This Is As Good As It Gets

The GDP announcement this morning for the first quarter of 2013 was 2.5 percent, well below the 3 plus estimates that economists were expecting.    This will not be the first disappointment.  Folks like Jim Cramer on CNBC can't understand why businessmen are reluctant to expand capital equipment and hire employees.  That's because Cramer is a media celebrity not a businessman.

If Cramer were even remotely aware of the actual business climate that ordinary folks have to contend with, he would know what the problem is -- over regulation, absurd tax levels, Obamacare, EPA regulations, Dodd-Frank.  It is almost as if the Obama Administration has declared war on the US economy.  Anything that smacks of business success is viewed suspiciously by the Administration (and by Jim Cramer, I might note).

The talking heads can't figure it out, but the economics are simple.  If hiring an employee at a $ 35,000 salary means it costs you $ 75,000 per year, you are not going to make that hire.  End of subject.

Why the simple economics of hiring and firing eludes people like Jim Cramer is amazing.

There is no reason that health care costs should be borne by employers.  None....no reason at all.  But one thing is certain, if employer bears the cost of health care, they are going to be reluctant to make new hires and anxious to reduce their existing work force.  Why is that hard for the Obama fans like Jim Cramer to figure out?

Citizens should finance their own health care.  That would keep costs down and make the market efficient, as in the provision of anything else in a market economy.  The only way to get health care costs to spiral out of control is to get the government involved. 

There is so much double talk in an attempt to circumvent the obvious facts on the ground.  The economy is grinding to a halt in Europe and in the US.  The West is in deep, deep trouble.  They have drunk the nectar of socialism and wealth redistribution.  All of that feels good for a while until the economy begins to fall apart.  We are now witnessing the collapse of the West.

This is not going to get better.  It is going to get worse.  Economic policies in Europe and in the US are not designed to make economies grow.  They are designed to make economies fair, according to the fairness whims of the political elite.  That kills economic growth.

So, get used to it.  This is as good as it gets.

Ignorance and the NY Times

Eduardo Porter, an "economics" columnist with the NY Times, has penned an article this morning in the NY Times that purports to address the lack of solutions to today's economic stagnation.  Porter reports on a recent IMF sponsored conference of economists that was supposed to address problems posed by the "financial crisis of 2008."

According to Porter, the 2008 collapse discredited policies of lower taxes and de-regulation.  You have to wonder what world Porter lives in.  Was Sarbanes-Oxley an example of the deregulation?  Were the Congressionally-imposed strengthening and rule-making for Fannie and Freddie examples of de-regulation?  Exactly what is Porter referring to?  Or do facts matter anymore when you have a convenient agenda ready?

Here is an example of the absurd conclusions that Porter draws in his article: "One lesson from the crisis -- first learned in the 1930s and corroborated in several contemporary analyses -- is that when interest rates lose their power to stimulate the economy, additional government spending can help generate real growth."  Really?  Could have fooled me! 

Government spending in the US has exploded since 2008, as well as the national debt.  And what have we gotten for this explosion in government spending?  Economic stagnation -- the worst economic recovery since?  Guess what -- the 1930s.  Yes, the last time government spending was tried as a solution was the last time the economy failed, for a genertion, to recover from an economic downturn.

The way out of our current quagmire is easy and historically established. Go back to the early 1980s.  Drastic tight money, high interest rates, major tax cuts and de-regulation spurred the most dramatic economic recovery in world history.  All of this took place in the US under President Reagan in the bad old 1980s.  The Clinton years benefitted from these policies, but Clinton couldn't handle prosperity.  He and a Republican Congress raised taxes which began to produce economic contraction by mid-2000.  Further regulatory nightmares, led by Sarbanes-Oxley, the dramatic push by Congress to expand Fannie and Freddie set the stage for the 2008 disaster.

What has been discredited is the idea that expansive monetary and fiscal policy can substitute for free market capitalism.  The facts have turned naive Keynesiasm on its head.  Free markets produce economic growth.  Governments produce economic stagnation.  The IMF wasted its time holding their conference last week.  They would have been better served reading some economic history and learning the facts.

Even the WSJournal Doesn't Get It

David Wessel has a lengthy article in this morning's Wall Street Journal about the future direction of the world's economies.  He begins with Europe and then walks the reader through the US, Japan, China, and the rest of the world.  In every case, Wessel's discussion is about government policy.

The overall theme is that economic recovery depends upon government policy, discretionary policy at that.  He discusses the twists and turns of policymakers as they, according to his story line, attempt to guide their economies to the promised land.

But, that is exactly the problem.  Once government policy becomes the determinant of the economy's future, the economy no longer has a future.  The proper role of government in a free market is to lay down the rules of the road and then to get out of the way.  Increasingly, a government of rules is not to be found.

Instead we watch daily as policy makers, who frequently have a very limited knowledge of economics, move this way and that in a vain attempt to get economic growth going.  Such things cannot work.  They never have worked and they never will.

Economic growth occurs when businesses make capital expenditures and hire workers to create product.  They aren't going to do that if they have to spend their time wondering what the next move is going to be by their government.  Government action is detrimental to an economy's future.  Government inaction and consistent application of the rules of the road is the ticket to prosperity, not frenetic political activity and polarizing rhetoric.

If Obama had played more golf and forgotten about the stimulus, Obamacare and Dodd-Frank, we would probably be looking at 4 - 5 percent unemployment today and economic growth rates of 3 1/2 to 4 percent.  Unfortunately, Obama thought he had something to contribute.  So, we stagnate.  that's the price of a responsive government.

Taming the Beast

When an economy collapses, usually with the financial sector leading the way, everyone fears that it will not soon recover.  But, history tells us otherwise.  The numerous financial and economic collapses from the end of the civil war in the US up to the start of World War I took place during the fastest spurt of economic growth in US history.  The US economy had no central bank during this period and the government was so tiny that fiscal policy was largely non-existent.  Absent modern policy tools, what happened?

What happens, when government is not around to step in, is that economies recover on their own.  That's what the period from 1865 to 1914 teaches us.  It was during that period that the US overtook other economic power houses to become, by the end of the first World War, the most powerful economic engine in the world.  That is the outcome one can expect if the central bank is non-existent and if government fiscal policy is non-existent.

But what happens when government attempts to "tame the beast?" and "reform" the economy and the markets.  After the 2008 collapse, an unprecedented effort by central banks and governments took place throughout the Western economies.  Combined with aggressive "regulatory reform" to prevent future financial collapses, political actions by western economies have attempted to "tame the beast" of modern capitalism for the past 4 1/2 years.

And what is the outcome of all of this government action? -- economic stagnation and distress.  Economies that chugged along with 3 - 3 1/2 percent real GDP growth and 4 - 6 percent unemployment, now face zero real GDP growth and unemployment rates between 7 1/2 percent and 30 percent (Spain, Greece).

What next?  The beast has been tamed.  The furious fires of capitalism have been successfully tapped down by government policy.  Now, policy makers have abandoned any serious effort to get free markets going again and are focused on taxing rich folks.  That is the new agenda -- move more and more activities from the private to the public sector (think health care) and go after the wealth of anyone who played by the old rules.

We now have new rules.  Bond indentures (think GM, think Stockton) can be rewritten by the judiciary and by politicians.  Raiding government protected checking accounts are now policy tools for dealing with excessive sovereign debt (think IMF recommendations on Cyprus).  Nothing is safe from the wandering policy eyes of the Obama administrations and European politicans.  Even IRA accounts in the US have now become targets of the new political elite.

The beast has been tamed.  Look for the economies in Europe and the US to roll over.  In the US, the imposition of massive tax increases, major new hikes in employee costs (Obamacare), an onslaught of new EPA regulations, and blurring of the legal status of ordinary financial contracts (GM) is enough to snuff out the tepid recovery in the US.  Absurd policies designed to increase sovereign debt in heavily indebted Europe will put the nail in the coffin for Europe.  The future is not bright.

Once Upon A Time

The American dream was, once upon a time, the idea that if you worked hard, postponed consumption, saved your money and invested it, you could live whatever lifestyle that you wanted.  The flip side was that if you failed, you paid the price for that failure.  That idea fueled the economic engine that made American the wealthiest country in the world.  Millions of people came to America, because of the freedom that the American dream represented -- the freedom to be who you wanted to be without the heavy hand of the government telling you what you could or could not dream.

We are now embarked, along with our friends in Europe, upon the journey to the American nightmare.  Political struggles, both in Europe and the US, are degenerating into class warfare, pitting higher incomes against lower incomes, and producing economies that no longer grow.  Massive unemployment is becoming accepted and commonplace.  The Eurozone unemployment rate exceeds 12 percent and American workers are leaving the work force to enjoy that leisure that an over-abundant "safety net" provides.

Freedom includes the freedom to fail, the freedom to make mistakes, the freedom to pay the price of your failure and your mistakes.  Once upon a time the discipline that was imposed by the freedom to fail provided the necessary incentives to succeed.  Taking away the freedom to fail with the heavy hand of government takes away the freedom to succeed.  It is not only the "too big to fail" that is the problem, it is the "too politically correct to fail" as well that eliminates the freedom necessary to make an economy successful.

Economists Who Think Incentives Don't Matter

I nominate Simon Johnson for an award as an economist who has managed to reach the remarkable conclusion that economic incentives do not matter.  He joins a long list of politicians who seem to think that government policies that take money from one group of Americans to give it to another have no effect on behavior.

Save and save and save and then find out that the government will take the proceeds of your savings away from you.  That's the message of the recent Obama message and Simon Johnson's column today in the New York Times.  Obama's new war on the IRA promises to slap the hands of any American who decided to forego that extra TV or car or who bought a house that they could afford, putting the money into an IRA account instead.

The new crime is saving, investing and accumulating assets.  According to Obama, that is un-American and he proposes bringing it to an end.  Somehow eliminating what paltry private savings the American economy generates doesn't seem to bother Obama and his economic advisers.  After all, I suppose, China can continue to supply whatever savings we need as the Chinese own an increasing share of American assets and Americans own less and less of their own country.

Meanwhile those who don't save and who splurge on consumer goods and purchase homes they cannot afford will continue to receive bailouts, special new program proposals from the Obama-led White House, and higher levels of dependency on government.  Already the number of Americans even remotely interested in working for a living is at a forty year low and the number of Americans collecting disability checks is at a record and a new record is achieved every day.

Reward the indolent and punish the thrifty and those with a work ethic -- that is the Obama mantra, ringingly endorsed by his adoring economists.  Simon Johnson thinks he hasn't gone far enough.  I suppose Johnson would like to raise the minimum wage to $ 100 an hour as well.  That should go far to eliminate poverty (at least for the handful of Americans who would still have jobs).

Sanofi and the Future of France

Sanofi is a drug company with a research facility in Toulouse, France.  The facility needs to be closed.  It is a research facility that hasn't produced a new drug in twenty years and costs are prohibitively high in any event.  600 workers are employed there.

So, what happens when Sanofi decides to close the plant?  Mass demonstrations and a protracted legal battle.  In the end, Sanofi will be refused by the government and the plant will stay open, regardless of what Sanofi shareholders want.

So, what happens when another company is considering opening a plant anywhere in France?  They will think about Sanofi's troubles and look elsewhere.  Markets work and learn -- which is bad news for France, a country with a declining GDP and absurd economic programs.

Obama thinks that they are on the right track.  I guess it depends on what destination you are shooting for.