In the USA, household debt as a percentage of household income is at an all-time high. At the same time, for most households, income is falling - making the debts more onerous. For a significant minority, long-term unemployment or underemployment means income has collapsed and the debt burden is overwhelming - usually resulting in default and bankruptcy.
We have been reading many 'horror stories' about people who had good jobs, but lost them and were unable to replace them, and then drowned in their debts. These people are no longer at the fringes of society, but just another form of 'normal'.
We are beginning to see the human side of this Depression as a series of millions of little catastrophes. Lives that were until recently lived more or less conforming to the typical American Consumer Lifestyle: House, Car, Stuff - complete with mortgage, car loan, and credit card balances. Then income loss leads to wipe out: getting behind on bills, letting them go, and then the repo men take it all away.
It's hard to guess how many will follow this path, but we suspect about half the population. It's going to create a very different America. Luckily for the powers-that-be, most will probably just blame themselves.
Showing posts with label income. Show all posts
Showing posts with label income. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Imagining a Better Future
Seeing how we are writing here about the Depression - which may last a very long time and turn out to be a dramatic economic collapse - we feel it important to state once again we are confident that the future can actually improve for anyone who is prepared for it.
The most important preparation is to be optimistic in the sense we mean it: making the best out of every situation. At its most trite: when life hands you lemons, make lemonade. Loss can be liberating if you find new fields in which to apply yourself.
Of course it is also important to avoid certain traps that will stifle your ability to survive and prosper in the coming years. The biggest trap is the notion that things will go back the way they were. This even applies to a lot of notions of 'prosperity', 'growth' and so forth. More specifically it applies to notions people have about what is worth investing in: a career, real estate, the stock market. Most of the systems that have worked to make people better off in the past are breaking down, and will not deliver the goods going forward.
So what do you invest in? Try to invest as much as possible in yourself, your skills, your tools, things you have control over which will help you produce income or reduce expenditures. You must take full responsibility for your income, and for living within your means.
The biggest shock the world is facing is that the era of an ever-growing stream of material goods and services is coming to an end, and will become an shrinking stream for quite some time. Happily, your quality of life is not measured by how much stuff you can buy. But you have to focus with ruthless efficiency on managing your income and expenses or you will find yourself a Depression victim.
To have a better future, you must also avoid having a worse future. However, for many with debts, children, or other substantial obligations the future may be unavoidably worse before it gets better. In any case, try to identify your weaknesses with some cold honesty, and shore them up.
The route to prosperity is simple in theory: live within your means (no matter how meagre) and profitably invest the surplus. In practice this can be extremely challenging, but it is achievable.
The most important preparation is to be optimistic in the sense we mean it: making the best out of every situation. At its most trite: when life hands you lemons, make lemonade. Loss can be liberating if you find new fields in which to apply yourself.
Of course it is also important to avoid certain traps that will stifle your ability to survive and prosper in the coming years. The biggest trap is the notion that things will go back the way they were. This even applies to a lot of notions of 'prosperity', 'growth' and so forth. More specifically it applies to notions people have about what is worth investing in: a career, real estate, the stock market. Most of the systems that have worked to make people better off in the past are breaking down, and will not deliver the goods going forward.
So what do you invest in? Try to invest as much as possible in yourself, your skills, your tools, things you have control over which will help you produce income or reduce expenditures. You must take full responsibility for your income, and for living within your means.
The biggest shock the world is facing is that the era of an ever-growing stream of material goods and services is coming to an end, and will become an shrinking stream for quite some time. Happily, your quality of life is not measured by how much stuff you can buy. But you have to focus with ruthless efficiency on managing your income and expenses or you will find yourself a Depression victim.
To have a better future, you must also avoid having a worse future. However, for many with debts, children, or other substantial obligations the future may be unavoidably worse before it gets better. In any case, try to identify your weaknesses with some cold honesty, and shore them up.
The route to prosperity is simple in theory: live within your means (no matter how meagre) and profitably invest the surplus. In practice this can be extremely challenging, but it is achievable.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
A Depression Trajectory
As a sort of follow-up to yesterday's post, we will muse a bit on how much world GDP decline to expect to this Depression.
One assumption that we are making is that over the next twenty years or so, fossil fuels will become too expensive to use very much as... well, fuel. The world is not going to run out of oil, gas, or high quality coal - but their fuel use will mostly be limited to its highest ends (i.e., not for mass private cars, heat, or electricity). In the post-fuel hydrocarbon era, much of the remaining supply will be used for non-fuel uses such as fertiliser, plastics, and specialty chemicals.
Its a rather uncertain thing modelling collapse, but it is not unreasonable to say that hydrocarbon production may decline 90% or so in the next 20 years. That may seem outrageous, but many people like ourselves who make a study of this matter are arriving at similar conclusions. Consider this recent post at The Oil Drum. It's a bit technical, but Figure 3 is worth a thousand words.
As every schoolchild knows, or at least ought to know, the industrial economy grows or shrinks with the supply of fuel. If fuel production declines 90%, the economy will fall by a similar amount. There will be efficiency, nuclear power, solar power, hydropower, and many other ways to mitigate the loss of energy available to society - hopefully enough to keep things civilised. And once Civilisation has weaned itself off fossil fuel, economic growth just may well resume from a new, low base and at a slower rate.
We believe an energy-intensive economy such as the USA's will experience roughly a 90% decline over the next 20 years. At the end of the Depression, per-capita income is likely to be in the neighborhood of $5,000 a year in current dollars.
We suggest the Reader consider what life might be like for them on such an income, or a bit more or less - depending on their skill level. Also to consider what sort of means they would have to produce any income in a world where most people can afford very little beyond the basics of food and shelter.
It will be very difficult to hope that investment capital will produce much income. Which industries will even survive this depression? Virtually all bonds are sure to default, including government ones - either directly or through inflation. Successful investors will likely be the active, hands-on sort.
To earn income will require being involved with a surviving industry, such as agriculture. Otherwise you will need to become entrepreneurial, and hard-working. Though challenging, the changes ahead are manageable - as long as you keep a positive outlook.
One assumption that we are making is that over the next twenty years or so, fossil fuels will become too expensive to use very much as... well, fuel. The world is not going to run out of oil, gas, or high quality coal - but their fuel use will mostly be limited to its highest ends (i.e., not for mass private cars, heat, or electricity). In the post-fuel hydrocarbon era, much of the remaining supply will be used for non-fuel uses such as fertiliser, plastics, and specialty chemicals.
Its a rather uncertain thing modelling collapse, but it is not unreasonable to say that hydrocarbon production may decline 90% or so in the next 20 years. That may seem outrageous, but many people like ourselves who make a study of this matter are arriving at similar conclusions. Consider this recent post at The Oil Drum. It's a bit technical, but Figure 3 is worth a thousand words.
As every schoolchild knows, or at least ought to know, the industrial economy grows or shrinks with the supply of fuel. If fuel production declines 90%, the economy will fall by a similar amount. There will be efficiency, nuclear power, solar power, hydropower, and many other ways to mitigate the loss of energy available to society - hopefully enough to keep things civilised. And once Civilisation has weaned itself off fossil fuel, economic growth just may well resume from a new, low base and at a slower rate.
We believe an energy-intensive economy such as the USA's will experience roughly a 90% decline over the next 20 years. At the end of the Depression, per-capita income is likely to be in the neighborhood of $5,000 a year in current dollars.
We suggest the Reader consider what life might be like for them on such an income, or a bit more or less - depending on their skill level. Also to consider what sort of means they would have to produce any income in a world where most people can afford very little beyond the basics of food and shelter.
It will be very difficult to hope that investment capital will produce much income. Which industries will even survive this depression? Virtually all bonds are sure to default, including government ones - either directly or through inflation. Successful investors will likely be the active, hands-on sort.
To earn income will require being involved with a surviving industry, such as agriculture. Otherwise you will need to become entrepreneurial, and hard-working. Though challenging, the changes ahead are manageable - as long as you keep a positive outlook.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
A New Rule for Profit in a Declining Economy
Whatever you might be hearing, reading, or wishing to believe to the contrary, the world economy is still declining. Looking ahead to 'the recovery' is premature. A practical question arises to those who wish to better themselves financially: How can one make sure one is better off tomorrow than today?
In a growing economy, it pays to take risks. For example, if you can borrow money at a low cost, you can invest the funds in an instrument that makes more and profit off the 'spread'. In a shrinking economy, this strategy typically no longer works. Lenders are not inclined to lend, and few investments yield positive returns.
In a shrinking economy it pays to destroy risk. For example, if you have debts - pay them off. You have a guaranteed return in avoided costs. Likewise, seek to reduce operating leverage in business, even if it means giving up work so that you don't have to take on additional costs (such as buying new equipment, or hiring employees).
This will be a tough lesson to learn. It runs counter to the experience of the last 60 years. Recessions may present buying opportunities, but a Depression - at least at the beginning - is a time to hunker down.
It is very important to measure your income and outgo and ensure the former is larger than the latter. If you economise and create safe, secure savings, your net worth will rise. At some point in the future it will be time to consider more aggressive investment strategies, but that time has not yet come.
In a growing economy, it pays to take risks. For example, if you can borrow money at a low cost, you can invest the funds in an instrument that makes more and profit off the 'spread'. In a shrinking economy, this strategy typically no longer works. Lenders are not inclined to lend, and few investments yield positive returns.
In a shrinking economy it pays to destroy risk. For example, if you have debts - pay them off. You have a guaranteed return in avoided costs. Likewise, seek to reduce operating leverage in business, even if it means giving up work so that you don't have to take on additional costs (such as buying new equipment, or hiring employees).
This will be a tough lesson to learn. It runs counter to the experience of the last 60 years. Recessions may present buying opportunities, but a Depression - at least at the beginning - is a time to hunker down.
It is very important to measure your income and outgo and ensure the former is larger than the latter. If you economise and create safe, secure savings, your net worth will rise. At some point in the future it will be time to consider more aggressive investment strategies, but that time has not yet come.
Friday, April 3, 2009
The Worst is Yet to Come
What caused this Depression? Can anything be done to make things better? Can anything be done to make them worse?
A lot of things caused this Depression. It might be easier to to list what didn't cause it. At the top of the list would be 'a loss of consumer confidence'. In a nutshell, the origin of the Depression can be found in the prosperity which preceded it. Flaws in the economic system eventually crashed the system. There are many theories of what causes Depressions - many of them have much merit and they are not mutually exclusive.
One theory is that disparities of income and wealth create Depressions. These disparities were glaringly obvious in both the 1920s and the 1990s. So, to answer the second question, perhaps ameliorating these disparities would be helpful - some novel approaches could include creating a maximum wage, or introducing property taxes on financial assets. And, to answer the third question, if the opposite direction is being taken by public policy, it is probable that policy is actually making things worse.
In the present bailout-of-banks mode, financial assets are being protected even as millions of ordinary workers lose their jobs. The result of this is that the very wealthy are becoming less poor than they otherwise would in a freer system, while workers become comparatively much poorer. Thus disparities of wealth and income are not being allowed to narrow and lay the groundwork for a healthier economy. Public policy is actually making the situation worse.
Another theory of Depressions is that too much capital has been allocated towards uses where it is not really productive. This applies very neatly in the present circumstances to - say - automobile manufacturers or making McMansions in exurbia. What could be done to make things better is allow capital to slip away from these uses and towards what people want. Unfortunately, public policy is attempting to prop up both failing automakers and sagging house prices. Again, this will make the Depression worse.
We could go on. At almost every step, the reaction of policy makers is not only to not do helpful things, but to do exactly the worst possible thing. It's going to be a rough ride, folks.
A lot of things caused this Depression. It might be easier to to list what didn't cause it. At the top of the list would be 'a loss of consumer confidence'. In a nutshell, the origin of the Depression can be found in the prosperity which preceded it. Flaws in the economic system eventually crashed the system. There are many theories of what causes Depressions - many of them have much merit and they are not mutually exclusive.
One theory is that disparities of income and wealth create Depressions. These disparities were glaringly obvious in both the 1920s and the 1990s. So, to answer the second question, perhaps ameliorating these disparities would be helpful - some novel approaches could include creating a maximum wage, or introducing property taxes on financial assets. And, to answer the third question, if the opposite direction is being taken by public policy, it is probable that policy is actually making things worse.
In the present bailout-of-banks mode, financial assets are being protected even as millions of ordinary workers lose their jobs. The result of this is that the very wealthy are becoming less poor than they otherwise would in a freer system, while workers become comparatively much poorer. Thus disparities of wealth and income are not being allowed to narrow and lay the groundwork for a healthier economy. Public policy is actually making the situation worse.
Another theory of Depressions is that too much capital has been allocated towards uses where it is not really productive. This applies very neatly in the present circumstances to - say - automobile manufacturers or making McMansions in exurbia. What could be done to make things better is allow capital to slip away from these uses and towards what people want. Unfortunately, public policy is attempting to prop up both failing automakers and sagging house prices. Again, this will make the Depression worse.
We could go on. At almost every step, the reaction of policy makers is not only to not do helpful things, but to do exactly the worst possible thing. It's going to be a rough ride, folks.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
The Dark(er) Side of Raising Taxes
As our co-writer noted in yesterday's post, raising taxes during a recession is a bad idea. Raising taxes during a depression is a very, very bad idea. President Herbert Hoover raised taxes during the 1929 Depression, and thereby helped dig a deeper pit for the American economy.
As President Obama's new tax regime is cranked up, it will turn a problem into a crisis. When -- if we are correct -- the U.S. dollar is devalued significantly, it will turn a crisis into a disaster. Let us explain:
According to the President, 'rich' is now classified as a couple making $250,000+ a year. At present purchasing power, only about 1.5% of all households are making that much money. So, by the numbers, these people are apparently 'rich.' Tax them!
But wait... what about all those bank bailouts, car-maker bailouts, insurance funds, synthetic CDOs, pension funds, hedge funds, ad infinitum? Surely the top 1.5% of households by income cannot support such largesse on the part of the government... so the money's got to come from elsewhere. We turn to Messrs. Ben Bernanke and Gideon Gono, as they know the answer: the printing presses.
With money flowing magically into being from the sky, those little financial concerns disappear in a puff of inflation. The question is how much inflation will happen: we posit a nice, comfy ten-times devaluation. In that scenario, today's dollar coin is tomorrow's dime.
Also in that senario, today's $250,000 is tomorrow's $25,000. Feeling a cold chill, dear Reader? We do. We'll work hard to preserve our modest lifestyle, but that means we'll be making more and more money -- nominally -- in order to keep up with inflation. At some point, we see no reason why we won't slam headlong into the 'rich' tax bracket... even though we're far from the classic definition of 'rich.' What's your income, Reader? And what tax bracket would you be in if you tacked another zero at the end of it? If you're not careful, you may become rich without even knowing it!
As President Obama's new tax regime is cranked up, it will turn a problem into a crisis. When -- if we are correct -- the U.S. dollar is devalued significantly, it will turn a crisis into a disaster. Let us explain:
According to the President, 'rich' is now classified as a couple making $250,000+ a year. At present purchasing power, only about 1.5% of all households are making that much money. So, by the numbers, these people are apparently 'rich.' Tax them!
But wait... what about all those bank bailouts, car-maker bailouts, insurance funds, synthetic CDOs, pension funds, hedge funds, ad infinitum? Surely the top 1.5% of households by income cannot support such largesse on the part of the government... so the money's got to come from elsewhere. We turn to Messrs. Ben Bernanke and Gideon Gono, as they know the answer: the printing presses.
With money flowing magically into being from the sky, those little financial concerns disappear in a puff of inflation. The question is how much inflation will happen: we posit a nice, comfy ten-times devaluation. In that scenario, today's dollar coin is tomorrow's dime.
Also in that senario, today's $250,000 is tomorrow's $25,000. Feeling a cold chill, dear Reader? We do. We'll work hard to preserve our modest lifestyle, but that means we'll be making more and more money -- nominally -- in order to keep up with inflation. At some point, we see no reason why we won't slam headlong into the 'rich' tax bracket... even though we're far from the classic definition of 'rich.' What's your income, Reader? And what tax bracket would you be in if you tacked another zero at the end of it? If you're not careful, you may become rich without even knowing it!
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Minimising the Risk of Personal Financial Catastrophe
We were having a conversation with a friend recently about the steps one can take to avoid becoming destitute in one's old age. It occurred to us that these same steps apply to everyone at all ages and are generally good advice.
#1 Keep your income sources diversified. No matter how good it seems to be, no basket should ever hold all your eggs. Consider the people who put their entire life savings with Madoff. This applies to jobs as well. Don't count on your career choice necessarily being there for you. If your full-time job leaves you no time for developing other income sources, at least have a back up plan.
#2 Live within your means. Aim to live on less than 75% of your income. This may seem daunting, but it is always do-able. The less you save, the more at risk you are.
#3 Live in a small, paid-for house, in an OK neighbourhood. If the neighbourhood deteriorates, move. If the neighborhood gentrifies, move (and reinvest the profit) - though this isn't too likely to happen for a while. If you can't afford to move, you have violated rules 1 & 2.
Some years ago, we were living in Duluth, Minnesota when the city went on a demolition spree. They started tearing down perfectly good houses. We were very perplexed until we discovered they were enforcing a minimum square footage zoning ordinance throughout the city - and there was no grandfathering! Long-term residents were being forced out of their homes for no other reason than the houses were 'too small'! In light of current developments, this policy was completely insane. People need to have the option of living in small houses, when they cannot afford big ones. If cities only allow big houses to be built, as people become poorer, fewer and fewer people will be able to live in their own private houses.
#4 Be physically active. It keeps you healthier and stronger. It sharpens your mind and increases your stamina for work.
#5 Learn new skills. It keeps your mind sharp.
#6 Maintain a social network. If you lack social skills, develop them.
#7 Don't opt for elective medical procedures. They are budget busters, and often do more harm than good. Learn self-care, and low cost management of conditions that require attention.
#1 Keep your income sources diversified. No matter how good it seems to be, no basket should ever hold all your eggs. Consider the people who put their entire life savings with Madoff. This applies to jobs as well. Don't count on your career choice necessarily being there for you. If your full-time job leaves you no time for developing other income sources, at least have a back up plan.
#2 Live within your means. Aim to live on less than 75% of your income. This may seem daunting, but it is always do-able. The less you save, the more at risk you are.
#3 Live in a small, paid-for house, in an OK neighbourhood. If the neighbourhood deteriorates, move. If the neighborhood gentrifies, move (and reinvest the profit) - though this isn't too likely to happen for a while. If you can't afford to move, you have violated rules 1 & 2.
Some years ago, we were living in Duluth, Minnesota when the city went on a demolition spree. They started tearing down perfectly good houses. We were very perplexed until we discovered they were enforcing a minimum square footage zoning ordinance throughout the city - and there was no grandfathering! Long-term residents were being forced out of their homes for no other reason than the houses were 'too small'! In light of current developments, this policy was completely insane. People need to have the option of living in small houses, when they cannot afford big ones. If cities only allow big houses to be built, as people become poorer, fewer and fewer people will be able to live in their own private houses.
#4 Be physically active. It keeps you healthier and stronger. It sharpens your mind and increases your stamina for work.
#5 Learn new skills. It keeps your mind sharp.
#6 Maintain a social network. If you lack social skills, develop them.
#7 Don't opt for elective medical procedures. They are budget busters, and often do more harm than good. Learn self-care, and low cost management of conditions that require attention.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Hard Work Ahead
I have always been impressed at how easy my life has been compared to my ancestors. I am especially humbled to have seen a small town in Washington State carved out of the forest by my great-grandfather (among others) over 100 years ago.
Up until now, I couldn't imagine myself hewing down huge trees day after day, sawing them into logs, and so forth. But I am changing. The economic system that gave me and so many others the 'good life' for so long is failing. I don't think it will go all to pieces in one go, but there will never again be as much affluence and leisure as there was in North America from 1950-2000.
I am faced with the prospect of being a global economic citizen competing for a global income ($10,000 per year or so) with billions of other hard-working souls. We won't be working just a few hours per day for this either, but 10 or more hours every day of the week. It's a daunting prospect. At present, I don't really have the energy for it, but I am working on getting myself fit enough and accustomed enough to constant work that I can manage it.
I see many others around me very much not ready for this - whether from being out-of-shape, having various 'medical' conditions, or being just plain lazy. Many of them are on the dole, or involved in some sort of income-producing racket that makes minimal demands on their efforts. There is probably no helping most of them as times get harder and harder.
For the rest who are willing to change, the prognosis is not so bad. For those who are willing to make the effort, there will always be the rewards of hard work. In the future, being housed and fed will feel like enough.
Up until now, I couldn't imagine myself hewing down huge trees day after day, sawing them into logs, and so forth. But I am changing. The economic system that gave me and so many others the 'good life' for so long is failing. I don't think it will go all to pieces in one go, but there will never again be as much affluence and leisure as there was in North America from 1950-2000.
I am faced with the prospect of being a global economic citizen competing for a global income ($10,000 per year or so) with billions of other hard-working souls. We won't be working just a few hours per day for this either, but 10 or more hours every day of the week. It's a daunting prospect. At present, I don't really have the energy for it, but I am working on getting myself fit enough and accustomed enough to constant work that I can manage it.
I see many others around me very much not ready for this - whether from being out-of-shape, having various 'medical' conditions, or being just plain lazy. Many of them are on the dole, or involved in some sort of income-producing racket that makes minimal demands on their efforts. There is probably no helping most of them as times get harder and harder.
For the rest who are willing to change, the prognosis is not so bad. For those who are willing to make the effort, there will always be the rewards of hard work. In the future, being housed and fed will feel like enough.
Friday, January 2, 2009
Getting from the R-Word to the D-Word
As the economic news gets worse and worse in the coming months, one can expect to see quite a bit of tip-toeing around the deterioration. In a world that rewards the positive thinker, it's just not hip to be gloomy. On the other hand, in order to be truly optimistic (making the best of any situation) and not just indulging in wishful-thinking, it is important to have a good grasp of reality. We maintain that it many respects this is not a very happy new year, and a view that acknowledges that is more reality-based.
So, here's our short list of New Year's Resolutions of general, good advice:
1. Do not take advantage of teaser-rate financing to buy a new car. If you absolutely must have a car, and need another one, for heaven's sake get a used one! There are plenty out there. Pay cash.
2. Be very cautious about buying housing. Buy the smallest house you can manage in. This is the opposite of real estate agents' advice. What makes sense in a rising market does not in a falling one. This market is still falling and will fall for a while yet. Pay cash. If you can't pay cash, and you think owning on a mortgage is cheaper than renting, rent a smaller place.
3. There is absolutely only one reason to borrow money: to pay back an existing loan, and lock in a lower rate. This will be a good year for mortgage refinancing.
4. Think about how you will get by if you lose your main source of income. Then think about how you will get by if you lose your second source of income too. Do not despair, just have a plan. It's not a happy thing, we know. It's a good year to plan and budget. Learn to prove wrong the adage: "budgets don't work."
5. Let 2009 be the year you learn to enjoy being frugal. And remember the best things in life are free!
So, here's our short list of New Year's Resolutions of general, good advice:
1. Do not take advantage of teaser-rate financing to buy a new car. If you absolutely must have a car, and need another one, for heaven's sake get a used one! There are plenty out there. Pay cash.
2. Be very cautious about buying housing. Buy the smallest house you can manage in. This is the opposite of real estate agents' advice. What makes sense in a rising market does not in a falling one. This market is still falling and will fall for a while yet. Pay cash. If you can't pay cash, and you think owning on a mortgage is cheaper than renting, rent a smaller place.
3. There is absolutely only one reason to borrow money: to pay back an existing loan, and lock in a lower rate. This will be a good year for mortgage refinancing.
4. Think about how you will get by if you lose your main source of income. Then think about how you will get by if you lose your second source of income too. Do not despair, just have a plan. It's not a happy thing, we know. It's a good year to plan and budget. Learn to prove wrong the adage: "budgets don't work."
5. Let 2009 be the year you learn to enjoy being frugal. And remember the best things in life are free!
Monday, December 15, 2008
Redistribution Worsens a Depression
A common theme of government attempts to 'turn this troubled economy around' is merely redistribution: taking money from taxpayers, and giving it to selected recipients; taking toxic assets, and replacing them with Treasury bills; taking private companies, and nationalising them (to some degree or other). In one way or the other, this process represents capital and income forcibly moved from one possessor to another.
For example: Ben Bernanke, Federal Reserve Chairman, recently announced that he is going to expand the Fed's balance sheet as much as necessary (scroll down to the speech's fifth paragraph from the bottom). He also said that the balance sheet would have to shrink in the future... but not to worry about such things now (same link, third paragraph from bottom).
This amounts to simply moving a problem hither and thither, rather than actually solving it. By definition, this is Lemon Socialism: taxpayer money reallocated by the government to support failed or failing enterprises. In essence, lemon socialism takes the bad decisions of a few, and forces the majority to pay for, and suffer the consequences of, those decisions.
As these enterprises have proven unsustainable, such 'zombie-ification' represents considerable misallocation of capital. This, in turn, means that incomes will be generally forced lower by the disruptive economic effects of the 'zombie' enterprises. Falling incomes are part and parcel of all depressions, and so such misguided government bailouts will only serve to worsen the 2007 Depression. Lemon socialism shenanigans are doomed to failure; however, Mr. Bernanke's Soviet-style speech makes clear he will try it anyway.
President-elect Barack Obama comes from a different bent. His economic recovery plan is redistributive from a populist perspective, meaning he will look to prop up the lifestyles of the broadest majority of people at the cost of a few. The simplest demonstration of this is by lowering taxes on 'the poor,' and simultaneously raising taxes on 'the rich;' one can throw in another tax rebate cheque or two for good measure. In a way, one can think of populist redistribution as the opposite of lemon socialism.
A more specific example, though, is the Hubbard-Mayer plan: if passed by Congress next year, this plan will make available to any house-buyer a 30-year mortgage of up to 95% of the house's value, all for a low, low 4.5% fixed interest rate. Estimates put the up front cost of this program at conservative $3 trillion.
Though the mortgage plan is certain to be broadly popular, it is a very, very bad idea: mortgage interest represents someone's income. It's not a fanciful thing, because the interest a bank charges does eventually become someone's means of living. By lowering the 30-year fixed rate mortgage from 6.1% (this year) to 4.5%, money is being pulled out of the economy, lowering income, and since falling income is the essence of a depression, this will exacerbate the 2007 Depression. The math: take 4.5% from 6.1%, and one gets a difference of 1.6%. Take 1.6% of $3 trillion, and one sees that this program alone will take away $48 billion of real income per year. Poof.
For example: Ben Bernanke, Federal Reserve Chairman, recently announced that he is going to expand the Fed's balance sheet as much as necessary (scroll down to the speech's fifth paragraph from the bottom). He also said that the balance sheet would have to shrink in the future... but not to worry about such things now (same link, third paragraph from bottom).
This amounts to simply moving a problem hither and thither, rather than actually solving it. By definition, this is Lemon Socialism: taxpayer money reallocated by the government to support failed or failing enterprises. In essence, lemon socialism takes the bad decisions of a few, and forces the majority to pay for, and suffer the consequences of, those decisions.
As these enterprises have proven unsustainable, such 'zombie-ification' represents considerable misallocation of capital. This, in turn, means that incomes will be generally forced lower by the disruptive economic effects of the 'zombie' enterprises. Falling incomes are part and parcel of all depressions, and so such misguided government bailouts will only serve to worsen the 2007 Depression. Lemon socialism shenanigans are doomed to failure; however, Mr. Bernanke's Soviet-style speech makes clear he will try it anyway.
President-elect Barack Obama comes from a different bent. His economic recovery plan is redistributive from a populist perspective, meaning he will look to prop up the lifestyles of the broadest majority of people at the cost of a few. The simplest demonstration of this is by lowering taxes on 'the poor,' and simultaneously raising taxes on 'the rich;' one can throw in another tax rebate cheque or two for good measure. In a way, one can think of populist redistribution as the opposite of lemon socialism.
A more specific example, though, is the Hubbard-Mayer plan: if passed by Congress next year, this plan will make available to any house-buyer a 30-year mortgage of up to 95% of the house's value, all for a low, low 4.5% fixed interest rate. Estimates put the up front cost of this program at conservative $3 trillion.
Though the mortgage plan is certain to be broadly popular, it is a very, very bad idea: mortgage interest represents someone's income. It's not a fanciful thing, because the interest a bank charges does eventually become someone's means of living. By lowering the 30-year fixed rate mortgage from 6.1% (this year) to 4.5%, money is being pulled out of the economy, lowering income, and since falling income is the essence of a depression, this will exacerbate the 2007 Depression. The math: take 4.5% from 6.1%, and one gets a difference of 1.6%. Take 1.6% of $3 trillion, and one sees that this program alone will take away $48 billion of real income per year. Poof.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Enabling Destructive Economic Behaviour
Although we ourselves are not of the socialist persuasion, we agree with socialists that there are cases where government can actually provide useful services, and at a reasonable cost. So reasonable in fact, that the case for privatisation is not particularly compelling.
Unfortunately, at the national level, the USA seems incapable of delivering that sort of socialism (with the possible exception of the Post Office). Instead it engages in malignant lemon-socialism, where destructive enterprises are rewarded with life-prolonging capital infusions, or outright government ownership.
Take, for example, a number of large banks, Fannie, Freddie, and Wall Street firms. These outfits swindled the world's investors. All issues of criminal fraud aside, their activities were and continue to be enormously destructive economically.
Investors lost confidence in them. Any sane governing authority would simply shut them down. In any sort of free market economy, they would be done already. There are thousands of better run competitors out there to take up the slack. But yet, the Federal Government saw fit to step in and keep them going. Not because no one else was providing some useful service they are. In fact, they aren't producing any useful service at all. Quite the contrary.
Another example is the bailout of the 'Big Three' automobile manufacturers. As stated in a previous post, there are many good, sound business reasons for these companies to go out of business. It's not like there aren't lots of other companies which can make cars. If the USA has a glut of car making capacity, then a fair chunk of it needs to go away.
The core economic problem of the failed Soviet Union was that its central planners took valuable natural resources and turned them into useless waste. Ignoring issues of quality and desirability, they measured output strictly in tonnage. This was socialism at its worst.
Unfortunately, the USA is following in the footsteps of the Soviet Union. Its central planners are diverting ever larger portions of the nation's income into operations that produce little or no benefit. The litany is extensive, but includes bloated 'Defense' and 'Homeland Security', subsidies for airlines, automakers, banks, construction, insurance, mortgage companies, prisons, and real estate brokers.
Spending by Governments at all levels in the USA is about 40% of total national income. Also, about 50% of the population is dependent primarily on government for its income. This is a country fairly deep into some kind of socialism. Is it getting a good value for its commitment? Does the USA have enviable public education? a low rate of incarceration? free health care for all? a first-rate passenger rail system? The answer to these questions is a resounding "No!"
On top of that, Government in the USA is quite involved with the private sector. Does the USA have a healthy industrial base? a healthy balance of payments with the rest of the world? energy security? well-paid, content workers? No, again.
We are profiling a country at the verge of leaving the club of wealthy, advanced nations, if not heading for outright collapse. The response of the political leadership to the 2007 Depression is very telling: bailouts, handouts, and more pork. This will do nothing to make the nation more productive and increase its citizens' income. On the contrary, it will make the nation less productive and exacerbate the decline in income.
Unfortunately, at the national level, the USA seems incapable of delivering that sort of socialism (with the possible exception of the Post Office). Instead it engages in malignant lemon-socialism, where destructive enterprises are rewarded with life-prolonging capital infusions, or outright government ownership.
Take, for example, a number of large banks, Fannie, Freddie, and Wall Street firms. These outfits swindled the world's investors. All issues of criminal fraud aside, their activities were and continue to be enormously destructive economically.
Investors lost confidence in them. Any sane governing authority would simply shut them down. In any sort of free market economy, they would be done already. There are thousands of better run competitors out there to take up the slack. But yet, the Federal Government saw fit to step in and keep them going. Not because no one else was providing some useful service they are. In fact, they aren't producing any useful service at all. Quite the contrary.
Another example is the bailout of the 'Big Three' automobile manufacturers. As stated in a previous post, there are many good, sound business reasons for these companies to go out of business. It's not like there aren't lots of other companies which can make cars. If the USA has a glut of car making capacity, then a fair chunk of it needs to go away.
The core economic problem of the failed Soviet Union was that its central planners took valuable natural resources and turned them into useless waste. Ignoring issues of quality and desirability, they measured output strictly in tonnage. This was socialism at its worst.
Unfortunately, the USA is following in the footsteps of the Soviet Union. Its central planners are diverting ever larger portions of the nation's income into operations that produce little or no benefit. The litany is extensive, but includes bloated 'Defense' and 'Homeland Security', subsidies for airlines, automakers, banks, construction, insurance, mortgage companies, prisons, and real estate brokers.
Spending by Governments at all levels in the USA is about 40% of total national income. Also, about 50% of the population is dependent primarily on government for its income. This is a country fairly deep into some kind of socialism. Is it getting a good value for its commitment? Does the USA have enviable public education? a low rate of incarceration? free health care for all? a first-rate passenger rail system? The answer to these questions is a resounding "No!"
On top of that, Government in the USA is quite involved with the private sector. Does the USA have a healthy industrial base? a healthy balance of payments with the rest of the world? energy security? well-paid, content workers? No, again.
We are profiling a country at the verge of leaving the club of wealthy, advanced nations, if not heading for outright collapse. The response of the political leadership to the 2007 Depression is very telling: bailouts, handouts, and more pork. This will do nothing to make the nation more productive and increase its citizens' income. On the contrary, it will make the nation less productive and exacerbate the decline in income.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Is The Media Crying Wolf?
Since the present epoch is 'The Information Era,' and the economy is the big story of the moment, there is now abundant commentary on the "Deepening Recession." The question of whether the world may be in for a depression has now hit the mainstream.
Given the mainstream media's poor track record of appropriate attention to what is truly relevant, legitimate questions arise: "Is this recession thing just media drum-beating - a 'media event'?" Is the economy even that bad? Or are things actually much worse? Could it just be that it was a bad downturn, but now that it is getting so much press, one can figure the worst is actually over?
Our opinion is that things are actually much worse, and that the bad news will be 'spoon fed,' and not so much as a result of some sinister conspiracy as from the cycle of denial, confusion and slow recognition of conditions as they are.
The essence of the 2007 Depression, like depressions before it, is falling income - whether through pay cuts, unemployment, or lower returns on investments. Falling income sets off a vicious cycle of economic contraction as households spend and save less, tax receipts fall, and organisations invest less - further reducing what will become others' income.
An economist whom we admire, a Mr. Williams, presents a strong case that the USA has been in recession since 2000, and that government statistics to the contrary are unreliable. You may read more about this at his website. If the USA has indeed been contracting economically for the past seven years, then the apparent prosperity was most definitely a bubble. Its crashing down now is only the reality that a shrinking economy cannot support exaggerated consumption.
There is a great deal of productive capacity in the human race and its artifacts. Income is flowing from this capacity, but one must learn to live within and not beyond one's means. When this story is the top of the news, then you will know the worst is over.
Friday, November 28, 2008
Preventing Deflation Won't Stop the Depression
The world's monetary authorities are, at present, desperately trying to stop "deflation." Deflation is a complex and controversial topic, but suffice it to say deflation is the perception of falling prices. The theory behind central bank actions is that when prices are perceived to be falling, one becomes reluctant to invest or even spend on consumables, when just waiting will get one a better deal.
Obviously, stock and commodity prices have fallen dramatically in the last few months. Most real estate has been falling for a couple years now. Consumer prices are beginning to fall as well. Can this process be stopped? Actually, yes. Central banks can ensure that the money supply rises fast enough to devalue the money in one's pocket, making assets, goods and services again an attractive use of that money.
Can arresting deflation stop the 2008 Depression? No, it cannot. Depressions are a self-reinforcing process of declining income. Wages have been falling in purchasing power for decades. Households responded at first by sending more of the population into the workforce to support the household. Families with a single 'breadwinner' are now quite rare. Lately, workers have taken to eliminating savings, borrowing against the value of their homes, as well as taking on increasing amounts of consumer credit in an attempt to fund their spending. This is, of course, not sustainable. In fact, defaulting consumer debt will be a serious drag on the world economy for quite some time. A further drag is rising unemployment, and over all personal income in decline.
At this point, the economy will not recover until several things happen: the losses from bad investments are recognised; failing undertakings have been liquidated; savings rates return to healthy levels; employment and the purchasing power of wages begins to rise. Current government policies are not promoting any of these conditions. If anything, the policies are working against the first two conditions.
It is possible that we are witnessing an effort to 're-inflate the bubble.' Perhaps if the public sees that their houses and investments have stopped falling in value, they will pull out their metaphorical charge cards and dig themselves even deeper into debt. Leaving that central banker fantasy aside, we believe that conventional economic theory is incorrect. The current decline in prices is a symptom of economic contraction, a destruction of purchasing power. Alleviating the symptom will not cure the disease. Denominating prices in a debased currency will do nothing to help the current situation, and even risks igniting an economy-destroying hyperinflation.
Obviously, stock and commodity prices have fallen dramatically in the last few months. Most real estate has been falling for a couple years now. Consumer prices are beginning to fall as well. Can this process be stopped? Actually, yes. Central banks can ensure that the money supply rises fast enough to devalue the money in one's pocket, making assets, goods and services again an attractive use of that money.
Can arresting deflation stop the 2008 Depression? No, it cannot. Depressions are a self-reinforcing process of declining income. Wages have been falling in purchasing power for decades. Households responded at first by sending more of the population into the workforce to support the household. Families with a single 'breadwinner' are now quite rare. Lately, workers have taken to eliminating savings, borrowing against the value of their homes, as well as taking on increasing amounts of consumer credit in an attempt to fund their spending. This is, of course, not sustainable. In fact, defaulting consumer debt will be a serious drag on the world economy for quite some time. A further drag is rising unemployment, and over all personal income in decline.
At this point, the economy will not recover until several things happen: the losses from bad investments are recognised; failing undertakings have been liquidated; savings rates return to healthy levels; employment and the purchasing power of wages begins to rise. Current government policies are not promoting any of these conditions. If anything, the policies are working against the first two conditions.
It is possible that we are witnessing an effort to 're-inflate the bubble.' Perhaps if the public sees that their houses and investments have stopped falling in value, they will pull out their metaphorical charge cards and dig themselves even deeper into debt. Leaving that central banker fantasy aside, we believe that conventional economic theory is incorrect. The current decline in prices is a symptom of economic contraction, a destruction of purchasing power. Alleviating the symptom will not cure the disease. Denominating prices in a debased currency will do nothing to help the current situation, and even risks igniting an economy-destroying hyperinflation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
