Tuesday, June 7, 2011

Jeopardy, US Debt, and funny cigarettes


Jeopardy is the hazard or risk of or exposure to loss, harm, death, or injury.

Jeopardy is always around us – and thankfully we have loved ones who seem to never cease to remind us of it:

·         If you keep playing basketball someday your knees are going to give out
·         If you keep drinking wine like that your liver is going to explode
·         If you keep eating corndogs you are going to turn into one
·         If you keep spending more than you earn you are going to get into trouble
·         If you keep smoking those funny cigarettes, then you may get to visit the hokey pokey


As the definition and the above brilliant examples suggest, some decisions or actions you take can have negative consequences. When we are young or otherwise foolish, we tend to engage in these actions with relish and try not to think about the consequences.

It is useful to point out that many actions and decisions do not involve this kind of jeopardy. We invest money at the peril of losing it. We take one job instead of another. We take calculated risks all the time knowing that there is some chance that we might be negatively impacted. But this post on jeopardy is not about those kinds of risks – jeopardy is about an almost sure negative thing. It is about a current pleasure or habit that interferes with better judgment. Jeopardy means that the negative consequence has not yet arrived – but it is clearly on the horizon.

Think about the recent housing and stock market bubbles that proceeded the last recession. Most people knew that the bubble was going to burst but they kept buying anyway – they were having too much fun making money. That fun got into the way of logic. We told ourselves that the bubble would come later…always later.

This is exactly what we have been doing with respect to government deficits and debts since the time the baby boomers were old enough to smoke those funny cigarettes. We all know the data – except for a few fleeting government surpluses during the Clinton presidency the US government has been racking up deficits since the boomers first starting doing the twist in the basement to the sounds of Chubby Checker.

One doesn’t have to be an economic historian to know that economists and others have repeatedly warned over all these decades that such behavior had to stop. But government spending is like a drug. You can never get enough of it. There will always be less-fortunate people to help or bad guys to police. There is no end to the list of groups that “need” help. Such helping leads to votes and votes mean power. It is a simple equation. The people who receive the benefits feel them deeply but when you divide the bill among enough people they hardly notice it. It is an easy game for politicians to play. Being against helping makes you seem hard and cruel.

So what puts an end to this process? I don’t really know. There seems to be no end to the jeopardy. I haven’t said much about the private side of the debt but we all saw the negative consequences of too much spending and too much borrowing by the private sector. The last recession was alarming. Because the government was already in hock it had to go even deeper into debt. Great economic minds with a long list of prestigious prizes dangling around their educated necks spoke with united voices that we must have EVEN MORE GOVERNMENT DEBT to solve the alarming economic problem.  

They convinced us to add trillions of dollars in debt, equating this to a magical pill or drug that would produce marvelous restorative effects. And like drugs and unlike real remedies the magic potions kept us high for a little while until the effects of the drugs wore off.  To summarize so far:
·         Decades of government debt increases put us in a precarious position
·         At least a decade of private sector debt increases led to a financial collapse
·         Almost four years of unprecedented increases in government debt now threaten to lead to a second recession.

So in the Saturday edition of the Financial Times:
·         The headline on the front page says “Jobs data stoke US recovery fears”
·         On Page 6 the top editorial “Dealing with the evils of stagflation” concludes with these words, “The real peril now is double-dip recession rather than inflation. This is no time for tightening.”
·         On Page 7 the lead comment titled “Apologies – we need a toxic rethink on the economy” ends with this advice “Let us hope that no more stimulus is needed. But that option cannot be taboo.”

Sorry to say this but “BULL CRAP!” is about all I can say. Honey quit hitting your head against the stone wall. But Mom, it feels really good. Honey it will put a dent in your head. Mom, can I do it one more time?
They never give up.

So what are we supposed to do? Let’s review. Too much debt, whether by the private or public sectors, got us into a mess. Yet there is a loud and well-educated howl to do even more of it. If we do even more, then the jeopardy stakes rise even more. Doing even more debt puts us in an even more precarious position down the road. As the next round of stimulus starts to wane and the economy slows threatening a triple-dip – will these same people ask for even more debt?

If we do the obvious and prudent thing we will find ways NOW to stop the growth of debt – and then reverse it. But some argue that the country is like a drug addict in the hospital with a heart problem – if we remove the drug too quickly it might kill the patient. I can understand that.  I can go along with that.

But let’s be clear. That doesn’t mean that we give the patient more drugs. It does not mean that we stand frozen in the face of fear. What it does mean is:
·         We quit playing games and recognize that the source of our country’s most pressing problem is too much debt. Too much debt is public enemy #1.
·         We focus our policy work on this and only this policy issue and not play political games with hot button issues until we are done with public enemy number 1.
·         Recognize that past jeopardy has put us between the proverbial rock and hard place – there is no way to exit this situation without severe repercussions.
·         Those negative impacts are large and will be with us for a long enough time that everyone will have to share them.
·         And that it is very possible that while we legislate the policies TODAY, the implementation and the beneficial impacts will come GRADUALLY.
·         For gradual policies to be effective it is critical that they not be easily reversible. Attention must be paid to making sure that these policies cannot be changed in coming years.

Finally we have to recognize that government or private credit is a drug and we have not been very good at managing its use. A realist recognizes that government isn’t going to go away and the Federal government is probably never going to be much smaller than the 20% of the economy it achieved over the last half century. But keeping it near 20% is not going to be easy as the interest burden of the debt doubles and triples, as the population ages, and terrorism grows.

We cannot continue to beat our collective head against the wall. It is time for some common sense. A gyros is tasty but if we aren’t careful we may soon be more like Greece than we really want to be.




23 comments:

  1. It is hard for politicians to give up the "bring home the bacon" part of their challenge since that is what gets them elected and underwrites their campaign against any challenger. That will not change. So the debt has to be taken out of the political sector or maybe made a fourth leg of the government to check and balance the other three.

    Face it: In 10 years there will be almost 70 million Boomers who will be retired with 58 million supporting them via taxes (well maybe less is since on 51% pay income tax)but then again maybe more if the 11 million illegal aliens stay here. The Boomers will demand medical care since a larger proportion of them will be in poorer health and will live longer...mostly outlive their retirement. Even the TP'rs will be whining about not enough care.

    We need a national debt plan that reaches far into the future and cannot easily be reversed. Part of this plan is better financial/economic education...but not how to invest your funds in the market...rather how the financial and economic systems work in a free market system in the shadow of global trade and emerging countries.

    We do not need political solutions.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment comes from Bruce who wanted me to post for him.


    It's curious to observe that American business and the NYSE have recently rebounded, earnings reports are finally positive and profit is now back in the vocabulary. To some, this is vindication that the bailout policies are working. To others, it is simply the predictable pass-through of federal bail-out dollars into the American economy. When the music of stimulus spending stops, everyone run for a chair. You can rest assured that there are not enough chairs for every citizen, company or state. The "recovery" is plainly the recycling of our own dollars, laundered through the usual commercial markets, without any fundamental improvement in the tools that increase productivity (remember the desktop of the 1990s and the laptop in the early 2000s?). What has the US developed recently that will increase individual, household, corporate and federal productivity, as we saw earlier with the computer and IT industries? Without innovation, profits propped up by taxpayers are hollow and short-lived.

    Bruce

    ReplyDelete
  3. Bruce,

    You are right about productivity and my recent posts suggest that manufacturing productivity gains of the last 10 years or so have been an unexpected plus. As government debt soaks up what would have been available to corporations in the next decade, one can only wonder about the difficulty and cost of credit for companies wanting to invest in higher productivity.

    ReplyDelete
  4. James,

    I don't think there is any way to take the debt out of the political process. Governments legislate things -- that is what they get elected for. It is sad to say but it often takes bad times for people to clearly see the dangers of populism and debt. Countries do sometimes reform and improve. Brazil used to have 1,000% and higher inflation. They stopped doing that when people saw there are better ways to run a country. Sadly once the train gets off the track it isn't easy to get it back on. Things will have to get much worse before the average bloke understands the worst than zero-sum game results from too much government debt.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Alex, lets make this a true daily double."

    "OK, Mr. President. Are you sure you want to wager all 14 trillion?"

    "Yes, Alex. It's the only way to get out of this hole."

    Does that about sum things up?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Look on the bright side, Diamond's nomination was withdrawn.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I wuz recently sitting on the beach unner me umbrella and chatting with a delightful Brit who ‘splained an inherent design flaw in our Constitution that (our founding fathers could not anticipate) might possibly lead to our gradual demise as the world’s leading nation . . . . to be superseded by China.

    This week’s Bloomberg\Bizweek has a good article, “The U.S. Economy’s ‘You First’ Problem,” which easily characterizes our economic malaise as a game of chicken between consumers and businesses. Consumers are not buying because of uncertainty due to housing prices and to unemployment. Businesses are not hiring – even though they’re sitting on their cash hoards because consumers are not buying (they have hoards of cash because they’ve squeeze the last kilo out of labor, reducing such, increasing productivity to the last increment, and ergo beefing up profits resulting in the increasing P/E stock values (is the bubble about to burst?).

    Congress is forever stalemated betwixt debt reduction\debt ceiling lockdown, and betting that doing the same thing over and over again (more spending) – will stimmilate consumers to buy and businesses to hire – leading to a better and much different outcome (than the present economic flat line) – which is the classical definition of insanity.

    Fareed Zakaria (yes, he’s a U.S. citizen, I think . . . .), in Time, June 13th, says although the U.S. has been the world’s leading innovator for years, that now the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation and the Basten Consulting Group report it has fallen down. From 1999 to 2009, based on several factors – govomit funding for basic research, education, and corporate-tax policies, the U.S. came in last of 40 countries for improving innovation capacity. His solution is to rebuild ‘merican education, reform our training systems, revive high-end manufacturing, focus on new growth industries and rebuild our infrastructure – that that would be really innovative. Certainly, should all this occur our economy likely would get off its butt, increase employment and GDP – and attendant tax revenue (without increasing marginal rates, BTW). Maybe even generate a surplus to pay down some debt, eh, and get us out of jeopardy?

    But, for this to happen, LSD’s fifth point made at the end of his Jeopardy-Spin-The-Bottle game – that legislation must occur TODAY – must in fact occur. However, the Constitutional flaw my attractive beach buddy pointed out as we sipped Kool-Aid under the bright sun unfortunately is in the way and might, unintentionally (certainly to the Constitution’s framers), pave the way for China to supersede the U.S. as the world’s numeral uno big daddy. She said that because our Congressional and Presidential elections occur every two, four, and six years that we forever will be stalemated, focused on the short-term reelection cycle, and unable to take the long-term view needed to make\legislate major social, institutional, industrial, and economic changes to effectively compete globally.

    Although she did not say this – I received an email years ago to this effect – but maybe we need a benign dictator instead of hundreds of self-interested weenie egomaniacs, some who cannot resist the impulse to post their Wieners on the Internet.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Crash,

    You get an A for comprehension and creativity.

    Larry

    ReplyDelete
  9. Dear Rage,

    I am glad to see there is a bright size even if it is the size of pinhole. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  10. Starting in reverse order Charles I should that knowing that Wiener's wierner really was his wiener has made today at real hot-dogger.

    As for election cycles I do not have a strong feeling. While the intuition seems clear I somehow am not optimistic that any of those bozos would really government better knowing the election was every six years instead of four. I think there are other things wrong -- for example the fact that barely 50% of the population pay no income taxes while they receive a large share of the entitlements. As for the US coming in last in building infrastructure. I need some time to look at that one. Note that much depends on how you calculate change. The smaller is the denominator -- the less a country started with -- the easier it is to have a high rate of change. The US could definitely do more but given that we started from a high base I am not sure we can win a war of percentage changes....

    ReplyDelete
  11. Larry, to me the Diamond withdrawal is a bigger deal than it seems to be to you. Even if he did have a shiny bauble such as the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences (which is NOT the same thing as a Nobel Prize) it is important to remember that not all that glitters is gold.

    On a more serious note I do think there are problems with the way Fed board members are nominated and serve. Putting aside arguments about eliminating the Fed, which is responsible for a lot of the debt; in theory the Fed is suppose to have board members that are not overtly political. The problem is lots of Fed board members do not serve out their full terms so a prez is often in the position of using their nomination to put in someone with what seems to be a political agenda. Here is a link I found interesting discussing the issue http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2011/03/15/Fed-Confirmation-Process-Broken.aspx

    And a nice quotation:

    “One solution, obviously, is for board members to pull up their socks and serve full 14-year terms, but we can’t compel them to do so. We can, however, expect people to honor their commitments. During confirmation hearings, candidates should be asked point blank if they intend to serve a full term, and the explicit conditions under which they would resign. The White House and lawmakers should make it clear that nominees who cannot make a long-term commitment to public service will not be given the job”

    ReplyDelete
  12. LSD. I’m ecstatic that you find solace in knowing that Wiener’s wiener was a real wiener and especially that it was his wiener. But, in the end, I don’t think he’ll be a wiener.

    I acknowledge your malaise in not feeling one way or anon regarding election cycles, as we are stuck wid’m. Nevertheless, my fine Brit friend made a very cogent point that exposed a most strategic weakness\flaw in our Constitution that – when considered from a practicable perspective – can only lead to the conclusion that we will be forever confronted with stalemate Congressional decision-making indefinitely – forever in jeopardy. I recall vaguely from CGHS history classes that Rome burned while Nero fiddled. Riddle: in current context, who is Rome and who is Nero?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Rage,

    I am not sure what you mean about Diamond. I was quite pleased to see him withdraw. Diamond is a very successful economist but that does not mean that he would be an asset for the Fed. As for board members -- this is not exactly the same as the Supreme Court. The Fed is not run by a majority. The Chairman usually gets his way on critical issues. If there is any problem right now it is Bernanke.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Charles -- it might help you to look at both sides of the election equation. It is one thing to think about how much better things might be if you managed to get good electors in office for a longer time with little need to electioneer while in office. It is another thing to wonder about how long it will take to remove a bunch of yoyos who got into office and will be there a long time.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Gridlock is good!

    ReplyDelete
  16. Larry, I am happy Diamond withdrew, along with his almost Nobel award. My understanding Fed Policy was set by the twelve member Federal Open Market Committee that includes regional bank presidents the board has only a bare majority; and since the US prez normally nominates four board members at most that is not enough for a majority.

    The point I was trying to make by linking to the article is that when first created it was assumed the Fed Board would consist of apolitical members since no one prez could appoint enough members to dominate the board. But over time fewer and fewer board members have been serving out their full term. One possible solution would be to ask those nominated to the board if they intended to serve out their full term; and an answer of "no" would be grounds to disqualify them.

    Part of the problem is that many board members come from large banks and after serving return to large banks; and often the banks benefit from Fed decisions.

    I am not sure if it would be a good idea to completely get rid of the Fed or not (as some pols are currently advocating); but I am sure there need to be changes to the way the Fed is currently operating.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Rage,

    I get your drift but I don't see it that way. As I said, the problem is Bernanke. What policy the chairman wants, the chairman gets. I have seen very few instances of board members somehow using their positions at the board to help advance the interests of banks. To qualify for the board a person should have experience with money and banking and that means the best people will people from those industries along with a few economists. it is a pretty esoteric field --people outside of it like Diamond would have a very steep learning curve.

    ReplyDelete
  18. LSD, looking at both sides does not give me that tingling feeling up my leg. Our country unfortunately doesn’t have the time to equate one outcome vs. the other; action is needed now. I do get a rising tingling feeling up my leg contemplating winning the Senate with a sufficient majority, winning the WH, and keeping the majority in the House. If that combination can’t move this country in the right direction we might as well set aside elections\Constitution and go for the benign dictator.

    Crash, gridlock is good to the extent the incompetent in the WH is dead in the water. It’s bad because it delays getting Congress off its ass to make the “right” decisions.

    ReplyDelete
  19. To some peeps (I am not one of them) the rational for Diamond was that the Fed is suppose to be about inflation and employment and Diamond has experience, well scholarship, in labor which is sorta like employment.

    I am still not convinced the Fed does more good than bad; but for the sake of argument lets say it does. In theory members have terms long enough that no one prez can pack the Fed. The problem with theory is that currently lots of Fed members do not serve out their full terms, for what ever reason, resulting in confirmation now being a lot more political than the creators of the Fed envisioned. That is why I included the blurb that during the confirmation potential Fed members should be disqualified if they will not commit to serving their full term.

    As for The Bernanke, maybe we should also have term limits on Fed members.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Charles,

    I wish you luck with your dreams. Look back at times when the Rs had majorities and how things turned out. Be careful what you wish for.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Rage,

    Let me try one more time -- it appears I am not making my point with you. It does not matter if Obama or anyone else "loads" the Fed Board with his friends. It does not matter because the Chairman runs the show and gets what he wants. You might as well have Bernanke and a room full of chickens. You can ask them how long they promise to serve or ask them to sign an oath in blood. It doesn't matter. It is all Bernanke. In that case your idea of term limits sounds pretty good.

    As for Diamond -- I think it is dangerous to have people represent the Fed whose main expertise is labor markets. Monetary policy should not be about labor markets. Monetary policy has very little to do with labor markets despite all the optimism that other people have about the Fed's dual mandate over inflation and unemployment. The ECB charter has it right -- a central bank has one tool and it should focus on one goal -- inflation. A cyclops will get into trouble if he tries to be traffic cop in downtown Mexico City.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Maybe a little off topic but that never stopped me: "Inflation is not caused by the actions of private citizens, but by the government: by an artificial expansion of the money supply required to support deficit spending. No private embezzlers or bank robbers in history have ever plundered people’s savings on a scale comparable to the plunder perpetrated by the fiscal policies of statist governments." -- Ayn Rand

    ReplyDelete