apropos

From The General Theory Chapter 24, section IV:

War has several causes. Dictators and others such, to whom war offers, in expectation at least, a pleasurable excitement, find it easy to work on the natural bellicosity of their peoples. But, over and above this, facilitating their task of fanning the popular flame, are the economic causes of war, namely, the pressure of population and the competitive struggle for markets...

[U]nder the system of domestic laissez-faire and an international gold standard such as was orthodox in the latter half of the nineteenth century, there was no means open to a government whereby to mitigate economic distress at home except through the competitive struggle for markets...

But if nations can learn to provide themselves with full employment by their domestic policy (and, we must add, if they can also attain equilibrium in the trend of their population), there need be no important economic forces calculated to set the interest of one country against that of its neighbours. There would still be room for the international division of labour and for international lending in appropriate conditions. But there would no longer be a pressing motive why one country need force its wares on another or repulse the offerings of its neighbour, not because this was necessary to enable it to pay for what it wished to purchase, but with the express object of upsetting the equilibrium of payments so as to develop a balance of trade in its own favour. International trade would cease to be what it is, namely, a desperate expedient to maintain employment at home by forcing sales on foreign markets and restricting purchases, which, if successful, will merely shift the problem of unemployment to the neighbour which is worsted in the struggle, but a willing and unimpeded exchange of goods and services in conditions of mutual advantage.

Peace. 

A View of the Causes of our Late Prosperity and of our Present Distress

I came across a Google Book titled A View of the Causes of our Late Prosperity, and of our Present Distress; and of the Means which have Been Proposed for Our Relief. The book is from 1816, and the author unknown.

The following, from page 24 of that book, may be of interest:

 

Of Checks to the Increase of Revenue by
means of Bounties and Prohibitions.

Dr. Adam Smith observes, that it has been the great object of political economy to diminish the importation of foreign goods for home consumption, and to increase as much as possible the exportation of the produce of domestic industry; and that its two great engines for enriching the country have been restraints upon importation, and encouragements to exportation, by means of high duties, or prohibitions upon the one, and of drawbacks or bounties upon the other. The effect of restraints upon importation is to cause the inhabitants of any country to make at a greater expense what they can buy at a less, and to pay somewhat dearer to their own manufacturers than they would to foreign manufacturers, and this operation being performed in favour of several different manufactures, and paid for, more or less, by every individual in the kingdom, occasions a very considerable aggregate loss to the society.

Growth and Resilience

According to Google Ngrams, there used to be a lot of talk about good growth. These days there is little. These days there is more talk about economic resilience than there is about good growth:

According to Google's Oxford Languages, resilience is the ability "to recover quickly from difficulties" or "to spring back into shape". Either of those definitions could be applied to our economy. Maybe our economy does show "resilience" these days. But resilience means only occasional good growth. 

Economists are giving up on growth:

• Robert J. Gordon says there was "virtually no growth before 1750". He says there's "no guarantee that growth will continue indefinitely." And he says the good growth of the past 250 years could be "a unique episode in human history." This is what someone would say, who has given up on restoring health and vigor to the economy.
• In an article from Boston's NPR news station WBUR, ecological economist Kate Raworth is described as "subscribing to the theories of" Donella Meadows, who "said growth was a 'stupid' goal [and] impossible to sustain".
• And Dietrich Vollrath, economist and blogger, says "slow economic growth is a sign of success".

It is as if these people are trying to justify the inability of economists and policymakers to restore economic vigor. 

Such people are not caretakers of "the possibility of civilization." 

Good growth, redefined

In my previous post I quoted TV-show-President Josiah Bartlet from 25 years ago, who said GDP growth of 2 to 2½ percent is "lackluster, even anemic" and that growth in the 4½-to-5 percent range is "considered robust" but not "spectacular".

25 years ago, 2½ percent growth was thought lackluster. Sickly. Weak and unhealthy. In current thinking, 2½ percent growth is considered good. 

Today's definition of good growth is half what it was 25 years ago. They moved the goalposts. 

Keynes said economists are the caretakers of "the possibility of civilization." In other words, economists do not create civilization. They make it possible. 

Less optimistically, we can say that by holding to failed ideas, economists make civilization impossible.

A depression is a long, severe recession. A dark age is a long, severe depression. In the dark age, civilization is impossible.

Good growth, defined

From The West Wing, S1E17 (March 22, 2000) -- President Bartlet speaking:

Historically, 2 to 2.5% GDP expansion is classified as lackluster, even anemic economic growth. 4.5 to 5% is needed to be considered robust -- and not even spectacular.

"the fundamentals of our economy are sound"

Think so?

Open up Benjamin Friedman's 1986 paper "Increasing Indebtedness and Financial Stability in the United States" 

Search for the word recession and read some of the sentences that turn up.

The Emperor has no need for Senators

Impeach Trump before he dissolves the Senate.

All Employees, Federal

The May jobs report came out today. The graph shows the number of federal employees since December 2021 (not seasonally adjusted). I cut and pasted the dates for December 2024 and May 2025, essentially the change since Trump returned to  office:

FRED Source Data (since 1939): https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CEU9091000001

The graph shows the number of federal employees falling from 3,020 in December 2024 to 2,950 in May 2025. But the units are "Thousands of Persons" so we are talking a change from 3,020,000 to 2,950,000 employees. That amounts to a decrease of 70,000 employees in five months, or 14,000 per month on average.

At that rate, all federal employees could be gone in about 210.7 months. That's 17 years, 6 months, and 21 days give or take, if they keep at it 7 days a week.

I object to this news

Slide the ScrollBar Right to See More, or just Click the Image

Gaio reminds me that "The Federal Reserve (the Fed) returns a portion of its earnings to the U.S. Treasury" every year.

Reuters (March 24, 2023) says the Fed payment to Treasury was $76 billion in 2022 and $109 billion in 2021. Amounts like that would cover a lot of data-gathering cost at the BLS, if they just kinda bypassed the Treasury. 

To do its job, the Fed needs economic data from BLS and other sources. How are they going to fight inflation if they don't get the data from BLS??? Seems to me if they need the data, they can justify spending those billions to get it, even if it takes most of the profits the Fed would otherwise have paid to the Treasury.

The Corporate Income Tax & After-Tax Profit

Federal Revenue from the Corporate Tax: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1Ja1b

Corporate Profit: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1JnwN