Archive for the ‘Keynesian Economics’ Category

Ben Bernanke Invents Supply Side Keynesian Economics

Monday, May 22nd, 2017

Ben Bernanke is back, having been interviewed during the past month by The New York Times, NPR, CNNMoney, The Hill, Bloomberg, CNBC and other media. That his book, The Courage to Act: A Memoir of a Crisis and Its Aftermath, is out in paperback could have something to do with it.

When the hardcover version was released, Bernanke, former chair of the Federal Reserve Board, wrote a piece for The Wall Street Journal titled, “How the Fed Saved the Economy.” Having taken credit for saving the economy after the financial crisis, he’s now giving advice about how to continue saving it. His comments, in which he poses as a supply sider while advocating for still more Keynesian stimulus are almost as unintentionally humorous as his Journal op-ed.

In an interview with The Hill, he said, “What we want to do is try to improve the supply side of the economy, make it grow faster, have greater potential. And I think that probably that to do that, I would think that on the fiscal side, that infrastructure spending that improves our roads, our bridges, our schools, and tax reform, not necessarily tax cuts, but reform that makes the system simpler, more efficient, those would probably be the highest-return fiscal actions in terms of getting higher growth.”

We’re not sure how you can reform the massive federal tax code without cutting taxes for someone, but supply side stimulus spending is an oxymoron. Supply siders would deregulate and cut taxes to encourage business investment. (more…)

Pick One: More Government or Lower Taxes

Monday, May 8th, 2017

What’s the best way to boost economic growth – more government spending or lower taxes?

Government spending is the Keynesian approach, which was taken over the past eight years. Build a road, start a war or buy lots of bonds and the spending allegedly will stimulate the economy. In addition to the government jobs created, the money spent will work its way through the economy and create additional jobs while the economy grows.

But the economy doesn’t necessarily work that way. Government spending has to be paid for with higher taxes or more debt. If taxes are higher, consumers have less to spend, which slows economic growth. If the government accumulates more debt without raising taxes, interest on the principal accumulates. Interest must be paid off regularly to keep the country’s credit rating high, so it can continue borrowing at low rates.

Ironically, the only way to keep interest from becoming overwhelming is to cut spending, raise taxes or both, which can stunt economic growth. So, long term, the impact of stimulus spending can be negative.

Another problem with government stimulus programs is that jobs created with government funding disappear if and when the funding expires. It rarely does; instead it becomes an added cost on an ongoing basis, increasing government spending permanently.

How Money Is Spent Matters

How the government spends your money also matters. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, passed to overcome the financial crisis, was the largest stimulus effort ever, but much of the money went to programs that may have had either no positive economic impact or hampered economic recovery. (more…)

Good News: Fed Predicts Slow Economic Growth

Monday, January 23rd, 2017

We can now be assured of improved economic growth in the years to come.

Why?  Because the Federal Reserve Board is predicting slow growth.  And the Fed is always wrong.

That may seem harsh, but throughout the Obama administration, the Fed predicted stronger economic growth than the U.S. ultimately experienced.united-states-gdp-growth-forecast@2x

Consider the Fed’s record for the past five years. The Fed projected growth of 3.0% to 3.6% for 2011; actual growth turned out to be half that–just 1.6%. For 2012, the Fed projected growth of 2.5% to 2.9%; the actual rate was 2.3%. For 2013, the Fed projected 2.3% to 3% growth, but actual growth was 2.2%. For 2014, the Fed projected 2.8% to 3.2% growth, and the actual rate was 2.4%. Finally, for 2015, the Fed projected 2.6% to 3.0% growth and the actual rate was 2.4% again.

Are you seeing a pattern here? Five years of predictions, five years of overly optimistic projections. The Fed has been almost as incompetent about predicting growth as it’s been at producing growth.

Fed Goes Conservative

Now we have a new Republican administration, but it’s the Fed that’s gone conservative. The allegedly nonpartisan Fed is predicting that the economy will grow by just 1.9% in 2016, 2.1% in 2017, 2.0% in 2018 and 1.9% in 2019. Longer term, the growth rate is projected to be just 1.8%. (more…)

Obama’s Legacy: Adults Living with Their Parents

Monday, October 10th, 2016

There’s a bright side to the upcoming presidential election, even if you dislike both candidates—it will bring an end to the Obama administration.

That may seem like a harsh assessment, but the past eight years have not been good to the U.S. economy, which has been weaker than instant coffee.  As POTUS, President Obama bears much of the responsibility.oecd-2_0

How bad has economic performance been? Today, about 66.6% of American youth aged 15 to 29 are living with their parents. That’s up from 62.8% before the Great Recession. Fifteen-year-olds should, of course, be living at home. But 29 year olds? Adults don’t typically live with mom and dad if they can afford to live away from home.

Talk all you want about the Great Recession, but that was eight years ago. And if you think tax cuts and insufficient spending by the Bush administration resulted in the economic malaise of the past eight years, you may want to consider reading economists other than Paul Krugman.

President Obama’s Forecasts vs. Reality

The Wall Street Journal may not be a fan of the president, but the recent review it published of the Obama economy by Lawrence Lindsey, a former Federal Reserve governor and assistant to President George W. Bush for economic policy, couldn’t have been fairer. It compares what President Obama said would happen with what actually happened. (more…)

Going Negative

Monday, February 29th, 2016

“More money cannot cure what too much money created.”

                                   Frank Hollenbeck

There’s nothing positive to say about negative interest rates.

If seven years of zero interest rate policy (ZIRP) has left the U.S. economy is such sad shape, how could negative interest rates help?  Negative rates have already been tried in Europe and Japan, and they have failed to boost the economy.

And yet some believe the Federal Reserve Board is considering replacing ZIRP with NIRP.  We’ve written plenty about the failings of ZIRP, or zero interest rate policy, and believe it would be foolish for the Fed to consider NIRP, or negative interest rate policy.

The bank of the future.

The bank of the future.

How does NIRP work?  As Zerohedge explained, “The process can be as simple as the central bank charging its member banks for holding excess reserves, although the same thing can be accomplished by more roundabout methods such as manipulating the reverse repo market.”

In other words, central banks created trillions of dollars in excess reserves throughout the banking system and now they want to charge banks for holding those reserves.  The idea is to coerce banks to lend the money, which should stimulate the economy.  (more…)

Nothing Lasts Forever

Monday, December 14th, 2015

If the Federal Reserve Board has used all of its policy tools during the current expansion, what happens when there’s a recession?

That’s a question worth asking, even as the Fed appears ready to raise interest rates, albeit by just a smidgen, based on the pretext that ZIRP (zero interest rate policy) is no longer needed, given today’s allegedly booming economy.

On course, the economy’s not booming and we may even be heading into a recession, assuming we aren’t already in one (it’s hard to tell in today’s slow growth-no growth economy). Average Recovery

Just one sign that the boom is an illusion is the length of the current expansion.  The average recovery since the end of World War II has been 58 to 61 months, depending on whose numbers you use.  The current “recovery” hit the 58-month milestone in April 2014 – 20 months ago. As David Stockman pointed out this week in his “Contra Corner” blog, “the only expansion that was appreciably longer than the present tepid affair was the 119 month stretch of the 1990s.”

Nothing lasts forever and even Larry Summers, the former Treasury secretary and current Harvard professor, recognizes that the current expansion may be nearing an end. As he wrote last week in a Washington Post op-ed, “U.S. and international experience suggests that once a recovery is mature, the odds that it will end within two years are about half and that it will end in less than three years are over two-thirds.  Because normal growth is now below 2 percent rather than near 3 percent, as has been the case historically, the risk may even be greater now.”

(more…)

Place Your Bets

Monday, September 14th, 2015

“What mighty Contests rise from trivial Things … ”

                            Alexander Pope, The Rape of the Lock 

Let’s put this in perspective. If the Federal Reserve Board raises interest rates at its meeting this week, it will likely raise them by 0.25%.

That’s 25 basis points … a quarter of a percentage point … a hair’s breadth. In the 1980s, U.S. long-term interest rates approached 20%, which is 80 times higher than the post-increase Fed rate would be.Interest-Rates-US-Fed-Funds2

So what’s the big deal?

The big deal is that any rate increase, even one as slight as a quarter of a point, would signal a change in direction for the Fed. It would mean that the easy money days are over. The stock market would no longer be artificially inflated by Fed policy. Yields would rise. The Keynesian bubble would burst. (more…)

President Underwood Goes Keynesian

Monday, March 9th, 2015

In the latest season of “House of Cards,” President Frank Underwood stakes his political future on a $500 billion program called America Works, which will allegedly create 10 million jobs and bring the U.S. to full employment.Underwood for President

Well, “House of Cards” is fiction.  Ten million jobs creating full employment?  It would help, but it would still be 82,898,000 short, since there are a record 92,898,000 Americans not participating in the workforce. 

Speaking of fiction, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the unemployment rate has fallen from 5.7% to 5.5%.  That’s because, according to Zerohedge, “while the number of unemployed Americans dropped by 274K (and) those employed rose by 96K, the underlying math is that the civilian labor force dropped (by) 157,180 to 157,002 (following the major revisions posted last month), while the people not in the labor force rose by 354,000 in February.”Obama

So once again, a worsening economy brings us closer to full employment in the mythical land of Keynesian America.

How Not to Create Jobs

The bigger fiction, though, is that government spending can fix unemployment.  When it comes to spending, President Underwood is an amateur compared with President Obama, whose first-term stimulus legislation was 66% larger than President Underwood’s.  And it didn’t produce anywhere near 10 million jobs – although President Obama claimed in 2008 that it would put 7 million people to work, including 5 million in “green jobs.”

Know anyone working in a green job created by the stimulus bill?  Tom Steyer doesn’t count. (more…)

Another Year of ZIRP?

Monday, February 2nd, 2015

When the economy recovers, interest rates will go up, right?

That’s been the Federal Reserve Board’s line for years now.  Yet as the Fed gushes about an allegedly booming economy, some are saying that interest rates are unlikely to increase this year.

So what gives?Interest Rate Chart

Last week’s Federal Open Market Committee Statement, which summarizes monetary policy, noted that since the FOMC’s December meeting, “the economy has been expanding at a solid pace.”  The statement notes that the unemployment rate is declining, consumer spending is increasing and, if not for that troublesome housing market, everything would be just dandy.

As if to put an exclamation point on the FOMC statement, Fed Chair Janet Yellen met with Congressional Democrats last week to reiterate just how fine the economy is doing.  (The real purpose of the meeting may have been to explain the FOMC statement to members of Congress, as it contains phrases such as, “underutilization of labor resources continues to diminish;” which could have been worded more clearly by saying, “Many former middle managers are still working as greeters at WalMart.”) (more…)

Do You Believe in Santa Claus? You May Be A Keynesian.

Monday, December 29th, 2014

The Christmas season is an appropriate time to reflect on Keynesian economics, given this: believing in Keynesian economics is a lot like believing in Santa Claus.

Most Americans grow up believing some chubby guy in a red suit has the stamina to deliver gifts worldwide to billions of people in a single night.  Young children, by their nature, are self-absorbed and gullible enough to think that Santa knows how they behaved throughout the year and will deliver presents accordingly. Santa Keynes 2

Most of us grow up and realize that reindeer can’t fly, Santa would freeze to death in the North Pole and his elves would unionize.

But not everyone outgrows gullibility.  Some become Keynesian economists.  As Keynesians, they don’t quite understand unemployment, because they never experience it – there is plenty of demand for Keynesians, who can find jobs working for the government, in academia or as journalists.

Keynesians believe that increased government spending (aka “aggregate demand”) stimulates the economy and money can be handed out, like Christmas presents, with only positive consequences.  They even believe that a dollar spent by the government results in many dollars being spent throughout the economy (the “Keynesian multiplier”).  Since they believe there is a Santa Claus, they give little thought to the reality that someone, somewhere has to pay for this largesse.

(more…)