to 0.0% as of January 2000 (as in the graph) and to a Household Income Index with the income levels of January 2000 being 100.0.

Moreover, they noted that household income has remained poor and relatively static after the recession “ended.”  Having fallen from a start-of-recession HII peak of a shade over 100 to 96 at the “end,” household incomes continued to fall over the following year to roughly 92 and have remained static there for the last two years.  In other words, at the official end of the recession, incomes were roughly 96% of their pre-recession levels, and since 2010 have remained static at a lower 92% of pre-recession.

The authors pointed out a number of factors related to the drop in HII, including this one:

Another important factor contributing to the steep decline of the HII is the sharp increase in the median duration of unemployment not only during the recession but also during the economic recovery, and its tendency to remain at a very high level.  During the recession, from December 2007 to June 2009, the median duration of unemployment increased from 8.4 weeks to 17.4 weeks.  During the economic recovery, the median duration of unemployment increased from 17.4 weeks in June 2009 to 25.5 weeks in June 2010, and then fell to 19.8 weeks in June 2012.

Notice that unemployment duration after the recession “ended” remains above the in-recession rate.

Meanwhile, over 20 House-passed jobs related bills have continued to languish in the Democrat-controlled Senate in the period since 2010, when unemployment remains above in-recession levels and household income remains depressed compared even to its in- and immediately post-recession levels.

A Thought on Our Economy These Last Few Years

Posted on by
Reply

Both the Pew Research Center and the Congressional Budget Office have published reports in the last week that talk about the condition of our economy and the fiscal cliff that awaits us in a few short months.  Others have commented extensively on the reports themselves; I want to talk about some of the information that lies between the reports’ lines.

The Pew report focuses on the plight of the middle class, referring to “The Lost Decade of the Middle Class ” in its own headline.  The report points out, among other things, that middle class annual income has shrunk from $73k in 2001 (and 2008) to $69.5k in 2010, their most recent data.  Pew notes, also, that median middle class household net worth has fallen from $153k in 2008 to $93k in 2010.

The CBO report, on the other hand, has the following to say: if the Obama tax increases and the sequester spending cuts are allowed to go through at the start of 2013, the deficit will be cut roughly in half as a per cent of GDP, but at a cost of economic contraction of 0.5% on the year.  On the other hand, if the tax increases and spending cuts are put off for another year, the deficit will remain a damaging 6.5% of GDP, unemployment still will be at 8%, and the economy will grow an anemic 1.7%.  This is the fiscal conundrum the present administration’s Keynesian policies have created.

Plainly, the administration’s policies have been an utter failure; they have not produced economic recovery.  Indeed, the middle class, whom Progressives pretend to favor so much, have been devastated by those policies.  Still, Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama wants four more years in which to do more of the same—or more so, since he’d have “more flexibility” after re-election, when he’d be beholden to no one.

After all, Obama says

The private sector is doing fine.

Hmm….

The Romney-Ryan Medicare Plan

Posted on by
Reply

What is it, exactly, and how does it work?  The plan is a means of restoring responsibility for health insurance spending to the individuals seeking the coverage—which also removes that (usurped) responsibility from the Federal government.  The Wall Street Journal provided a summary earlier this week of how this gets accomplished.

  • Private insurers, and Traditional Medicare, would bid for the business of each individual senior citizen (oh, the ignominy: Big Government having to mingle with—to compete with—the hoi polloi) in a region for the year.
  • Each senior citizen would receive from the government a payment equal to the second-lowest bid in that region.
  • Each senior citizen then would spend that payment on the health coverage of that person’s choice.
    • If the senior citizen chose the cheapest policy, he would pocket the difference.
    • If the senior citizen chose the second cheapest, he would break even.
    • If the senior citizen chose a more expensive policy, he would pay the increment out of his own resources.

Hmm….  Choice—what’s up with that?  Can we trust our senior citizens to behave responsibly?  Even push actual competition among the vendors?  Some plainly say, “No!  We do not trust these people.”  It’s why they oppose the plan.

As the WSJ also points out, there’s real world, empirical evidence that base competition works: it has…in Medicare Advantage.  This program already requires vendors to bid against Traditional Medicare.  As recently as 2009, the year for which data are readily available, the lowest and second lowest bids—for the same coverage—were, respectively, 87% and 91% of the government’s Medicare charge.

Where, then, are the extra $6,400 that our seniors are supposed to be socked with paying under the Romney-Ryan plan about which Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama is on about so much?  He and his are using an obsolete CBO report about an obsolete Ryan proposal that doesn’t exist today and that has nothing to do with the Romney-Ryan plan.  Moreover, CBO conceded at the time that its analysis was suspect because it did not consider the effects of competition: their results

depend on the evolution of the health care and health insurance systems over time, which is hard to predict.

More damning—to the CBO analysis here and to its analyses generally—CBO has admitted its inability to score the Romney-Ryan Medicare plan because it

does not have the capability at this time to estimate such effects[.]

There goes Obama, again—stuck in a past that never existed.  And trying to change the subject again.

Retirement Security—For Whom?

Posted on by
Reply

The Obama Campaign now seems to be coming out in favor of the status quo regarding the financial security of our American senior citizens.  They continue to state their adamant opposition to reforming Social Security (and Medicare, which is part of the Social Security system) at all.  Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate Joe Biden made that refusal explicit a few days ago during a Virginia campaign stop:

I guarantee you, flat guarantee you, there will be no changes in Social Security.  I flat guarantee you.

The opposition summarized by Biden has been so long-lasting and, of late, so shrill, that it seems the Progressives are afraid of freeing up the programs, of freeing up us American citizens to take care of ourselves away from the watchful eye and controlling hand of government.

Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D, FL) expresses Progressive fear this way:

The very last thing we ought to be doing is putting at risk the retirement security of millions of America’s seniors.

And yet, she chooses not to address the plain and simple fact that, with our retirement security in the hands of government, with government making funding and disbursement decisions for millions of us, we have no retirement security: Social Security will be bankrupt in just a few short years (it’s already paying out far more than it’s taking in, and the Social Security trustees say the funds will be exhausted by 2033), and Medicare is in worse shape.

Wasserman’s plaint is especially cynical in light of the fact that, for the last three-plus years, Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama—and his fellow Progressives in Congress—have chosen to offer no solution to this at all, save taking $700 billion dollars from America’s seniors’ Medicare in order to give it to his precious Obamacare, and otherwise, as Biden has assured us all, to refuse any change.

Wasserman, et al., also are objecting to a reform that would put more freedom and responsibility in the hands of us citizens: the specific proposal to which Wasserman was objecting (and which, sadly, has been absent from the last two (Republican) House-passed Federal budgets) would have allowed us to take a significant portion of our Social Security taxes and invest those funds in our own retirement accounts, managed by us without government interference.

Why are the Progressives so afraid of letting American citizens make our own choices, be responsible for our own lives?  Do they think we’re just too stupid to manage our own futures, that we’re dumber than government?  Or are they simply afraid of losing the power that comes from the dependency of others on them, and so their own retirement security?