A reminder that an economic stimulus has never ever led to a recovery

From Steve Kates. another reminder that every politician and nearly every economist is wrong:

A reminder that an economic stimulus has never ever led to a recovery

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is Screen-Shot-2021-03-08-at-10.22.16-AM.png

The stimulus actually led to a worse outcome than the predicted outcome if nothing at all was done. That is what any classical economist would have said would happen, but other than one or two here or there, no classical economists remain. So the entire profession just looked on, saw the manifest failure of the theories they all believed were true, and just blacked it out. Just as they have done on every occasion a Keynesian stimulus has been tried and inevitably failed.

The Corona Recession

Steve Kates is one of the few economists who actually understands economics. He says that Covid is bringing a major restructuring of the economy, and the job of Governments is not to “stimulate” the economy by boosting retail spending, but to help businesses survive the transition. Well worth a read.

From Catallaxyfiles.com

Classical economic policy and the present recession

Whatever anyone might believe about the dangers of the Corona Virus, there is no doubt that the American economy, in fact every economy, is heading into recession. There will be a large fall in output and a rise in the rate of unemployment. All this is inevitable. But what must be understood if policy is to achieve a positive outcome is that the downturn cannot be understood as due to a fall in demand as modern economic theory would have it, but will be due to a massive structural shift in our economies. It is not that we will be buying less because we are saving more, but we will be buying not just less, because we will be producing less, but we will not be buying many goods and services we had been buying until concerns about the virus became so general. Lots of forms of production, such as air travel and restaurant meals, will experience a major contraction in demand because of the fears that certain activities are now forbidden or many people have self-isolated.

As every pre-Keynesian economist once knew,  recessions do occur but NEVER because a deficiency of demand. When they occur, they are the result of a structural shift in the underlying economy. We are now in the midst of one of the most profound shifts in the international economy ever seen. Just the restaurant trade is facing a major fall in demand, along with airline travel, tourism and lots of other parts of the economy. The structure of the economy is under immense stress. The downturn which is inevitable is due to a structural shift, not a fall in demand. Everyone once understood that. Since 1936, since the publication of Keynes’s General Theory, this then-universal understanding of why recessions occur has disappeared utterly from economic discourse. I used to think the pre-Keynesian conception was obvious, but have discovered to my amazement that virtually no one any longer understands it. We are all Keynesians now, except for a handful of others who have retained this older, now abandoned, approach. But what has amazed me now even more is that the approach taken by Donald Trump in trying to deal with the coming downturn clearly takes a classical approach to softening the economic fall-out that is now inevitable.

Nothing will prevent a downturn now, but what must be done is:

(1) ensure those who are now being temporarily displaced from their paid employment are receiving cash in hand so that they can buy what they need,

(2) businesses, whose revenues will be falling and in many instances be reduced to zero, must have an immediate fall in production costs through perhaps cuts to various forms of taxation, along with receiving cash injections so that businesses which will return to profitability after this disruption are able to maintain at least part of their cash flow and pay their bills, not just so that they can stay in business but that so too can their suppliers

It is the structure of demand that needs to be preserved, not the level. The level of demand will fall, but the crucial issue is that the structure of demand will also be badly affected. The aim of policy must be to ensure that the underlying structure of supply is maintained. This is what is meant by supply-side economics. It is to maintain the structure of the economy that matters. Maintaining the structure is crucial, not the totality. Demand is constituted by supply, and supply will be falling all over the place and therefore so to will demand.

See the airline industry as a clear example. People will one day wish to fly as they have always done, but the airlines must be preserved in the meantime. Virtually every industry is in exactly the same position. No revenue or drastically reduced revenues at the moment to meet their costs, but also with a certain expectation that demand will return in the near future. The aim must now be to preserve as much as possible.

The photo above was taken while watching Fox with the proposed government approach stated as follows:

RPT:PROPOSED GOVT STIMULUS PKG WILL INCLUDE $1200 FOR SINGLE AMERICANS AND $2400 FOR COUPLES

As we think of things today, it has to be presented as a “stimulus” as if the aim is to raise the level of demand. It is, nevertheless, an approach to dealing with a structural shift in the economy, and the aim is to preserve as much of the economy as can be preserved for when things return to normal. The policy proposal is discussed here: GOP coronavirus stimulus bill unveils $1,200 checks for public.

“Recovery checks of up to $1,200 will be put into the hands of most taxpayers, providing cash immediately to individuals and families,” the Senate Finance Committee said in a statement.

President Trump requested that the legislation include the direct payments to boost consumer purchasing. The White House requested two $1,000 waves of checks to all taxpayers.

On the business side, there is also this:

The package also includes $300 billion in small business loans, which would be forgiven if the firms don’t lay off workers.

Another $58 billion in loans would go to airlines suffering a demand plunge worse than after 9/11, with another $150 billion of loans and loan guarantees to other businesses.

This is obviously also intended as a means to maintain the structure of the economy, not as a “stimulus” to lift demand. Among the good luck of the moment is that the President is a former businessman who understands the problems facing business and what needs to be done immediately to minimise the long-term harm to the economy. I can only hope the same approach is taken across the world.

Having just finished the first round of editing of my next book, Classical Economics and the Modern Economy, let me recommend it to one and all once it is finally published in June. It is even possible that classical economic theory may once again come back into fashion. The benefit to our economies and future standard of living would be massive.

The Cost of Political Activism

From “Men Of The West”

MARTIN LUTHER KING MURDERED SELMA, ALABAMA

Economics teaches us that nothing in this broken world is free but God’s Grace.  Everything has a cost.  Not matter how universally good you think a thing is, there is always some price to it.  Sometimes that price is obvious and well worth it.  Other times that price is not so obvious.   Often the costliest decisions we make are the ones with the least obvious prices.

You’ve all been indoctrinated, so I know I don’t need to recount the story of the Civil Rights Movement to you.  Blah blah blah… fire hoses… marches… evil whitey being evil…  noble black man being noble.   What I want to point out is one small look at the price that was paid, and who paid it.

Now before we get to deep into this, I have to explain some methodology here.  Any research you do on Selma is going to focus almost entirely on the Civil Rights Movement.  Period.  Wikipedia?  The whole article is written through the context of the movement.  To get the real story of Selma, you have to talk to the people that lived there, which is exactly what we’ve done.

The UMC Children’s Home

Rewind past all that, back to 1950.  Selma, Alabama in 1950 is something close to idyllic.  Its population of almost 23,000 was booming.  It had grown 15% in just a few years before.  Businesses were opening, new factories were being built, and folks were working and living in what was one of the prettiest little towns in the United States.   At the time, the population of Selma was about half white and about half black.   Crime was low to non-existent, and jobs were plentiful.   The town had extremely high marriage rates and high birth rates.

By 1960 the population of Selma has blown up to over 28,000.  The demographics are still pretty much the same, and the town is still in boom mode.  More factories are showing up.  More businesses are opening.  Churches and shops are thriving in a gorgeous down town.  The United Methodist Church has build a large children’s home that is something akin to a large orphanage, except it is a lot less like all the negative stereotypes you associate with orphanages, and a lot more like a bunch of kids living at summer camp year round.  The adults around today who spent time there still get emotional when they talk about their time there.  And they still get emotional when they talk about what a beautiful place Selma was back then.  Before Martin Luther King came and killed their town.

Read the rest of the story here

“Trickle Down Economics” Actually Works

171208204334-01-donald-trump-fl-rally-12-08-2017-large-tease

People on the left, especially those aspiring to be Federal Treasurer, have no idea about economics. The other day I heard the Opposition Finance spokesman (I can’t remember his name, but he’s a typical Labor hack who just memorises the day’s talking points) trotted out the standard line about the Government’s proposed company tax cuts: “They are just for Malcolm Turnbull’s rich mates. It’s trickle down economics and it hasn’t worked anywhere in the world.” (Read that aloud in your best whiny voice for the full Bill Shorten experience.)

In Trump’s America the company tax cur is working before it actually comes into effect. Some big companies are giving their employees a Christmas bonus and others are voluntarily boosting their minimum wage to $15 per hour (a rate which leftists have been demanding the Governments- state and federal- mandate whether companies can afford it or not.) Better still many other companies are now saying they will actually invest more.

Really? Tax cuts to big companies helps workers? How does that work?

From “Louder With Crowder” (just to trigger people)

In Response to Tax Reform, Three Grateful Major Companies Help Employees…

Companies Raise Salaries After Tax Bill

“Something, something, ___ won’t help the middle class” — thus are the screeching squalls of the left as their snowflake frames melt under successful tax reform. Let’s mop up their puddles as we immediately show how tax reform is helping the middle class. Let’s begin with massive salary hikes, shall we?

Three major corporations are increasing employee salaries just after tax reform is passed and just in time for Christmas. Fa-la-la-fabulous wages. But it gets even better!

Fifth Third Bancorp will pay more than 13,500 employees a bonus and raise the minimum wage of its workforce to $15 an hour after the passage of the Republican tax plan that will cut the bank’s corporate tax rate.

AT&Tsaid earlier Wednesday that it would pay more than 200,000 U.S. employees $1,000 each and increase its capital spending budget by $1 billion.

Wells Fargo, meanwhile, also said it would be boosting its minimum wage for employees to $15 an hour, which was prompted by the tax plan. The San Francisco-based bank also said it would target $400 million in donations to community and nonprofit organizations next year.

Cincinnati-based Fifth Third, the fifteenth largest U.S. bank by asset size, said the tax cut allowed it to re-evaluate its employee pay and pass along some of the windfall.

That’s right, boys and girls. The $15 wages are finally happening, rejoice! When we give our homeland companies a take-five from the heavy load of taxes, they pass down the monies. Who would’ve thunk?

Read the full story here

Economic Stupidity

you-cant-fix-stupid-but-u-can-sedate-it

One of the things I really loathe about the place our society has sunk to is that people -often so-called “experts”, politicians and commentators- say stupid things and nobody challenges them.

On Wednesday the stupidest comment that I heard, and there were many in the category, was that legalising gay “marriage” will boost the economy by $1 billion per year. They quoted unnamed “economists” but I would say most of them would be Year 11 students.

Even if you take the quote at face value, and there was no evidence that this number was anything other than plucked out of the air on the spur of the moment, a billion dollars is nothing in our economy. Last year the Australian GDP was about a trillion dollars, so even a billion dollars increase is next to nothing, a rounding error (0.1% of the total). Compare this to coal which last year we exported over $56 billion.

But here is the stupid part of the figure. Most, if not all of the $1 billion that will now be spent (and we have no information about how accurate that figure is), would have been spent anyway. It is not money that suddenly appeared from nowhere. Yes, people in the wedding industry will get a boost, but that will be at the expense of other sectors of the economy. We all know that if you have to spend money on one thing you can’t spend it on another thing.

The annoying thing is that nobody ever questions these figures, whether handed out by politicians or unnamed sources. Don’t believe anything you hear in the media, especially when somebody is boosting their pet cause.