If you have watched Fox News you are probably familiar with their "fair and balanced" panel discussions. They usually have two conservative commentators and two liberal commentators to discuss issues of the day.
One of their more interesting discussions was about cutting taxes versus cutting the deficit.
The commentators who favored tax cuts argued that tax increases would hurt small business owners who are the source of about 85% of the new jobs that are created. Therefore, tax increases would extend the current recession.
The commentators who favored deficit reduction argued that it was inconsistent for fiscal conservatives to support both deficit reduction and tax cuts at the same time. Their obvious assumption was that tax cuts reduce the amount of taxes the government collects and must therefore result in higher deficits.
Neither group discussed the issue of spending in relation to deficits.
But the tax cut advocates did argue that tax cuts increase total economic output and therefore result in higher tax collections. They also pointed out that past tax cuts have reduced the annual deficit and in some cases have helped to generate surpluses.
The liberals who argued in favor of tax increases to reduce the deficit apparently operate on the assumption that the economy is static and that tax policy does not alter economic activity. They seem to be unable to accept the idea that lower taxes results in more jobs and prosperity which in turn result in more tax revenue that can be used to reduce the deficits. Nor did they seem to be concerned about the impact of government spending on the deficits.
Vern
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Friday, July 23, 2010
Who Suffers from Deflation?
It often seems that the financial media treats deflation as if it were some sort of financial plague.
It's somewhat obvious that everyone is hurt by inflation, right? Oh yeah, I almost forgot. People who owe money to banks or other lenders like inflation because they get to pay off their debts with cheaper money. That must mean that the lenders don't like inflation and logically should like deflation. And debtors should be the ones who get hurt financially during periods of deflation.
But it seems that it's the bankers who scream the loudest about the evils of deflation. Why is that?
Put simply, it's because they have less money to loan at interest rates above what they have to pay for the money.
The banks get money to lend from three main sources. One is from the money that is deposited with them. They can loan up to about 90% of those deposits to borrowers at interest rates above what they have to pay the depositors. The second source of money is from the deposits by the borrowers or from people who have borrowed funds from other banks. But that is probably their most expensive source of funds.
The third source of funds is from the Federal Reserve and it is often the cheapest source of funds. Right now, the Fed is keeping the interest rates they charge member banks as low as possible. In fact, the rate is so cheap that the banks are finding it safer and more profitable to just park that borrowed money in U.S. treasury bonds.
With deflation, it works pretty much in the opposite way.
Fewer people are borrowing money so the banks have less money to lend. The Fed is likely to try to push money into the market with lower interest rates but if people aren't borrowing, it's like pushing on a string.
With deflation, prices are generally declining. Each dollar in circulation has more purchasing power. Although borrowers pay off their debts with more valuable dollars, that's not a profitable thing for them to do. So they try to pay off debts as soon as possible instead of delaying the payments as long as possible. And there is then less money in circulation which reduces the profits for the banks.
The bottom line is that it is the bankers who are hurt the most because of deflation. And the Fed is owned by the bankers. So if I have to place a bet on whether we are more likely to have inflation or deflation, I'll bet on inflation.
But there are some times (like now) when some deflation or at least a lack of inflation is unavoidable. That's because bankruptcies and loan defaults are inherently deflationary. They offset the money that was created when the loans were made and reduce the money in circulation.
But in the long run, those who avoid debt would be better off with deflation.
At least that's the way it seems to me.
Vern
It's somewhat obvious that everyone is hurt by inflation, right? Oh yeah, I almost forgot. People who owe money to banks or other lenders like inflation because they get to pay off their debts with cheaper money. That must mean that the lenders don't like inflation and logically should like deflation. And debtors should be the ones who get hurt financially during periods of deflation.
But it seems that it's the bankers who scream the loudest about the evils of deflation. Why is that?
Put simply, it's because they have less money to loan at interest rates above what they have to pay for the money.
The banks get money to lend from three main sources. One is from the money that is deposited with them. They can loan up to about 90% of those deposits to borrowers at interest rates above what they have to pay the depositors. The second source of money is from the deposits by the borrowers or from people who have borrowed funds from other banks. But that is probably their most expensive source of funds.
The third source of funds is from the Federal Reserve and it is often the cheapest source of funds. Right now, the Fed is keeping the interest rates they charge member banks as low as possible. In fact, the rate is so cheap that the banks are finding it safer and more profitable to just park that borrowed money in U.S. treasury bonds.
With deflation, it works pretty much in the opposite way.
Fewer people are borrowing money so the banks have less money to lend. The Fed is likely to try to push money into the market with lower interest rates but if people aren't borrowing, it's like pushing on a string.
With deflation, prices are generally declining. Each dollar in circulation has more purchasing power. Although borrowers pay off their debts with more valuable dollars, that's not a profitable thing for them to do. So they try to pay off debts as soon as possible instead of delaying the payments as long as possible. And there is then less money in circulation which reduces the profits for the banks.
The bottom line is that it is the bankers who are hurt the most because of deflation. And the Fed is owned by the bankers. So if I have to place a bet on whether we are more likely to have inflation or deflation, I'll bet on inflation.
But there are some times (like now) when some deflation or at least a lack of inflation is unavoidable. That's because bankruptcies and loan defaults are inherently deflationary. They offset the money that was created when the loans were made and reduce the money in circulation.
But in the long run, those who avoid debt would be better off with deflation.
At least that's the way it seems to me.
Vern
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Logic vs. Faith
For a long time I have found it difficult to understand how otherwise intelligent people can honestly believe that any government is able to create prosperity or even security. To a large degree it seems that those who are the most educated (and therefore presumed to be highly intelligent) are the most likely to argue that government is the solution to every problem and the great provider of greater prosperity and justice for all.
I have developed a litmus test with respect to the honesty of politicians based on their promises about what the government can do for their constituents. When a candidate for President claims that he will be able to "fix the economy", I regard him as either a fool or a lier. The government can impose laws and regulations and they can impose taxes or create new money through cooperation with the Federal Reserve. They can create an environment that encourages entrepreneurs but they can't create prosperity. That can only be done by private industry.
More laws and regulations rarely solve more problems than they create. The regulations consume resources to fund the bureaucracy and they restrict or inhibit industry in a variety of ways. They create distortions in the economy and cause industry to divert resources to deal with whatever mandates are imposed. For every useful law or regulation, there are a dozen others that are politically motivated and pander to the goals of various special interest groups. Government benefits for various constituents inevitably lead to an expansion of the intended scope of the program.
The laws and regulations inevitably require more taxes or more "funny money". The progressive income tax provides an incentive for those who are excluded from the tax (the bottom 50% of households) to demand more government benefits at the expense of those who do pay income taxes. It is a simple truth that whatever we tax, we get less of. When we tax income we end up with less income. When we tax assets, the assets always evaporate. When higher taxes become unproductive, the government resorts to the debasement of the currency. In a country with a central bank that simply involves the issuance of government bonds in exchange for newly created money. And that leads to inflation, which diminishes the purchasing power of the currency.
But the advocates of more government and central planning are immune to this kind of logic or common sense. They seem to base their decisions on blind faith that a few people with concentrated power can somehow produce a better result than millions of individuals who are motivated to find solutions for whatever problems they may face. The advocates of bigger government believe that centralized power and planning can force people to do what they would otherwise not do. But force is never a motivator. It does not lead to maximum effort. It only leads to the minimum effort required to avoid punishment.
In a controlled economy, the government pretends to pay the workers and the workers pretend to work. Eventually the entire system begins to fade the way a battery operated appliance does as the battery loses its power. History is full of failed attempts at managing an economy. But the proponents seem to believe that they have the magic missing ingredient to force people to be more productive.
Faith in the flawed concept of economic equality is the cause of untold misery. The advocates of more government operate on faith and blindly ignore the many clear lessons of history and logic.
Just my two cents.
Vern
I have developed a litmus test with respect to the honesty of politicians based on their promises about what the government can do for their constituents. When a candidate for President claims that he will be able to "fix the economy", I regard him as either a fool or a lier. The government can impose laws and regulations and they can impose taxes or create new money through cooperation with the Federal Reserve. They can create an environment that encourages entrepreneurs but they can't create prosperity. That can only be done by private industry.
More laws and regulations rarely solve more problems than they create. The regulations consume resources to fund the bureaucracy and they restrict or inhibit industry in a variety of ways. They create distortions in the economy and cause industry to divert resources to deal with whatever mandates are imposed. For every useful law or regulation, there are a dozen others that are politically motivated and pander to the goals of various special interest groups. Government benefits for various constituents inevitably lead to an expansion of the intended scope of the program.
The laws and regulations inevitably require more taxes or more "funny money". The progressive income tax provides an incentive for those who are excluded from the tax (the bottom 50% of households) to demand more government benefits at the expense of those who do pay income taxes. It is a simple truth that whatever we tax, we get less of. When we tax income we end up with less income. When we tax assets, the assets always evaporate. When higher taxes become unproductive, the government resorts to the debasement of the currency. In a country with a central bank that simply involves the issuance of government bonds in exchange for newly created money. And that leads to inflation, which diminishes the purchasing power of the currency.
But the advocates of more government and central planning are immune to this kind of logic or common sense. They seem to base their decisions on blind faith that a few people with concentrated power can somehow produce a better result than millions of individuals who are motivated to find solutions for whatever problems they may face. The advocates of bigger government believe that centralized power and planning can force people to do what they would otherwise not do. But force is never a motivator. It does not lead to maximum effort. It only leads to the minimum effort required to avoid punishment.
In a controlled economy, the government pretends to pay the workers and the workers pretend to work. Eventually the entire system begins to fade the way a battery operated appliance does as the battery loses its power. History is full of failed attempts at managing an economy. But the proponents seem to believe that they have the magic missing ingredient to force people to be more productive.
Faith in the flawed concept of economic equality is the cause of untold misery. The advocates of more government operate on faith and blindly ignore the many clear lessons of history and logic.
Just my two cents.
Vern
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
