By pushing off the recession with stimulus, they make the inevitable correction even worse.
What if we had one bad recession in 2001 and then that was it? What if we all had to toughen it out for one bad year when the economy was much stronger?
What happens now that the crisis is still forthcoming and people don't have the incomes and savings to brace for it?
Imagine if all of the people who went to college from 2001 to 2015 -- including myself -- had to make decisions to go to school based upon real price sensitivity, based upon what they could actually afford, versus enrolling in federal student loan programs? How financial freer would those people be?
The solution is to drastically cut spending, preferably Ron Paul 2012 presidential platform style by $1 trillion, end local, state, and federal bureaucracies, drastically lower taxes (no regressive flat tax, conservatives), and end the American Empire overseas and at home. Oh, and of course, End the Fed.
There's also other things that could be done but that's for another blog post. But for starters, we could legalize capitalism.
As I’ve shown in Rollback, the poverty rate in the United States fell from 95 percent in 1900 to around 12-14 percent in the late 1960s – a period in which government antipoverty measures were fairly trivial. By the late 1960s, when Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty programs began receiving substantial funding, the poverty rate stagnated. By 1994 it was about the same as it had been in the late 1960s, even though the federal government was by that time spending four times as much per capita as it had under LBJ.
“We are the world's biggest debtor nation and we're giving economic advice to the creditor nations… It's like an 'F' student giving advice to honors students on how to improve their grades.”
No later than two days--TWO DAYS--after I posted my last blog, which is the latest in my Libertarian Views of Law series, I came along a passage in End the FED that proves my point about the unnecessariness of regulation in starting and running a business:
"My first job, and that of my brothers, was to assist my dad in a small dairy run out of our basement. Even at the age of five, the incentive system was instilled in me. Our job was to make sure all the glass bottles, which had been hand washed, were clean. It was bad for business if a customer saw a black spot in the bottom of a milk bottle. For each dirty bottle we found as we removed them from the conveyor belt and placed them into the wooden case, we were rewarded a penny. It didn't take long for us to know when a certain uncle was washing the bottles, since more dirty bottles were found on those days." End the Fed, Chapter 4 "My Intellectual Influences", p.33-34
Paul's anecdote touches on topics that I didn't think about at the time, and it agrees with various points I made in my Suzy Q argument. "It was bad for business if a customer saw a black spot" touches on the idea that cleanliness is necessary to expect transactions to occur. Dirtiness, in contrast, is repugnant to many customers and is an instant transaction-stopper! In fact, no transaction would come into existence in the first place.
Notice that this idea is also an extension, or better yet application, of the Golden Rule. Doing unto others in this case would be preparing a clean home (as in the Suzy Q story) or having spotless milk bottles. Who would really think they can sell milk with grime on the sides, spots in the inside, and cracks near the lid?
Also noteworthy is the fact that this business was run out of their basement. There is a surprising connection between Suzy Q's hairstyling business run out of her home and the Paul family's business run out their home. It is bootstrap capitalism: "a person or group of persons collaborated and started a business and within years it was successful."
This also prompts me to admit that my title "Why You Can't Legally Braid Your Neighbor's Hair" is slightly a misnomer, slightly. A mother can braid her child's hair; a child can braid her friend's hair; but operate a Hair Salon out of your home? Oh, you can't do that. That would be against the law!
Still, what if the only "non-agricultural work" is the only work in town? Should kids under 14 have to be deprived of their right to work? Furthermore, what if they aren't skilled at agricultural work, but very skilled at "non-agricultural work" should they be denied the right to make money doing what they are skilled at? And how can they learn?
Paul touches on something that I was aware of but failed to illustrate: working at age five gave him incentive; and I'd add that working young gives a sense of dignity as well. How can kids get work experience needed for greater, more skill-specific jobs, if they can't even get experience in less specialized jobs? They are legally barred from doing so.
The funny thing is that I was just conjecturing about the libertarian/biblical application of ethics when I wrote the previous post. I never actually had any real examples. In fact, I didn't even read the laws (until today). Then I came across the passage in "End the Fed", and I jumped (not literally) when I saw it.
From these last few Libertarian Views of Law posts, the observant reader will be able to make valid inferences about the law, and the humorous paternalism guiding them all: the grocery store laws, the agricultural laws, and every other law enforced by the State.
In November of 2009, George Reisman gave this speech that articulated how we can get out of this current mess. I have watched this speech three times since then; the main reason is because, well, I fell asleep each time. Mr. Reisman sounds a lot like Jimminy Cricket, or at least some soothing narrator you would hear in an old Disney film. And although this speech is only 41 minutes, about four minutes shorter than a university lecture, the speaker is boring enough to put you to sleep.
Nevertheless, it is an important speech. And just like how we may have that one professor who puts us to sleep, it is during those times when we are falling asleep in class that the professor may be saying some of the most important things.
Listen to the professor.
And on a blog named after him, you can read this entire speech. I'd recommend, to stay awake, following the above video and reading the speech at the same time.
After reading Crash Proof: How to Profit from the Coming Economic Collapse (I began it Monday morning and finished Thursday evening) I was well prepared to answer a friend's objections to my assertion that there will be a "Greater Depression."
Honestly, my arguments come straight out of Crash Proof.
The argument all started when I posted a link to an article from LewRockwell.com on my Facebook page. The article advocated that the second Great Depression is on the way and suggested 20 items that will be needed to survive. My comment over the link was this:
Preparedness is the best way to weather the coming economic storm...believe me the worst has yet to come...it simply hasn't happened yet...all our politicians have done is simply push off the financial day of reckoning...in doing so we now have more to reckon with...(think of it as pushing off a student loan to a later date...the interest accrues and the total you have to pay back is more.)
And I think that was enough to get the ball rolling.
My friend and I have a somewhat interesting history. We both attended the same university (he is a 2009 graduate; I am a 2010 graduate). In the spring of 2008, he actually was the one to convince me to join the Barack Obama campaign at our school (before then I had no political affiliation; although I leaned Democrat). I did for a while, even up to the 2008-2009 school year, but then I left (I actually joined College Republicans afterward, but I left that too, only to go back a year later); he remained a dedicated member of the campaign and Young Democrats. And like most people who argue from different positions, we hold profound disagreements in maybe just about everything (except religion).
Here is the argument thread:
HIM: "We're headed for a great recovery. Lets not forget that over the last six months our economy has grown grew by about 4.5%, a very aggressive growth rate, and one of the highest clips in the western world over the same time period. The American consumer finally feels confident enough to spend again, and so do businesses. Soon they'll begin accelerated hiring. We've almost turned the corner. Hardly proof my friend of an economic apocalypse."
ME: "So we are working with the same statistics, but we are obviously interpreting things differently. If I understand you correctly then consumption, consumer confidence and hiring is evidence for economic recovery. If that is so that is where we depart ways. I don't understand your 4.5% statistic -- is this production? consumption? something else?"
HIM: "economic productivity....and hiring, productivity, consumption and consumer confidence are evidence of an economic recovery, indeed they are the hallmarks of one. A simple truth is becoming clear Chris: The economic relief package passed by the Congress is working. The Obama Admin. saved us from economic abyss. I hasten to add that if we didn't ... See Morepass the relief packages more Americans would be unemployed, more houses would have been forclosed, more businesses would have closed, and American influence would have further waned around the world. Thank God we acted"
ME: "I noticed you left out production. An increase in productivity means employers are doing more with less workers, which is good on one hand, but on the other it also means that payrolls are still tight and employers can't afford to put people back on staff. Productivity deals with efficiency, yet production deals with the quantity of goods being ... See Moremade. My point is that we need an increase in production before any serious recovery really happens. When more money is injected into the system via relief packages, yes on the one hand people can pay for goods, keep their homes, keep businesses going, but that comes at a price. The increase in the supply of money into the system without increase of goods and services will lead to price inflation. In other words, you just socialized the pain to everyone else because the U.S. Dollar loses purchasing power.
Second, we have a massive trade deficit and we are in debt up to the moon. Consumption would only be good if we were using our own money to buy things. But we are not; we borrow billions of dollars a day from China. The consumption ends when China stops playing our game. I don't believe China will finance our consumption indefinitely.
Third, we need to go back to savings and under-consumption to move forward. Until people learn how to save again to produce goods we will never move forward.
I'll wager (nothing) on this, if the Obama administration (or any future administration) has to continue to pass relief packages then I think that proves my points both that the economy is not recovering and the relief efforts only delayed the necessary economic depression. Why necessary? Because absent the bailouts all those bad assets would have been liquidated and better company would have picked up the slack. But instead by bailing them out a company with a bad balance gets off the hook, as if they had a change of heart or quickly change their bad practices. They were failing for a reason. Let em' fail."
HIM: A few problems with you thesis,
One, "now hiring" signs are being posted in businesses and shops across America. Last month we added 300,000 jobs to our economy. The month before we added an addtional 160,000. Thats almost a half of million jobs added...in sixity days!
Second, most economic forecasters believe that the odds of a double dip and a spike in inflation are quite low over the next four quarters.
Third, the notion that China would dump a signficant amount of American debt in the near future is laughable. Clearly it would dramatically alter US Chinese relations. Moreover, I don't see the wisdom in undermining your biggest trading partner. But most importantly dumping our debt would depress the Chinese economy. Its a lose-lose, which is means its non starter.
Our economy is growing precisely because of the bold actions of this adminstration. We need economic reform, we need to cut spending, reduce the size of government and increase revenue, perhaps with a VAT tax of some kind, or a modest income tax increase. For the first time in almost a decade we're on the right road again, and we can't afford to turn around.
[END]
As you can see I left the arguments intact, grammatical and spelling mistakes included. I let my friend have the last go around, but it was really enjoyable to hear the other side of the argument, and get someone to grapple with my economic pessimism. While I agree that we need to cut spending and reduce the size of government, I definitely disagree with the idea that a VAT tax of any kind or a modest income tax is the solution to our economic ills. My main concern with that thesis is that people need to save more, not save less by giving more money to the government.
As for his appeal to "most economic forecasters" I find this to be the least robust response; and I think other Austrian economists would too. Our belief, if I have been amongst these group of thinkers long enough to speak as an authority, is that mainstream thought, for the most part, has gotten the whole economy wrong; their prognoses are incorrect, and so are their prescriptions.
Finally, I disagree with his view on China. Lose-lose situation it may be for China--on the one hand, they can dump our debt and depress their economy; or they can keep our debt and hold devaluing U.S. dollars--but in the long run China will be better off by dumping our debt. In fact, the purchasing power of the Yen will increase dramatically, while the U.S. dollar's purchasing power will plummet. I didn't address everything in this recap, but I think I addressed enough.
Also, watching this lecture that I personally attended and partially recorded would be a quick primer on Austrian Economic thought, and thus would be helpful to understanding my position.
[Update on 5-20-10] Peter Schiff argues that the fundamentals of the economy are still unstable and that the bigger financial crisis has yet to come; he also argues that the perceived recovery is a sham and the new financial regulatory reform is merely going to exacerbate the problems that are already there.
So, I am also a writer for The Collegian, La Salle University's student-run newspaper. Please check out my published articles online (you may have to type 'Goins' into the search bar). So far, they've only posted 6 articles, but I've written more than that. I plan to expound on some of the ideas presented in the articles later in this blog.
