The Weiner Component V.2 #19 – The Trump Budget

Not too long ago President Trump came out with his proposed budget for the year 2018.  It was heavy with a ten percent increase for the military, had draconian cuts for Social Services cutting some programs and illuminating a large number of others.  It also cut out programs for the arts and for scientific research.  It contained what Trump calls Tax Reform.  This is actually a massive cut for the top Two percent of earners and large corporation decreases in taxes.

 

Looking at his Cabinet the indication is that Trump wants a government of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich.  The groups really harmed by his proposal would be the poor who are totally dependent upon the Federal Government for numerous services and the elderly living upon a fixed income like Social Security or a set retirement that decreases year by year as prices slowly rise due to inflation or otherwise.  Their medical insurance would rise significantly but their coverage or protection by the state would decrease significantly.

 

One can suppose a rapid rise in their death rate of the elderly would benefit the government as their producing days are over and they are only consuming.

******************************

In a recent article on the internet a staunch conservative congratulated President Trump for his stance on the budget but then stated that he did not go far enough.  He apparently felt that Trump’s proposed massive cuts to the United States social programs would still be costing too much money.

 

Trump’s Treasury Secretary, Steven T. Mnuchin, was originally a Wall Street financier.  According to his and several other people who are involved in finance and working for Trump have stated and may well believe that following Trump’s budget will raise the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to 3%.  It was .075 in 2015.

 

These people come from the world of finance.  They are not economists.  To many economists this is wishful thinking nonsense; it’s not about to happen.  In fact with all the Trump cuts, increases in spending, and lowering of taxes for the wealthy the deficit will increase considerably in 2017 and 2018.  Thus significantly upping the National Debt which is currently 19 trillion plus dollars.

 

The National Debt is currently approaching 20 trillion dollars but what it actually is is misunderstood by most people in the country.  Most people consider that this is money owed to countries like China and Japan for the uneven trade that goes on with them.  But this is only partly true.

 

The National Debt consists of two parts: one public and one private.  The public part is the money that the government owns.  It is money that it has lent itself.  The question here is can an entity owe itself money?  In terms of the Federal Government obviously it can.  Several times a year the Federal Reserve transfers billions of dollar in interest to the Treasury.

 

Entities within the government transfer their surplus funds to the general fund.  The government then gives them credit for the transferred funds.  The largest entity to do this is Social Security.  In the 1980s, when Ronald Reagan was President, Social Security was in trouble.  It could conceivably run out of money in the near future.  Congress raised the amounts paid into Social Security by both the individuals and their employers.  And in 1989 Medicare was separated from Social Security.  Additional separate amounts were paid into it by both employers and employees from then on.  Also at this time people who did not pay into Social Security could make payments into Medicare and have it when they retired.

 

From that time on Social Security has had a relatively large surplus.  It is today the largest debt holder of part of the National Debt.  Interestingly Al Gore, when he ran against George W. Bush, has as part of his platform, a lockbox, which would have been banking surplus Social Security funds rather than putting them into the General Fund and spending them.  However with George W. Bush as President the surplus went into the General Fund and was spent.

 

China, Japan and other nations have many individuals and companies within their countries that hold U.S. Government loan papers.  That and loan bonds held by individuals within the United States and other countries would make up the privately held National Debt.

 

The Federal Reserve admits to owning about 50% of the National Debt.  I would estimate it to be more like 60% to 70% of the actual National Debt.

********************************

The FED sells these bonds continually, increasing or decreasing the amount of currency in circulation.  Money is not only cash; it is also credit and debit cards and checks.  The FED regulates the amount of currency in order to control value and limit inflation.  Too much money in circulation decreases the value of the money and too little money being available creates deflation.  The FED has to maintain a balance between the amount of money in circulation and the population of the country.

*****************************

In the minds of most people money is an object of value.  It allows people to have what they need and want.  In fact for most of its history money itself was an object of value acceptable all over the world.  Eventually the amount of gold and silver, which was money in the form of coins, was insufficient in terms of all the business that went on in a country.  There wasn’t enough gold and silver available to conduct the necessary business for the country to function properly.  As a result of this the government of each individual nation withdrew the precious metal and began printing its own currency which functioned within its borders..

 

This began at about the first third of the 20th Century and has continued since then.  Money today in the U.S. is a Federal Reserve Note.  It has no real intrinsic value.  It is merely a means of exchange for goods or services.

 

Adam Smith in 1776 published “An Inquiry into the Wealth of Nations.” In this work, which was strongly influenced by French economists called the physiocrats, Smith developed the basis of the modern capitalistic economics.  The true wealth of a nation is what it produces; its goods and services.  These are it Gross Domestic Product.  They are defined as all the goods and services the nation produces in terms of dollars and cents within a given period of time, a fiscal year.

 

This brings us to the basic concept.  What is the actual wealth of a nation?  Today the United States is the wealthiest nation that has ever existed.  Yet according to our current President we cannot afford to take care of our overall population.  I sometimes think that all modern day Republicans would be much happier if they had lived hundreds of years ago when every individual was responsible for himself and for his family and government merely existed to protect him from foreign invasion.  Looking back historically I wonder if such a time ever really existed.

******************************

By following Trump’s budget the government will massively reduce its spending.  The military will have much more to spend.  Trump has indicated that he will massively increase U.S. presence and involvement in the Middle East.  Much of the military funding will be spent overseas and a large percentage of the tax decrease will go to the upper two percent of the population.  They have not noticeably increased their expenditures when their incomes have increased in the past and the probability is that they will not do so in the present.

 

What will happen with his tax cut, if it comes into existence, is that there will be far less money available in the economy for the purchase of goods and services.  The probability is that because of a lack of funds less money will be spent and less goods and services demanded.  The GDP will actually decrease and it could achieve 0 growth or possibly .01% actual growth or even hit a minus figure,

 

There is also the fact that there is a velocity to money spent in the National Cash Flow.  Money when spent is usually spent three to twelve times.  For example a person shops in a supermarket.  He or she spends twenty dollars.  That money may be used to pay the salary of an employee.  The employee spends that money on dinner in a restaurant.  It can again pay an employee’s salary.  The money keeps getting spent until it becomes part of the Natural Cash Flow that can be three to twelve times.  The $20 can generate $60 to $240 worth of increased productivity.  Conversely if the money is not spent that amount of productivity is cut from the GDP.  All of Trump’s cuts will subtract trillions of dollars from the economy.

 

In addition to bringing a tremendous amount of misery Trump could also bring about a tremendous recession of depression.  We are still working our way out of the Great Recession of 2008.  Trump also wants to get rid of the laws that were passed to avoid that situation from ever occurring again.  Concievably the country could be brought back to the point we had reached in 2008 that almost brought the nation to a worse situation than occurred in 1929, with the Great Depression, which was also brought about by a Republican run government,.  This can be done by following what today could be called Trumponomics.

The Weiner Component #156 – Fear & the Economic Situation

Official photographic portrait of US President...

Official photographic portrait of US President Barack Obama (born 4 August 1961; assumed office 20 January 2009) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Starting slowly, probably around the 1970s, the process of splitting real estate loans into a few parts began, and then, with the election of Ronald Reagan as President of the United States in 1981, the concept took off on a refined bases, with each real estate mortgage being broken into innumerable parts and having each piece put into a different hedge fund and sold as a safe investment. It was considered safe because any single or few losses on any one of these hedge funds would be so small that it wouldn’t be noticeable and would not really affect the amount of the dividend.

 

Two things occurred from the 1980s on: one was the election of Ronald Reagan to the presidency of the United States and the imposition of a total Free Market Economy and the other was an incessant need in the general society for a much greater cash flow.  We were in a period where there was not enough money available to serve the overall needs of the population.  More cash was needed for the economy to function.

 

The agency of Federal Government that was supposed to be keeping track of this problem and monetarily serving the needs of the nation was the Federal Reserve.  It’s Chairman from 1987 to 2006, Alan Greenspan, like the President believed in a totally Free Market that would automatically adjust itself.  Consequently he and the FED did nothing to alleviate the problem. 

 

This in turn left the need prevalent and either purposefully or inadvertently it was picked up by the banks which were also deregulated by the Reagan administration.  They, at first, gradually and then, with ever increasing speed, using real estate as their base, picked up the speed of creating new value or money throughout the society.  This was to continue through late 2008 when the banks had far     exceeded the amount of money needed for the society to properly function and the Great Real Estate Crash occurred.

 

What happened was that the banks, by their lending policies from the 1980s until late 2008, over 28 years, created trillions of dollars of additional value based upon the public housing industry within the United States.  In addition deregulation also allowed them to freely invest their deposits into the agencies or funds that directly serviced this expansion.

 

By 2007 most bankers were aware that property values had far exceeded a sane level and that a crash was probable.  But by 2007 most of the bankers had been making high commissions on the property market for most, if not all, of their banking careers; they were in denial that conditions could ever change. 

 

The Real Estate Market crashed or the Real Estate Bubble burst in late 2008 under President George W. Bush.  Virtually overnight the economy of the United States went into an instant depression.  There was suddenly mass unemployment, many people owed more on their homes than they were then worth.  Some people just walked away from their homes, others stayed, the hedge funds, which many or the deregulated banks had also invested in, collapsed from non-payment on mortgages.  Bush and his Treasury Secretary bailed out some of the banks; then his term ended and Barack Obama became the next President of the United States.

                        ********************************

Barack Obama would spend his eight years in office dealing with this mess.  For his first two years he had a Democratic Congress and their full support.  From 2011 on the House of Representatives gained a Republican majority and thereafter passed no legislation that dealt with the economic emergency.  In fact they passed economizing laws that actually increased the disaster.  President Barack Obama and the Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke, using Creative Monetary Policy were able to change the depression into a recession.  The country is still dealing with this problem that the House of Representatives refused to deal with.

 

Conditions have improved.  Unemployment is now at about 5%, a long way from the initial 12½%  The Republicans still have done nothing to improve conditions, instead they have actually worsened them.  They are a great political party for complaining and blaming.  But what they are blaming President Obama for, is mainly for what they, themselves, have not done, passing fiscal laws creating jobs and upgrading the infrastructure.

                 *****************************

In 2008, the year of the Real Estate Crash, the Gross Domestic Product   was at 800 trillion dollars.  In 2009 it dropped to 700 trillion dollars.  By 2010 it was slightly above where it had been the year before.  By 2015 it was in the area of 17.95 trillion dollars.

 

Keep in mind that the GDP refers to the market value of all goods and services produced within the country during the fiscal year.  Interestingly the United States is now ranking first in the world’s GDP level.  That makes it, even now with 5% unemployment, the world’s richest nation.

 

If, as we’ve seen in the GDP, the overall wealth within the United States was continually increasing by 2010 above the 2008 Real Estate Crash level then why was the U.S. up to 12 ½% unemployment?  The answer, of course, comes into the area of spending priorities mostly by the United States Government and the overall population.

 

Congress, from 2011 on, with a Republican majority in the House of Representatives, was on an economizing bilge. The country underwent and is continuing to undergo Sequestration, spending cuts across the board in virtually every area.  The President, on the other hand, particularly in 2009 and 2010 underwent expansive spending programs to avoid a depression greater than that of 1929.  Basically what started from 2011 on was a redistribution of income, with gradually more and more money going to the upper echelon of society and less and less being available for the middle and lower classes, these amounts increasing yearly.

 

In 2009 and 2010 the Obama Administration spent inordinate amounts of money extending unemployment benefits, saving the American banking and auto industries, among other things.  From 2011 on gradually most of these programs ended and government began a struggle between the House of Representatives and the President.  In 2013 we had both Sequestration and a shutdown of the Federal Government from October 1 through October 16, 2013, for 15 days.  The shutdown was over the issue of government funding for Planned Parenthood in the 2014 funding bill.  The Republican House of Representatives attempted to force its will upon the President and the Democratic led Senate.  The President and Democratic Senate would not cooperate with the Republican led House of Representatives.  In many cases Congress has refused, or through different Republican disagreements, has been unable to act.

 

The positive movement that had occurred in the economy, turning a potential Great Depression into a Great slow-moving Recession came about through Creative Monetary Policy, government spending policy, by the Federal Reserve with the compliance of the President.  In essence it’s been a battle between the President and the Republican House of Representatives, with the administration slowly winning since national unemployment is today in the area of 5%.

                  *****************************

The question that arises: if the GDP (Gross Domestic Product) today is greater than it was in the period prior to the 2008 Real Estate Crash then why is the middle class in the United States continually shrinking and why are more and more people continually having a harder and harder time economically surviving?  The answer to that questions is that the National Income is like a balloon filled with helium, slowly and continually rising and becoming part of the incomes of the top few percentile, the upper 5 or so percent of the population.

 

In essence the rich are getting richer and everyone else has less money.  It would seem that the society is geared so that the rich pay a lower percentage of their incomes in taxes than everyone else does.  For example: Donald J. Trump, who is running for the presidency in 2016 as the Republican candidate, has refused to show his tax returns for any prior year.  Trump claims to have over ten billion dollars.  The probability is that he is not showing his income taxes because he doesn’t pay any of these taxes.  Being in real estate he would have endless write-offs and building depreciations.

 

But it isn’t just people in real estate who have these tax advantages, it’s anyone who earns over $464,850.  The income tax system is graduated up to that point; that is the more one earns, the higher a percentage of his/her income he/she pays in taxes.  Anyone earning over $464,850 pays the same rate as those earning that amount.  A person earning a million dollars or 25 million a year pay the same percentage of the incomes as the person earning the above figure.

 

While the number of individuals is not large compared to the overall population of 350 million people, yet the taxation system is rigged in favor of the very rich.  The more they earn over $464,850 the smaller a percentage of their income do they pay in taxes.

 

This change or decrease in taxes was brought about during the last five years of the Obama administration.  The Republicans actually lowered taxes for the very rich.  The Democrats were forced to go along with this in order to pass other similar required legislation.

 

The Republican argument for this action is that the rich need more money because they are the ones who invest in new industry.  Without them there would be no growth in the economy.

 

This argument that has been endlessly repeated over the years sounds wonderful.  But it is a myth.  It has never happened.  The rich invest their surplus incomes in old established industries that pay a set reasonable income or they, like Mitt Romney, bank some of it overseas where somehow they pay no taxes on the interest received.

 

Taxes are geared so the less an individual earns the higher a percentage of his/her income is paid in taxes.

 

The United States is the wealthiest nation in the history of the world.  Yet its unequal taxation system taxes the poor and middle class far more than the wealthy, they pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes.  It also has an underclass that is so poor they live in the streets and even though these people pay no income tax they also pay a higher percentage of their incomes in other taxes than the rich.  The national distribution of income is today a farce.  Someone like Warren Buffet has remarked that it’s a strange situation where he pays a smaller percentage of his income in taxes than his secretary.

                            ****************************

In 2016, the year of the next Presidential Election, this created a strange phenomenon within both political parties within the nation.  Currently there is a Republican majority in both Houses of Congress.  Very little if any needed legislation is being passed.  This situation has existed since 2011 when the Republicans took control of the House of Representatives.  In both major political parties there are large numbers of people who are totally frustrated with their Federal Government.  Many of whom are not overly well educated or generally too busy with their lives to follow what is actually happening in Washington D.C.  Their knowledge of the government is what they’re told by the news media, which can be tilted to the right or the left by which channel they are watching.  This doesn’t really answer their questions or needs. 

 

What exists today are large segments of the population which are looking for easy answers to what seems impossible questions or problems.  They want a simplistic solution which, in essence, is a return to a past which never existed.  They want a simplistic solution to their economic problems, to bring the manufacturing jobs back to the United States and allow people to earn more money so they will no longer be economically stressed out.  Whether this is real or not is beside the point; there is a strong desire among many for a simplistic change within the society.

 

For the Republicans the person who will do this is Donald J. Trump.  He claims that he will force the companies that have moved their manufacturing overseas or to Mexico to bring these jobs back to the U.S.  In addition he will get rid of all illegal foreigners in the U.S. and lessen competition so that there will be jobs available for everyone who wants to work.  He will also make the U.S. safer by not allowing alien radicals to migrate to the U.S. and keep Mexicans out of the country by building a wall between the United States and Mexico.  And so on.  He will bring us to a golden age that never existed in the U.S.

 

In essence Trump is feeding on all the basic prejudices and fears that seem to still exist in this country.  He is opposed to Mexicans, Hispanics, Muslims, Syrians, Blacks, Women having a right to deal with their own bodies, and the list goes on.  Trump has promised to take us all to-never-never land if he becomes president.  He seems to open up all the hidden prejudices in a large percentage of his followers.  He has also increased bullying among the children of his followers.

 

For the Democrats there is Senator Bernie Sanders, a Democratic Socialist.  Over a year ago he changed his party registration from an Independent Socialist who always caucused with the Democratic Party to a Democrat.  Sanders now calls himself a Democratic Socialist.  This has enabled him to run as a Democratic candidate for the presidency in 2016.

 

I strongly suspect that Bernie Sanders initially expected to run as a protest candidate with no chance of winning.  However he inadvertently tapped into the younger generation of voter; those who had been too young to vote in prior Presidential Elections.  To these people and the others who have joined them he offers a utopian future. Free education from pre-school through college and free medical coverage for everyone.  He supports abortion rights and a more liberal drug policy.  He believes in gun control, immigration reform, LGBT rights, expanding social security, and tax reform.  Among other things he has stated: “We need to get big money out of politics and restore our democracy,” and “Climate change is real, it is caused by human activity.”

 

He has also brought large numbers of Independents and some older Democrats to his cause.  His campaign took off like a rocket shooting upward and Bernie could almost taste victory.  But he never quite caught up with his competition, Hillary Clinton. 

 

He is promising a new society with benefits for everyone.  And all this will be paid for by the rich who have up to this point exploited their position in society.  The image is wonderful but the reality doesn’t exist.

 

I suspect that the majority of the population agrees with most of if not all of Senator Bernie Sander’s goals.  But they would have to be paid for if they were to be put into laws.  And his solution to this is rather naïve.  He says he would put a tax on Wall Street’s excess profits.  Traditionally in United States history, going as far back as the Revolutionary War from 1776 on the practice has been to make someone else pay for what you want.  The Southern planters owed millions to English merchants which they never paid after the Revolutionary War.  Afterwards Daniel Shay, a Revolutionary War veteran, led Shay’s Rebellion where the inland farmers refused to pay taxes that were brought into being by the Tidewater merchants in the coastal cities.  In recent years there was an attempt on the California side of Lake Tahoe to tax the Time Share facilities to pay for the public schools in the region; it failed.  It’s always nice to get someone else to pay for what is needed or wanted but generally it doesn’t work.

 

The term Wall Street is an abstraction; it has no specific meaning.  Are they talking about the banks or the large commercial corporations, or any company that sells stock?  An excess tax on the sale or purchase of stock or company profits would bring about economic disaster.  A tax on profits already exists, increasing it could destroy incentive.  Senator Bernie Sanders funding solution sounds just but it is nonsense.

 

Hillary Clinton is much more pragmatic.  The very existence of Senator Bernie Sanders has pushed her farther to the left in her own position.  She may be able to achieve many of Bernie’s goals which he should be able to get into the 2016 Democratic Platform. 

 

Sanders, on the other hand, as President would face endless frustration, even if he were to get Democratic majorities in both Houses of Congress, which is a low probability.  In all likelihood the House of Representatives will retain its Republican majority.  And even if Senator Bernie Sanders were to get an all Democratic Congress he would still have trouble both passing and funding his program.

                             ******************************

In the early 1800s England began the Industrial Revolution in the cotton industry.  Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin which allowed the cotton plant to be quickly separated from it many seeds.  Machinery was developed for spinning the cotton plant into thread and machinery was also invented for weaving the thread into cotton cloth.  Overnight spinners and weavers became obsolete, their occupation ceased to exist.  Some became luddites, breaking into factories and destroying the new machines in an attempt to bring back the past when they had a functioning occupation.

  

 Even if Trump, by some strange miracle, were to get elected the probability is that the results of the 2016 Presidential Election would leave a number of people totally dissatisfied  with the changes that don’t seem to be happening,  You can’t bring back the past, real or otherwise. 

 

Can conditions be improved?  Jobs are available in the United States.  The problem is that they require training and mobility.  It now requires a trained skilled employee for the jobs that pay a decent wage.  For those who refuse to undergo any training or move to where these jobs exist there are public sector occupations that do not pay much but that take almost no skills to do.

English: Seal of the President of the United S...

English: Seal of the President of the United States Español: Escudo del Presidente de los Estados Unidos Македонски: Печат на Претседателот на Соединетите Американски Држави. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

.

The Weiner Component #94 – Consumption Equals Production

Comparison of real GDP using BEA Deflator vs r...

Comparison of real GDP using BEA Deflator vs real GDP using Money Supply (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Much has been stated and written during the 20th Century about the production of goods, about how production brings about the consumption of a particular product, there are theories about how a finished good will find its own market.

How valid are these beliefs? If the product or products are highly desired as those produced by a company like Apple then the theory would seem to be valid. Apple, while not a monopoly, produces unique items. But if the product is an automobile like a Ford, Chrysler, Volkswagen, or Honda then the theory is limited. First off there are a number of national and international companies competing for the sale of their product. Automobiles are expensive items. Only a certain number is needed on the market or can be afforded; and these can be new or used. If a seemingly endless amount are produced by the assorted companies then at some point the price will decrease and will continue to do so until the cost of producing the vehicle could be greater than the price for which it can be sold. What we have here is a question of demand and supply, not a theory of production; and even that is an anomaly because supply is engendered by demand.

The term supply and demand is actually the opposite of what it should be: Demand determines Supply. An entrepreneur will produce and market virtually any product from which he can make a profit. He is, after all, in the business of making money; profit is his major goal as an entrepreneur.

It would seem that the ability to purchase, having the funds to pay for goods and services, determines the extent of the production of wealth. After all free access of money determines the production of all goods and services.

In the period leading up to the Housing Bubble of 2008 a goodly percentage of homeowners used their homes as bank accounts, freely remortgaging again and again, in order to acquire whatever they wanted. There was essentially full employment and everyone was doing well, that is both consumers and producers. When the bubble exploded, because of the abuse of the banks, and housing values collapsed like lead weights many consumers were suddenly left underwater, owing more on their homes than they were worth. Consumption of both goods and services came to screeching halt and the economy tanked. There was suddenly massive unemployment. Generally outside of absolute necessities the public could not afford to consume and we were headed for a massive depression which the federal government was able to forestall by massive loans to some industries.

What happened here was that consumption of goods and services stopped when the money supply dried-up. It was the massive sudden termination of consumption that brought about the extent of the crash. Limited consumption had engendered what was largely the end of a production boom and unemployment suddenly became massive.

What suddenly happened in the economy was that consumption determined production. The ability of people to freely spend money had suddenly ended and unemployment almost instantly rose to phenomenal heights. The same people who could no longer spend were those who mainly suffered from the lack of spending. An interesting note of irony!

Money, currency was and is a tool issued by the government of the nation. It has no intrinsic value and can be freely issued by the central government. All that is required for an additional release of this paper is for the government to print it and issue it.

The problem is that if too much of this paper is released into the general society, if the people have more currency than the amount of goods and services that can be produced then the cost of the materials that can be produced within the society will be bid up and mad inflation can be the result. If, on the other hand there is too little money in circulation the public will be limited in what they can buy and a recession and large-scale unemployment will result. The government, in issuing currency has to keep a constant balance between these two positions.

The basic problem or problems here is that the government has to keep a balance and distribute this money, the national income, on the widest possible level throughout the society for maximum demand.

The principle here is that Demand Equals Production. And for maximum demand to occur the money, the national income, must be distributed throughout the entire society.

Unfortunately what is currently happening is the opposite of what should be occurring. Since 2009 a greater and greater share of the national income is and has been moving up to the upper twenty percent of the society. They are currently earning far more than they can possibly spend and their surplus funds in the millions are being stored while the bottom twenty percent is getting less and less of the national income, and the middle class is, in most cases, just barely maintaining itself or just about shrinking in size. There has been a redistribution of income continually going on.

In order for the economy to grow and for everyone to reach a level of prosperity the federal government has to take control of the national income and widen its distribution to include the entire economy. One way this can be done is through tax and entitlement policies. Another way would be by fiscal policies, Congress passing legislation to upgrade the infrastructure of the United States and bring it into the 21st Century. Of course a combination of the two would be even more effective.

The 2014 Midterm Election will give the country an opportunity to decide in what direction it wants to go for the next two years: with the Republicans toward continued gridlock or with the Democrats attempting to move toward fiscal policy, possible tax reform, and toward full employment.

The Republican conservatives who represent the well-to-do CEOs and successful entrepreneurs are generally representing congressional gridlock. They don’t want any changes in the economic system. But if they were to look closely at the system they would discover that their economic base is slowly shrinking. As more and more people are slowly being forced from the middle class to the lower class their ability to consume goods and services is slowly also shrinking. As the percentage of the poor goes from 20% to 22% to 25% to 30% their shrinking incomes will be able to buy less of the goods and services this society is capable of producing and the GDP will decrease at a greater rate than these people’s incomes. The profits possible will also shrink and so will the incomes of the upper 20%.

In essence these people are contributing millions of dollars in political elections to support an economic system that in the long run will significantly reduce their profits and shrink the GDP.

If they were to reverse their positions and support the Democratic positions of fiscal spending and reform of the tax system then they would be engendering a phenomenal growth in the GDP which, in turn, would massively increase their profits and incomes. By fairly paying taxes and encouraging the Federal Government to bring the infrastructure up to standards in the 21st Century the upper 20th percent could multitudinously increase their profits and income far beyond what they would be paying in increased taxes.

It’s a wonderful piece of irony, having the upper echelon of our society fighting tooth-and-nail against their own long-term economic interests.

English: Changes in US Money supply based on F...

English: Changes in US Money supply based on Federal Reserve historical data. Source code is in File:Components of US Money supply.svg (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

 

 

 

 

The Weiner Component #81 – The Concept of National Wealth

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1933. Lietuvių: Fra...

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1933. Lietuvių: Franklinas Delanas Ruzveltas (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The question of wealth is confusing. To an individual it appears to be the amount of money he or she possesses; but to a nation it would be the goods and services they produce in a given period of time, usually a fiscal year measured in terms of dollars and cents. This is the Gross Domestic product, the GDP. Which is the actual wealth? The productivity or the money?

Looking at a small area of United States’ history should answer this question.

On Tuesday, Black Tuesday, October 29, 1929 the New York Stock Market collapsed. Over a period of time the value of the Market dropped from 89 billion dollars to 18 billion dollars. (This was when a one ounce gold coin was a $20 gold piece and was officially worth $16.) That event was concurrent with downturns in all the other industrial nations. The rest of the U.S. economy would follow the stock market with massive unemployment, part time employment, and underemployment. Unemployment would drop to 25% of the working population. The President, Herbert Hoover, and his Secretary of the Treasury, Andrew Mellon, believed that the Market Mechanism would eventually bring the Market back to where it had been before the crash. It did not.

From October 1929 until the end of 1932 the country sank into deeper and deeper depression. The President and his Secretary of the Treasury kept stating that “Prosperity was just around the corner.” That corner was never reached.

John Maynard Keynes, an English economist, developed the theory of Keynesian Economics. Government, during times of recession and depression must spend more than they collect in taxes. During times of prosperity it can pay off its debt. Some of this was attempted on a small scale by President Hoover.

In 1933 Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected President of the United States. He began, what he called, The New Deal; a process of massive spending that it was hoped would bring about recovery.

Roosevelt funded this in a very interesting way. Money at that time was gold and silver coins. All the gold coins in the country, with the exception of a small number held as souvenirs, were collected, melted down into gold bars, and stored in depositories like Fort Knox. Gold certificates, equaling the value of the gold coins, were issued to the Federal Reserve. The value of the gold was then by Act of Congress doubled from $16 an ounce to $32 an ounce. The ounce of gold had traditionally been the $20 gold piece. Each one was replaced by two $20 dollar paper bills marked Federal Reserve Notes. In one simple act the money supply of the United States had been doubled.

We were actually off the gold standard but the fiction of its continued existence remained. The money was as good as the gold that stood behind it. Roosevelt could now easily fund the early New Deal. All it took was a simple act of Congress and the money supply was doubled.

As the New Deal progressed, from 1933 to 1940 shortly after World War II broke out, Congress authorized spending by the Roosevelt Administration far beyond the amount of taxes that were collected or the extent of the money supply. The government followed the principles of Keynesian economics. This did not get the country out of the depression. In order to do that the money supply would have had to have been more than quadrupled. But it did allow recovery to begin. It took World War II for complete recovery to occur.

From the outbreak of W.W.II in 1939 to the end of 1941 when the U.S. became directly involved in the war the country could not meet the demands of Europe and Asia for goods. The depression ended; there was full employment. The Allied nations shipped their gold (money) to the U.S. to pay for their purchases of goods (food and assorted war materials) until they ran out of money, then purchases were made on credit until that became too large. At this point the Roosevelt Administration evolved the concept of Lend Lease, which was a fiction. From this point on the United States gave the necessary war materials to the Allied Powers.

World War II was a very expensive enterprise. How great was the cost to the United States? The best we can do is an approximate answer to this question. According to the Oxford Companion to WWII the cost to the U.S. was $306 billion. President Truman in an address to a joint session of Congress stated that the U.S. contributed $341 billion to World War II. This did not include the $50 billion given out in Lend Lease.

During WWII the United States became the “Arsenal of Democracy,” supplying all the allied nations with food and the materials of war. Within the country all efforts were aimed at fighting and winning the war. Practically all manufacturing was for the war effort. Farmers could not produce enough food. Many people set up “victory gardens,” growing vegetables on their lawns, while those in apartments used window boxes. Virtually everyone on the home front was involved in the war effort. Children collected scrap metal and old newspapers that could be reconstituted and used again. Housewives saved their used grease from cooking and turned it in to their butchers. It was used in the production of munitions.

With everyone on the home front employed, men, high school students after school, and women, and many people working double shifts money was readily available but there was little upon which to spend it. People could not freely spend money; most items were rationed or not produced; everything was focused upon the war effort.

The government, presumably to raise money for the military effort, sold war bonds. They could be bought in numerous denominations. The smallest was a $25 bond which cost $18.75 and was redeemable after ten years. School children bought 50 cent war stamps that they collected in books, until they saved $18.75, then turned them in for war bonds. All the resources in the country was focused upon the war effort.

Where did all this money come from? What was its effect upon the economy of the United States? Obviously Congress passed bills and the President signed them. And the money was created. Also all this currency that the country created was spent upon goods and services in the U.S. It was all this spending that took the country out of the depression and into a new level of economic prosperity. During the war people had money, many for the first time in their lives, but could not spend it.

In 1944 the Serviceman’s Readjustment Act (G.I. Bill) was passed by Congress and signed by the president. It was a law that provided a range of benefits for returning WWII veterans: low cost mortgages, low interest loans to start a business, cash payments of tuition and living expenses to attend college, high school, or vocational training, as well as up to one year of unemployment compensation. It was available to every veteran who had been on active duty during World War II for at least 90 days and had not been dishonorably discharged. Combat was not required.

By 1956 about 2.2 million veterans had used these benefits to attend colleges and universities. An additional 6.6 million had taken some kind of training program. This does not count the number who started small businesses with low government interest loans or who bought a house with a low interest VA loan.

In April 1948 Congress passed the European Recovery Program, generally called the Marshall Plan. In this bill the United States gave economic support to help rebuild European economies after the end of WWII in order to prevent the spread of communism. During the four years that the plan was operational the U.S. donated $13 billion in economic and technical assistance to help the recovery of the European nations.

If we consider the inflation factor in terms of the value of gold, then an ounce of gold was worth $32; today an ounce of gold is worth in the area of $1,300. If you divide $32 into $1,300 you get an idea of the level of inflation since 1948.

How was all this paid for? The answer is by an acts of Congress. The government legislated the funds into being. What then is the real wealth of the United States? The goods and services it produces.

What happened to all this debt that Congress generated? How did the U.S. pay for the depression, WWII, the GI Bill, and the Marshall Plan? Of course the answer is obvious. Congress approved the expenditures and the government printed and issued the money.

Before we consider the National Debt there are some other factors to consider. First the population of the U.S. in 1930, several months before the census was taken, was 122,775,046. By 1940 it had gone up approximately by ten million people; and by 1940 by another eighteen million. By 1960, the year of the next census the population was 179,323,175 Americans, an increase of over twenty-five million. While the executive in each introduction to the official census has apologized for the sloppy enumeration, this number of individuals was actually counted.

With the constantly increasing population the economy needs an ever growing amount of money in the National Cash Flow. In no year, from the beginning of the Great Depression on, did the economy increase by less than one million people, generally the number was larger. If money had not been added to the economy there would have been mad inflation and total economic collapse.

What the Federal Government did was to add by acts of fiat multi-billions of dollars to the national economy. The initial cost of the New Deal was covered by doubling the money supply and creating the fiction of gold being behind every dollar. Later paper money was simply created for the latter part of the New Deal, Lend Lease and W.W.II, the G.I. Bill and the Marshall Plan. There was never any real gold behind the dollar. In fact, there was never enough gold in existence to make up an adequate gold supply for money.

What was the advantage of using this token money? It allowed full productivity to occur within the United States and the industrial world. World War II, forgetting for the moment its horrors, put everyone back to work. The G.I. Bill made this country into a middle-class nation by educating millions of people with college and providing for them to start their lives on a more secure level than their parents had lived. The Marshall Plan, in addition to allowing European nations to recover from the devastation of war, was also a six plus billion dollar checkbook of funds to be spent in the U.S. creating an endless number of well-paying jobs.

 

The wealth all this paper money produced was the production of goods and services that allowed America and a good part of the world to emerge after the Second Great War.

 

The Weiner Component #64 – So Called Economic Prosperity & Economic Disaster

English: Monthly changes in the currency compo...

English: President Barack Obama confers with F...

English: President Barack Obama confers with Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke following their meeting at the White House. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Economic growth has been increasing at a phenomenal rate; with the United States in the last quarter of 2013 reaching a point where there was a surplus, more money coming in in taxes than was being spent.  Dr. Ben Bernanke, the then chairman of the Federal Reserve felt that it was growing too rapidly.  Apparently complete economic recovery with a 6 ½  to 7 percent unemployment level does not really denote a healthy economy.  This would mean that we have an excess surplus percentage of the population that exists within our so-called healthy economy.

The question is how can you have economic recovery with 6 ½% to 7 % of the population still actively looking for employment?  And what about the group that has given up looking for work or those that are underemployed?  While we don’t know the exact numbers of these people they could make up another 6 ½ to 7 percent, or for that matter, the number could be greater.

Can we truly have prosperity with 10 to 14 percent unemployment and underemployment?  If we look at the statistics the amount of money available in the country, the GDP, has increased exponentially but the distribution of these massive funds have been and are in the process of changing with a greater and greater percentage going to the upper echelon of society and a smaller and smaller percentage going to everyone else.  General wages have essentially stayed the same or risen very slowly with prices rising at a slightly more rapid rate.  People are finding that their incomes, which may be slowly rising, are buying less and less each year.  This situation is reminiscent of the 16th Century when inflation existed for a 90 year period.  Wages remained essentially the same but the value of money, which was gold coins at that time continually decreased in value; that is, every year it bought less.

The 16th Century was the time that Spain looted the gold supply from the New World, the Americas, and yearly brought to Europe shiploads of gold that were almost immediately turned into coins and circulated throughout the continent.  As the amount of gold in circulation rose the value of the money dropped.  A small group became fabulously wealthy while the rest of society suffered without having an inkling of what was causing their misery.

We are essentially in the same position today.  A small group, the upper earning percentage of the population of the United States, is seeing their incomes explode while the bulk of the population is being pushed slowly economically downhill.  The country is recovering, both from the Real Estate Debacle of 2008 in terms of the amount of currency in circulation and seeing a growth of funds beyond that point, but the distribution of those dollars is giving that money to the upper echelon with a fractional increase to the general population and the high unemployment level continuing.

This is a scary scenario for the welfare of the country. We have more money available in the general society but a goodly number of people are excluded from any part of it.  The minimum wage remains at $7.25 an hour and we still have unacceptable levels of unemployment throughout the country.  As a note of irony we have couples working in the U.S. at the minimum wage level and still having to apply and receive Government aid in order to survive with a family of four.

The country seems to be returning to prosperity and misery at the same time.  Recovery would be better at a slower pace with unemployment decreasing as economic recovery is increasing.  Massive changes are necessary if overall economic health is to come about.

We are currently living in a society where the bulk of the population has no real understanding of economics.  They see everything in terms of their household budgets.  They see the government spending money it supposedly does not have, therefore throwing the country deeper and deeper into debt.

This, common sense approach, is all nonsense.  Most people still think of money as gold.  This is untrue.  There is nothing behind the dollar but the word of the government.  It prints and issues money as needed.  It also, through it many agencies like Social Security and Medicare and otherwise owns at least fifty percent of its own debt.  In 2013 the Federal Reserve turned over, well over seventy billion dollars to the Treasury.  Most, if not all of this, was interest from the National Debt which the Federal Government owes and owns.

Recovery would be better at a slower pace, but whether or not it occurs, changes are necessary if massive economic health is to come about.  We have to decide whether all people have a right to a minimum level of economic functionality or if one group deserves to have all the benefits that society can provide and the rest deserve to persist as best they can.  Actually if nothing is done the latter will occur.

Today money is a tool of the Federal Government used to effect economic health within the society.  There is no gold behind the dollar.  The Government prints what is needed for the society to function.  Its value is based upon the word of the Central Government.  The amount in circulation in the United States is controlled by the debt limit which is set by Congress.

Also the amount of money in circulation is determined by an inflation factor.  If there is too much money available, more money than goods and services available, then the value of the money decreases.  If, on the other hand, there is too little cash circulating in the general society then the value of the money increases and deflation occurs.  The Federal Reserve monitors this and attempts to keep a proper balance.

To the individual, the members of Congress, money has value.  It provides for their and their family’s needs.  If the members of Congress apply this position to National Expenditures then they are actually shrinking the economy and exacerbating negative conditions, tightening government spending and adding to unemployment.

It is an interesting conundrum.  Applying “common sense” family budgetary rules to the running of the United States could possibly bring about a recession or depression.

The basic principle, which is a hard one to comprehend and accept, is that consumption is as important as production.  Without consumption there is no need for production.  By allowing an ever increasing majority of the National Income to go to the upper percentage of the population there is less and less money available to the rest of the population.  Consequently the amount of goods and service they can consume is continually decreasing.  The system is working against itself.

Are we having real economic prosperity or is the country working toward economic disaster?  An interesting question!

 

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Weiner Component #34 – The Function of Government: Adding money to the Economy

English: Detail from Government. Mural by Elih...

English: Detail from Government. Mural by Elihu Vedder. Lobby to Main Reading Room, Library of Congress Thomas Jefferson Building, Washington, D.C. Main figure is seated atop a pedestal saying “GOVERNMENT” and holding a tablet saying “A GOVERNMENT / OF THE PEOPLE / BY THE PEOPLE / FOR THE PEOPLE”. Artist’s signature is “ELIHU VEDDER / ROMA–1896”. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

One of the functions of government, according to the Preamble to the Constitution is to “provide for the common welfare” of all the people.  In addition to other means of doing this the Federal Government is supposed to supply enough currency to meet the needs of the population, always keeping the amount below an inflationary spiral. 

 In times of recession when there is not enough money in the National Cash Flow the government has and should utilize its two major means of adding currency to the flow.  These are Monetary Policy and Fiscal Policy.  The Federal Reserve controls Monetary Policy.  Through it, by various means, money can be added or subtracted from the economy depending upon the immediate needs of the country.  Congress and the President control Fiscal Policy.  They can also add or limit the money supply by various legislative means.

 Government spending also includes other factors than the health of the economy such as the cost of government, as well as expensive items like wars and natural disasters or rebuilding the infrastructure of the nation.  They can terminate recessions or periods of inflation by passing legislation, at these times spending money to reinvigorate the economy.

 Currently the country is presumably facing two major problems: massive debt and massive unemployment.  Whether the massive debt is real or not is an academic question.  If unemployment is significantly lowered through government spending then we increase the National Debt and if the National Debt is lowered then we further increase unemployment.  Which way makes the most sense?

 The Federal Reserve is adding forty-five billion dollars a month in currency to the National Cash Flow.  That is 540 billion dollars a year by buying up, on the secondary market, U.S. debt.  It is also purchasing forty billion dollars worth of real estate paper (mortgages) per month.  That is 480 billion dollars a year buying bundled real estate.  These moves are adding money to the economy, unraveling the housing bundling fiasco, creating a shortage of housing in the United States, bringing about economic growth by causing new construction throughout the country, and adding a substantial amount to income taxes in monies that are no longer being deducted for interest from housing loans.  This process has gone on for well over a year causing gradual and continual growth in the economy.

 New Money added to the economy has a multiplier effect; that is, the money is spent a number of times before it becomes part of the naturally enriched cash flow.  The amount of new productivity is three to six times the amount spent.  This spending, in addition to the advantages we’ve seen above, is adding no less than one trillion dollars a year to the GDP and probably the amount is well over two trillion dollars annually.

 All of this is Monetary Policy, which is generated by the Federal Reserve.  Dr. Ben Bernacke, an economist, who was appointed by a Republican president, heads the FED.

 Monetary Policy has improved conditions within the economy.  The GDP is very gradually improving but it is not doing so fast enough.  In order for complete recovery to occur Fiscal Policy is needed.  At present the goal of the Republicans is to reduce the deficit.  They have been successful in turning the problem from a need for more employment to reducing the debt, which has not occurred.  This has been done by forcing the president to cut programs in order for them to raise the debt limit and have the government pay its bills.  In essence their policy has been to economize and limit economic growth, the opposite of fiscal policy.  This is a program working against economic recovery, in that, among other things, it has reduced government employment.

 Because they could not reduce the cost of the social programs the Republicans came up with the sequester around eleven months ago which gradually will cut, across the board, all government programs; that is, the different programs that both the Republicans and the Democrats favor, being both social and military, reducing virtually everything upon which the government spends money.  The result will be to gradually and continually reduce employment, both militarily and among civilians who are dependent upon military contracts.  Some of this job loss will probably be picked up by private economic growth but there will still be an increase in unemployment.

 What is needed is an acceptance of unemployment as the major problem the nation is currently facing and the application of fiscal policy to solve it.  Economizing may be worthwhile but not at the cost of hurting a goodly percentage of the population. 

 A number of people in Washington are applying Microeconomics, their own household budgets, as the means of operating this country.  They need to understand that the United States Government operates through Macroeconomics.  It can issue currency as needed to increase employment and grow the economy.  A larger economy with the bulk of the population employed will be paying much more in taxes and could conceivably reduce the National Debt.  This would also be a successful means of economizing.  It would successfully rebuild the infrastructure and phenomenally increase productivity.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Weiner Component #32 – Are The Republicans Their Own Worst Enemies?

Image

  English: Breakdown of political party represen...

The basic position of the Republicans in Congress is that the National Debt is out of control, being currently over sixteen trillion dollars, and that it must be reduced.  The current Ryan Plan is their general roadmap to achieving this objective.  They have generally ignored the 2008 Recession, the effects of which still exist and the massive problem of unemployment.  What they want to do is cut discretionary spending, this includes Social Security and Medicare, reduce the size and costs of government, raise military spending, not raise any taxes, this includes not cutting any subsidies, and reduce taxes on those earning  four hundred thousand dollars or more a year.  With the income from this they want to overbalance the National Budget, spend less that is taken in and thus help reduce the debt.  This to the Republicans will bring about prosperity in the United States. 

What would be the effects if they were able to achieve this?  The consumer base for purchasing goods and services would be decreased considerably lowering overall demand for much of what is produced and bringing about a shrinkage in productivity and a substantial increase in unemployment.  The money taken out of the economy would have a multiplier effect, beginning a cycle of economic shrinkage that would cause an ever-growing level of misery for a goodly percentage of the population.  Money, the National incomes, would have been moved upward to the upper few percent of the population leaving and ever decreasing amount for the lower echelons of our society and allowing far more to be stored, probably outside the country, because there would be far less worth investing into in the United States.  The level of economic misery among a goodly percentage of the population would continue to grow.  This is what the Republicans would achieve if they could successfully bring about their Congressional aims.

Because the Republicans have not successfully been able to achieve this we are currently dealing with a dysfunctional Congress.  The Republicans, with control of the House of Representatives and a filibustering Senate, have been successful in not allowing any fiscal (job creating) bills. 

The Federal Reserve, which is separate and not under the control of Congress, has continually and very creatively added money to the economy helping to bring about a slow recovery through monetary policy.  Government, on both state and Federal levels, has continually shrunk lowering both tax revenues and services but the private level has very gradually grown and continues to grow.  It has more or less offset a part of the public shrinkage. 

Today corporate profits are up; industries profits are continually growing, Ford Motors is currently in the process of expanding one of its plants and hiring two thousands additional workers to expand its truck-building capacity; CEOs and upper echelon executives salaries are growing exponentially but unemployment is still at a 7.6% level; many people are doing without.  The GDP is currently growing at the slow level of 2 1/2%.  Population, according to the Senses Population Clock is growing at the rate of one person every eleven seconds; that is 3,063,273 people per year.  The GDP has to grow enough to accommodate over three million additional people each year before any real growth can occur.

A large percentage of these increased profits are moving to the upper few percent of our society.  This money is not being invested in any form of economic growth because the money available to the consumer base is actually decreasing, continuingly lowering the base for consumer consumption.  Overall demand is decreasing because there is less and less money available for the purchase of goods and services.  The upper echelon is storing its ever-growing incomes, probably a goodly percent of it overseas where it can accrue a better rate of interest and be largely except from domestic taxes.  While consumption is up for the upper middle class and above, it is decreasing for the rest of the population.

While all this is going on the Republicans in the House of Representatives and in the filibustering Senate are working vigorously to shrink the government by reducing its expenditures.  They consider the National Debt, most of which Republican Administrations have created since 1981, too high and obscene.  They have all become, since Barak Oboma was elected president, fiscal conservatives.  Consequently they are attempting to limit government expenditures by decreasing Federal expenses.  The result of this is for the Federal Government to gradually employ less people and shrink the economic base, making less money available in the GDP.

It is difficult to understand the thinking of the Republican leaders.  Are they more interested in achieving control of Congress and the Presidency than in the welfare of the country, than in following their oath to the Constitution, in having a Democratic President fail even at the cost of large-scale human misery?  If they follow the logic of their thinking through to its conclusion it leads to endless austerity, intense economic shrinkage, recession and depression.  And while this is going on the military will grow and the upper echelon of society will become phenomenally richer with taxes that run the country being paid by the ever-shrinking resources of the bottom rung of society.  The nation would end up with privation, starvation, and probably violence.

Is this the Republican objective or don’t they understand that everything in the economy effects everything else, that seemingly minor changes can lead eventually to horrible disasters.

It would seem that the Republicans are their own worst enemies.  Their so-called reforms could eventually lead to ultimate chaos.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Weiner Component #31 – Wealth and the Distribution of the National Income

Quarterly Gross Domestic Product (year-on-year...

Quarterly Gross Domestic Product (year-on-year growth in real GDP) and Unemployment Rate (simple monthly average) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

It is interesting to note that the GDP for 2013 is higher than it was for 2008, which was before the Real Estate Crash; that corporate profits are higher than they have ever been; and that the stock market has reach a higher level than it ever was in 2008 or earlier.  We now have more money flowing through the economy than has ever been during the entire history of the United States.  Theoretically, it follows, that the economy should have recovered from the Debacle, unemployment should be down to 2 ½ to 3 ½ percent, and the overall society should be functioning positively for most of the population. 

This, of course, is not happening.  What has occurred instead is that we currently have, throughout the United States, an overall average of just below eight percent unemployment, with a number of people being underemployed or working part time.  At the moment Congress is putting the nation through the sequester which is making a percentage of the poor poorer, even to the point of limiting food programs for children and many pregnant women of the lower echelon of our society.  Some people may die from lack of food before this Congressional made crisis is over.  As the sequester fully comes into being there will be will be newborn infants among the casualties. (Malnutrition can cause death or improper brain development during the first few years of life.)  In addition unemployment will increase significantly.

 Why is this?  Between 2009 and 2013 there was a significant redistribution of the National Income, money has moved up to the upper few percent of the population, while incomes have stayed the same or decreased for the middle and lower classes.  Where the average compensation package for CEOs of large corporations was eight to ten million a year in 2008, it is sixteen to twenty million a year for these same people in 2012.  Meg Whitman, the current CEO of Hewlett Packard, who was hired several years ago to turn the company around after its stock dropped to 1/3 of its original value, received slightly over fifteen million dollars for 2012.  What would she have gotten if she had been successful?

Since the late 2008 Crash there has been an increase in population and gradually in overall demand for goods and services.  A goodly part of the population and been unemployed and underemployed and they have been able to afford very little.  Yet demand in 2012 and 2013 has increased significantly.  There has been economic growth but a significant percentage of the population has been left out of it.  A goodly part of the upper economic echelon has increased their earnings, taken more of the GDP than they did in 2008.  The economy has grown but a fair percentage of the population has been left high and dry.  

Every tax, including the income tax, in this country is regressive; the more one earns the smaller a percentage of their income is paid in taxes.  If the distribution of income had been on a fairer basis then practically all of the population would have money to satisfy their wants and needs.  The overall spending for goods and services would be substantially higher than it is now and productivity would increase well beyond what it is now.  Profits would rise above their present high level and everyone, including the upper two percent would be earning more that they currently are.  It is an interesting bit of irony that the well to do are actually reducing their potential earning by their own penurious policies.  If they allowed the minimum wage and overall salaries to rise they would be allowing themselves to make greater profits and not only would the general population be far better off but their profits would far exceed their current high levels.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Weiner Component #30 – Irony: The GDP & the National Debt

National-Debt-GDP

National-Debt-GDP (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is the dollar and cents value of all the goods and services produced and consumed or purchased in one fiscal year.  It is a measure of the productivity of the nation expressed as a number, which is reported quarterly and allows us to see growth or shrinkage in the overall economy.  It can also be measured by a comparison of all yearly incomes and is, then, a statistic that tells us the immediate economic condition of the nation.

Toward the end of 2008, with the Real Estate Debacle, the National Economy crashed.  The country was saved from falling into a deep depression by the actions of Presidents Bush, Obama, and Congress.  Even though the economy was saved from disaster unemployment fell to over ten percent, with many other people being either partly employed or under employed.  The value of most homes fell with many either being underwater or, with constant refinancing, being at the bottom of the ocean.  From 2010 on, with the election of a Republican majority in the House of Representatives, nothing was done to alleviate the poor economic situation.  In fact there was more job shrinkage with the Republicans in the House and the filibustering Senate minority undergoing a policy of economizing.  There has been no fiscal policy from Congress since 2011.  In the Federal Reserve, imaginative ways have been utilized to increase the amount of money in circulation and help solve the housing disaster.

What has happened since 2009 is that there has been economic recovery but today unemployment is hovering just below eight percent.

The hue and cry around Congressional Washington D.C. is that we have to economize, gain control over our National Debt.  The U.S. currently owes over sixteen trillion dollars and is spending more than it is taking in taxes.  The current argument is that we cannot bankrupt our children by leaving them owing this inordinate amount of money.

If we go back to the amount of money this country spent fighting World War I and the amount we lent to our allies then which, after 1929, was never paid back; to the amount spent by the Roosevelt Administration from 1933 on, when he assumed office; fighting the Great Depression; to World War II when we were the Arsenal of Democracy and paid for ourselves and our allies fighting the war; to the European Recovery Act of 1948 (The Marshall Plan), and to Korea and Viet Nam.  All of these required negative financing, presumably spending money we did not have.  Yet none of these massive expenditures brought poverty or hardship to future generations of Americans.  In fact what these outputs of money did was to greatly grow the economy so that debt as a percentage of the GDP actually diminished because of the economic growth. 

After World War II the United States emerged as a middle class nation with full employment and there was a much higher standard of living for everybody.  The Marshall Plan was a checkbook to European countries to enable them to recover from the war by spending the money we gave them in the U.S.  In both the Korean and Viet Nam Wars the United States was able to produce both guns and butter, fight the wars and provide for the population of the country.

In none of these cases was any real debt transferred to future generations.  What occurred was a growing standard of living for everyone.  Why would the situation be different now if the government used fiscal policy to create jobs by rebuilding the infrastructure of the United States?  The result would be a lessening of unemployment and a lessening of the National Debt as a percentage of the GDP.  A little bit of money spent would create a lot of money collected by all levels of government in taxes.

As a footnote: the National Debt consists of two parts, private and public debt.  Public debt is the money the government has borrowed from many of its own agencies that have surplus funds, like social security which holds over two and a half trillion dollars of the debt.  The Federal Reserve is and has been spending forty billion dollars a month purchasing its own debt.  In fact the government admits to holding over forty percent of the National Debt.  By my estimate it owns well over sixty percent of its own debt.  Twice, that I’m aware of, in 2012 the Federal Reserve quietly transferred 89 billion dollars to the Treasury.

Where are the real economic problems?  The Republicans are creating them by their actions in Congress.  They and a number of Democrats agree that the major problem is the Debt and not creating jobs for the unemployed.  What these people have created is a sense of irony, creating problems that exacerbate the negative aspects of our current situation.  Isn’t it time to take a realistic look at the economic problems of the United States and focus on job creation rather than shrinking the economy to attempt to pay off the National Debt?

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Weiner Component #1- Economics in the 21st Century

English: money Português: dinero Deutsch: Geldberg

Imagine a gigantic pot filled with money, sixteen to seventeen trillion dollars. This is the Gross National Product (GNP); the value of all the goods and services produced in the United States during one twelve month period (a fiscal year).

It is a finite amount that allows all the people in the country to function, to supply themselves with their basic needs and beyond. No matter how large or inconceivable the amount is it is still limited and must be utilized by all the people of the nation.

There are, according to the census of 2010, 308.7 million people in the United States. By the end of 2011 the Census Bureau estimated the count to be about 320 million; and if we add an additional 11 million for 2012 to this number, that brings the total population of the United States to approximately 331 million. If we divide the population into the GDP for 2012 the number we arrive at is about forty-eight thousand dollars per person, which would make the average for a family of four a little under two hundred thousand dollars a year, if we were dealing with per capita income.

This, of course, does not occur; the money distribution is far more unequal. People are paid according to their occupation. The CEO of a large successful corporation like British Petroleum or the Ford Automobile Company would be making well over a million dollars a month while someone with a minimum wage job would be bringing home $7.25 cents an hour, $58 a day, $290 a week, $1,160 a month, and $13,920 a year. That is before any taxes are taken out of his earnings.

The point, here, is that the GDP is fixed; no matter how large it is the amount is set, finite. If more money is taken out by the upper percentage of the population there is less available for the middle and lower segments of society. The result is as the base shrinks those people can afford less and less. In the long run this also hurts the upper echelon of society because it shrinks the potential of the money in circulation. They, in turn, will earn less than they could if there were a wider and fairer distribution of the national income. The upper percentage of the nation, both individual and corporations in their greed to lower their taxes and lessen or eradicate government control over their practices are actually working against themselves, and, in the case of the large corporations, against the welfare of their stockholders.

A fairer distribution of the wealth produced in the

U.S would jump the GDP to a much higher level and insure greater profits for the corporations and the upper percentage of the population as well as a much greater prosperity and productivity for the people of the nation.

Enhanced by Zemanta