Tuesday, June 27, 2023

The Democrats make no argument


This little piggy had bad policy
That little piggy had none

 
The Democrats don't make an argument. The Republicans do. Republicans have tight money, balanced budgets, tax cuts for the wealthy, and deregulation. It's not the policy we need, but at least it is economic policy.

The "silent majority" of Nixon's time may not have complained, but they were not perfectly happy with the economy. As time has gone by and the economy has continued to get worse, more and more quiet, disinterested people became interested, adding their voices to the calls for solutions to our economic problems. But we have seen solutions offered only on the Republican side. The Democrats offer nothing. Indeed, Democrats' issues are interpreted (at least by Republicans) as problems requiring cultural or moral rather than economic solutions.

The Democrats offer nothing. They have nothing, so they offer nothing. The honesty is refreshing, but the lack of solutions is a problem. This came up the other day at the dinner table. I said the Dems only try to help people cope with problems, and never try to fix the problems. The wife offered Biden's plan to cancel student debt as a Democrat's economic fix. Crafty, the wife: she knows I always say debt-is-the-problem. She went for the jugular.

I think she's wrong. I don't think Biden wants to cancel debt out of concern over the harmful effects debt has on the economy. But you may say it doesn't matter: If canceling debt improves the economy then it improves the economy (you may say) and Biden's reason for canceling debt doesn't make a difference.

I don't buy that. If Biden understands that excessive private debt is the source of our economic troubles, then all of his efforts will come together around the concept, and the results will be far more economic improvement and far less debt. If I was Biden I would jump on this immediately, and fortnightly introduce a plan to reduce private sector debt as painlessly as possible in one area or another of the private sector. Then I'd sit back for a week to see how the opposition reacts, and then improve my plan. There are only 35 more fortnights before election day. Surely Biden's team can come up with 35 ways to reduce private-sector debt! That would be my whole campaign strategy, if I was him.

To find out why Biden favors student debt relief, I went looking for White House remarks on the topic. Turned up a White House Fact Sheet with the title "President Biden Announces Student Loan Relief for Borrowers Who Need It Most". Biden's plan is to provide relief for those who need it most, to help people cope with the bad economy. His plan is not to reduce debt to make a bad economy less bad. The Democrats have no economic plan. Their plan is to help people cope, while things continue to get worse.

The Fact Sheet says

The skyrocketing cumulative federal student loan debt—$1.6 trillion and rising for more than 45 million borrowers—is a significant burden on America’s middle class. Middle-class borrowers struggle with high monthly payments and ballooning balances that make it harder for them to build wealth...

They throw big numbers in there, but that is just a distraction. The numbers suggest either that we should feel really bad for a lot of people (and thus favor the Biden plan) or else be shocked by the potential cost of the Biden plan (and thus oppose it). Apparently, this is the Administration's idea of good argument.

The numbers distract us from the fact that they are saying student loan debt "is a significant burden on America’s middle class." The Fact Sheet doesn't say what it should say, that all of our debt is a significant burden on the economy: Our economy under-performs because we have so much debt. Somebody has to take a stand. Somebody has to say it. No one does. No Republican, no Democrat. No one is saying student loan relief is the first step in a multi-faceted plan to reduce debt throughout the private sector, to reduce financial cost, to reduce the size and power of the financial sector, and to begin restoring the health and vigor of the US economy. No one is even thinking such a thing.

Again, the Fact Sheet:

Today, President Biden is announcing a three-part plan to provide more breathing room to America’s working families as they continue to recover from the strains associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. This plan offers targeted debt relief as part of a comprehensive effort to address the burden of growing college costs and make the student loan system more manageable for working families. 

In other words:

  • The plan is "to provide more breathing room to America’s working families" -- not to solve problems, but to help people cope with the problems.
  • The plan offers "debt relief ... to address the burden of growing college costs" -- not to solve the problem of growing college costs, but to help people cope with that problem, now that it is quite certainly a problem.
  • The Fact Sheet ignores the fact that in a better economy, more jobs and better-paying jobs would be available, and people would be better able to pay down their own debts.

The Democrats don't even acknowledge the economic problem. They attribute the need for "breathing room" to the pandemic. But student loan debt was a problem long before the first fever of the pandemic, the first cough, the first achy muscle, the first fatigue, and the first pandemic-related death. Doesn't that count for something?


I say again:

This little piggy has bad policy
That little piggy has none

Thursday, June 22, 2023

An interesting fact about GVA Finance

As we saw yesterday, the Gross Value Added of Corporate Finance has grown faster than Government GVA, faster than Nonfinancial Corporate GVA, and faster than Household GVA. GVA Finance has grown faster than all three of the others, since 1947. Like, finance always grows faster than the rest.

Now we know that, you may be interested to know that GVA Finance typically runs between 2 and 3% of All Sectors debt:

Graph #1: GVA Finance as a Percent of TCMDO Debt

Never reaching as low as 1.0%, never reaching as high as 3.0%, GVA of corporate finance was always in the neighborhood of 2% of "All Sectors" debt. It did show a rising trend in the 1970s when interest rates were rising. This supports the view that high interest rates mean increasing income to Finance. (So, when the Fed raises interest rates to fight inflation, Financial income goes up. Good to know.)

And financial income did go sharply low during the financial crisis. I guess that made it all worthwhile...  Just jokin.

Wednesday, June 21, 2023

Relative Growth of Four Sectors GVA

GVA is like GDP by sector.

The graph shows four sectors: households, nonfinancial corporations, financial corporations, and general government. 

The graph does not show the relative sizes. The data is indexed so that all four datasets start out equal. The graph shows relative growth since 1947. For example, corporate finance grew the fastest of all four sectors, and general government grew the slowest.

Graph #1

"General" government is the sum of "Federal" plus "State and Local" government.

 

GDP is a measure of income. So we can say that GVA is a measure of income by sector. 

The largest income gains occur in finance. That is what's wrong with our economy.

Monday, June 19, 2023

fuckers


Real GDP increased faster than prices went up, until the mid-1960s

Graph #1: Real GDP relative to the GDP Deflator

Real GDP increased faster than prices until 1966.

Prices increased faster than Real GDP from 1969 to 1982.

Real GDP increased faster than prices from 1982 to 2000.

From 2000 to 2020 they increase at about the same rate.

Sunday, June 18, 2023

Two sets of books

Here, a graph showing two measures of federal deficits. Surpluses appear above the zero level. Deficits show up below zero:

Graph #1: The blue line is FRED's FYFSGDA188S showing Surplus or Deficit as Percent of GDP.
The red line shows the yearly changes in the Gross Federal Debt as Percent of GDP.
The blue line shows a surplus in the latter 1990s; the red line does not.

The annual increment of Gross Federal Debt (FYGFD) is not equal to the Federal Surplus or Deficit data I was looking at. There is a discrepancy. 

 

I should have known. I did the graph over, figuring deficits as the annual change in "Gross Federal Debt Held by the Public". It's not perfect, but there is a lot less discrepancy:

Graph #2: The blue line is the same as above, except wider so it is visible behind the red line.
The red line shows the yearly changes in "Gross Federal Debt Held by the Public" as % of GDP.

This time both the red and blue lines show surplus in the late 1990s. In other words, the claim that the budget was balanced in those years only appears to be true if you base it on "debt held by the public".

Slick trick, naming the series "Gross Federal Debt Held by the Public". 

Also, I don't like figuring the deficit this way, as the increase in a portion of the Gross Federal Debt. We could "balance" the budget every year if we move enough of the annual deficit out of the "held by the public" category.

It smells like chicanery to me, the kind of thing people do when they don't know how to fix the economy.

//

From Alex Planes at The Motley Fool, September 30, 2013:

... most of the surplus was calculated from money flowing into the Social Security trust funds ...
I think making use of Social Security funds that way is a brilliant idea. But I also think pretending it doesn't count as debt is idiotic.