Tuesday, June 12, 2012

An Economic Lesson For The Ages


The following post is one of the best ones that we have seen  (other than ours, of course) which really tells the right story about the economy (here and abroad) and what we need to do.


We believe in the band-aid approach to economic troubles.  Better a short quick rough spot than a long, painful episode especially when we will end up in the same place.


The second to last paragraph should be reprinted and sent to every Congressman, Senator, the Fed and the President.  It should be the mantra of this and every following administration.


Let us know what you think.


Conservative Tom

Damn The Torpedoes
By:  Peter Schiff
Friday, June 8, 2012
Last week in an interview on CBS Network News, Economist Mark Zandi, the chief economist for Moody’s, unwittingly revealed a central error of the global economic establishment. Zandi has made a career out of finding the middle ground between republican and democrat economic talking points. As a result of this skill, he has been rewarded with large quantities of airtime from media outlets that want to appear non-partisan, despite the fact that his supposedly neutral analysis often leaves listeners frustrated.

When asked about the recent deterioration in the global economy, Zandi said that “the worst possible scenario” at present would occur if Greece were to leave the Eurozone. He claimed that the economic gyrations and liquidations of bad debt that would result from such an exit would be sufficient to create a vicious cycle that could drag the global economy back into recession. As a result, he urged policy makers to take whatever steps necessary to maintain the current integrity of the 17 nation Eurozone.

Given what most economists now know, few would actively argue that Greece’s entrance into the Eurozone back in 2001 was a good idea. In fact most concede it was a terrible idea based on bad forecasting and outright fraud. There is little disagreement over the fact that Greece grossly misrepresented its financial position in order to gain initial entry into the monetary union. It is also widely agreed upon that in the ensuing decade Greece exploited its monetary advantages to borrow irresponsibly.

Much has been written about how the fundamental misfit between Greece’s economy and currency gave birth to a deeply flawed system that was destined to run off the rails. Most also agree that the countries like Greece and Germany are too economically and culturally disparate to exist under the same monetary umbrella. But despite all this, Zandi wants to maintain the status quo. In his opinion, it is so imperative to prevent the deflationary consequences of an economic restructuring that it is preferable to prop up a failed system, perhaps indefinitely, rather than allow a newer, healthier system to replace it. In the process, the moral hazard created not only assures that Greece will become an even greater burden on Europe, but so too will other nations whose leaders will be emboldened in their profligacy by the anticipation of similar help.

From Zandi’s perspective (and he is certainly in the majority on this point) the goal of economic policy is to keep GDP growing. It follows then that he will oppose large-scale debt liquidations which drag down GDP in the short term. But sometimes debt needs to be liquidated. Bad ideas need to be abandoned. Once economies stop throwing good money after bad, capital is freed up to flow into more economically viable purposes. But economists and politicians never look at the long term. Their job seems to be to manage the economy for the next election.

The same “damn the torpedoes” mentality dominates economic thinking with respect to the U.S. economy as well. Years of artificially low interest rates, and government subsidies that direct capital towards certain sectors and away from others, has created an economy with too little savings and production, and too much borrowing and consumption. The ultra-low interest rates currently supplied by the Fed serve to perpetuate this unsustainable artificial economy. Higher rates would work quickly to redirect capital to the more productive sectors. But high rates could bring deflation and liquidation, which few economists are prepared to risk.

We have too many shopping malls selling stuff, but not enough factories making stuff. We have too many kids in college studying liberal arts, and not enough in the workforce acquiring skills that will actually increase their productivity. Banks are loaning too much money to individuals to buy houses, and not enough money to entrepreneurs to buy equipment. We have too many tax-takers riding in the wagon, and not enough taxpayers pulling it. The list is long, but the solutions are short.

We need to let interest rates rise to market levels, and allow the economy to restructure without government interference. We need to stop beating a dead horse and hitch our wagon to an animal that can really pull. The process will be painful for many, but like ripping off a band-aid, the pain will be over relatively quickly. However, since a painful restructuring means recession, politicians resist the cure with every fiber of their beings. So instead of a genuine recovery, one that will provide productive jobs and rising living standards, we get a phony recovery that produces neither.

Preserving a broken system merely to avoid the pain necessary to fix it only makes the situation worse.  Propping up sectors that should be contracting prevents resources from flowing to other sectors that should be expanding. Keeping workers employed in nonproductive jobs prevents them from gaining productive employment elsewhere. Encouraging activity or behavior the market would otherwise punish discourages alternatives that it would otherwise reward.

Unfortunately, leaders on both sides of the Atlantic put politics above economics, and economists like Mark Zandi provide the cover they need to get away with it.



This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. Please feel free to repost with proper attribution and all links included.

4 comments:

  1. He says, "We need to let interest rates rise to market levels, and allow the economy to restructure without government interference."

    This is where Bernanke and Krugman differ. Bernanke says he will keep the fed funds rate at near zero until the economy recovers. Krugman says the economy isn't going to recover until interest rates rise.

    This debate has been dubbed "the battle of the beards"….

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/battle-of-the-beards-paul-krugman-vs-ben-bernanke/2012/05/06/gIQAbwsY6T_story.html

    I find it interesting that your guy agrees with Krugman that interest rates should rise, but agrees with Bernanke that it would be bad for the economy short-term. What do you think?

    --David

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think that government interference always make things worse as we are not smarter than nature. These cycles are natural and cannot be managed. Rates will have to rise, which will cause short term pain, but that should get us back on track.

    ReplyDelete
  3. There will not be any short-term pain. Rising interest rates will bring some of the capital off the sidelines and into the economy, which will help short-term and long-term. Krugman is correct that Japan-style deflation is big threat so long as the economy is this depressed. They just came out today with the new numbers on the producer price index, which is moving in the deflationary direction.

    "Preserving a broken system merely to avoid the pain necessary to fix it only makes the situation worse."

    Okay, here is a novel idea: Let's have the Goldman Sachs bankers who caused the pain of Americans who lost their homes, their jobs, and their life savings to the banks over the last 5 years suffer some of the pain necessary to fix the problem they created by lending money to unqualified buyers in order to create "toxic" mortgage-backed securities, which they then sold to their own customers without disclosure at the same time they were short selling them for profit. Or, the trillions in credit default swaps that the Federal Reserve continues to bail out. You want the victims of these banking frauds to suffer all the pain to get our country out of this mess the banks created. If you are serious about fixing the broken system, you should start with fixing the banking system, not seeing how much more economic suffering can be extracted from ordinary Americans. Not only is it immoral, we have seen in Europe and the U.S. that it doesn't fix anything. It just makes everything worse by further depressing consumer demand necessary for economic expansion.

    --David

    ReplyDelete
  4. "We have too many shopping malls selling stuff, but not enough factories making stuff. We have too many kids in college studying liberal arts, and not enough in the workforce acquiring skills that will actually increase their productivity. Banks are loaning too much money to individuals to buy houses, and not enough money to entrepreneurs to buy equipment. We have too many tax-takers riding in the wagon, and not enough taxpayers pulling it. The list is long, but the solutions are short."

    I agree. So can any president, conservative or liberal, be blamed for not being able to pull the economy out of its malaise?

    And what brought on the malaise? Unregulated financial markets.

    Let the kids study Thomas Mann and DaVinci if they want. They form the warp and woof of our cultural memory. But put the bankers in a regulatory straightjacket. Then we might right the ship of state.
    Philip Kraske

    ReplyDelete

Thanks for commenting. Your comments are needed for helping to improve the discussion.